The Fix is In on the Amnesty Bill
June 25, 2013
RUSH: It looks like the fix is in on the immigration bill. You know that amendment we were talking about, the Hoeven-Corker, that amendment, I've heard two things, a hundred pages or a thousand pages. But anyway, the whole bill is over a thousand pages now. I think the Hoeven-Corker amendment basically replaced the bill, and all you really have to know about immigration or anything else coming out of Washington these days, you know, we think that there are rules.
originalWe think there's a Constitution. We think there are procedures. But all that goes out the window if Washington wants something. Nothing to do with what voters want. Nothing to do with constituencies or any of that. It's what Washington wants. Washington wants this. The ruling class, doesn't matter what party, Washington wants this so-called immigration reform and they're not gonna stop until they get it and the heck with what constituencies want or what the Constitution says or any of that. There's some really irritating revelations that have been discovered in this amendment.
RUSH: Now, the Washington Post tells us there isn't one. Basically the story confirms many of the theories that I have espoused to you on this program. We have (sigh) even more details about illegal immigrants in this bill who end up being amnesty-ied or amnestized or whatever the word would be, end up... What's the way to put this? Native-born Americans are going to face harsher punishment in everyday law -- misdemeanors, three strikes you're out, this kind of thing -- than amnestized illegals.
RUSH: Okay, amnesty. I have a piece here by Chris Cillizza, who has a column in the Washington Post called The Fix. The headline is: "The 'Latino Vote' Doesn't Exist. Not really. -- Conventional wisdom has settled on this reality: Republicans' inability to attract Hispanic voters not only cost them the 2012 presidential election but has the potential to doom them as a national party in future national elections too. And, the numbers are stark.
"MItt (sic) Romney won just 27% of the Hispanic vote last November, a dismal showing that made the 31% Arizona Sen. John McCain won in 2008 look good by comparison," but if Romney had gotten... Cillizza doesn't say this, I'm just telling you. If everything else in the election stayed the same, and Romney had gotten 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost! Now, stop and think about that, every Republican in the Senate and the House who's prepared to vote on this on the basis that they need to do this to hopefully ever win again.
If Romney had won 70%, he still would have lost.
So, anyway, every Republican in the House and Senate had better understand: 70% of the Hispanic vote and Romney still would have lost. McCain got 31%. Reagan got 37% in '84. George Bush got 30% in '88, after amnesty in '86. After amnesty in '86, the Republicans got fewer Hispanic votes! The entire premise, stated premise -- and let's be honest about it: The stated premise is bogus as hell, folks. The stated premise for this is the Republicans have to do this to ever have a chance.
That is so bogus.
The numbers tell the truth on this.
If he won 70% of the Hispanic vote, Romney still loses, what are we doing here? It might sound good that this is about getting Hispanic votes, but what a crock. And, by the way, why do policy for votes? People have been critical to me for opposing this because of the way these people are gonna vote. Well, hell! The whole Republican Party says the reason they're doing this is for votes. They're not even denying it. Now, we know the Democrats are doing it for votes.
I don't know.
This doesn't make sense, this "Gotta do it for votes!" business on the Republican side. There's no evidence anywhere that suggests that this is going to help them electorally. Zilch, zero, nada. Anyway, Cillizza says, "But, the numbers don't tell the whole story -- or even close to it. Carlos Lozada, the editor of the Post's Outlook section and the brains behind 'Worst Week in Washington', explained why in a piece that ran over the weekend entitled 'Who is Latino?'
"Lozada makes two very important points in the article. First, he notes that the Latino community is only thought of as 'the Latino community' by those not in it..." That, folks, is profound. Again, it's "Carlos Lozada, the editor of the Post's Outlook section and the brains behind 'Worst Week in Washington'" column. So here you have a member of the State-Controlled Media admitting, "[T]he Latino community is only thought of as 'the Latino community' by those not in it -- that there isn't a single definitional (or electoral) strain that runs through everyone who, at least according to the Census Bureau, is Hispanic."
Well, duh! Hello? I mean, is this is not common sense to say that? I mean, all women don't vote alike, all "whites" don't vote alike, all amputees don't vote alike. Why are all Hispanics thought to be "the Latino vote"? Well, 'cause you need conventional wisdom. You need a ruse! You need a ruse to rope people in. So Carlos "Writes Lozada: 'Is being Latino a matter of geography, as simple as where you or your ancestors came from? Is it the language you speak or how well you speak it? Is it some common culture?
"Or is it just a vaguely brown complexion and a last name ending in 'a,' 'o' or 'z'? Politicians build Latino-voter-outreach operations, businesses launch marketing campaigns to attract Hispanic 'super-consumers,' yet depending on whom you ask -- politicians, academics, journalists, activists, researchers or pollsters -- contradictory definitions and interpretations emerge.'
"Latinos themselves seem uninterested in being broadly characterized," and they talk about a Pew Research Center survey of Latinos. "The second key takeaway from Lozada's piece is that because there isn't a 'Hispanic' vote, it's also impossible/wrong to describe the issues that everyone in that non-existent community cares about. And so is the idea ... that passing comprehensive immigration reform will solve the GOP's issues in courting Hispanics."
So we get this story, this admission from an Hispanic editor of the Washington Post on the verge of the vote?
So this man has just said there isn't a Latino vote, and therefore it's impossible or wrong to describe the issues that everybody in that community cares about. So essentially everything anybody says about the Latino vote is just smoke and mirrors, made up to advance some political agenda, and our side's buying it. That's what's so cockamamie screwy about this. You've got Lindsey Graham saying over and over again a version of, "We've gotta do this to get back in their good graces. We've gotta do this to have a chance with them. We've gotta do this for them to listen to us," as though every Latino is sitting out there and hating Republicans because they diss the Hispanic community. There is no Hispanic vote. There is no Latino vote. There is no common set of things they are for or against, and therefore it isn't possible for the Republicans to get in their good graces, or be in their bad graces. It's not possible.
Now, individual Hispanic voters might hate or dislike or love Republicans or Democrats, but as a group -- and the group is the reason we're doing this -- all of it is a myth. And here's the thing. You instinctively know this. I instinctively know this, and we wonder why in the name of Sam Hill the Republicans in the House and Senate don't know this. Well, what is the likelihood that they do know it and that all of this is smoke and mirrors for another agenda? What if all of this is being said to rope in -- not House and Senate Republicans. They're in on it. What if all this is being said because there is another agenda at stake here besides Hispanic votes?
Now, as far as the Democrats are concerned, that's what this is about. They already have, quote, unquote, a majority of people who are Hispanic in the way they vote. And polling data suggests they're gonna hold on to that. And we're to believe that the Republicans are so stupid that they've been hoodwinked into believing that the Democrats want to give up some of those votes so that the Republicans might someday win the presidency? As Bob Menendez said (paraphrasing), "Well, this party's presidential options are down the tubes if they don't do this."
So the Democrats are willing to share their votes with us? The Democrats are willing to help us get some of their voters in order that we might someday win the presidency? And people like McCain and Graham and whoever else think, "Yeah, the Democrats are trying to help us"? What in the world is happening here? Well, you know and I know that what we're being told doesn't make any sense. Sunday and Monday the Washington Post is telling everybody, hey, Republicans, the reason you're doing this is made up. Your stated reasons for wanting amnesty don't exist. Your stated objectives cannot happen, because there is no Hispanic vote, there is no Latino vote, and therefore there is no magical set of issues that you can adopt that's gonna make those people turn from hate to love.
So then Cillizza says, "What, if any, impact will the two points Lozada makes about the Hispanic 'community' have to politics in future elections? Possibly none. Remember that politics tends to practice the art of simplification rather than that of complexity." Politics is the art of lies, way too often. Way too often, politics is the art of lies. Now, the National Journal: "Republican Voters Warn Lawmakers Against Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants." Associated Press: "Senate Passage of Immigration Bill is On Track." Some other headline: "CBO: We can't tell you how much illegal immigration would go down under bill meant to solve illegal immigration." We can't tell you how much illegal immigration would decline under a bill meant to solve it. The CBO now says, "We have no idea what's gonna happen."
Lindsey Graham is back. The gang's bill is necessary for the GOP to "get reattached to Hispanics." They're not unattached, they just disagree with you. They prefer to vote Democrat and supporting this amnesty bill isn't going to change that. Then the Investor's Business Daily has an editorial: "Why Is Congress Rushing A Bad Immigration Bill?" Money and power. The means don't matter. The rule of law has taken a backseat to self-interest. Nothing makes sense. This is my point earlier. Nothing makes sense here because we look at our government as being governed by rules, the Constitution, laws on the books of the people, by the people, for the people. Very naive, given the low caliber of representatives we have in Chicago and Washington.
We want to believe that they are working on our behalf. We want to believe they're doing everything for the benefit of the country and for us, but they're not. They are for themselves, is the explanation for this, and whatever and however they benefit from this, they're not telling us.
RUSH: The National Journal has a random act of polling. The mainstream media would never conduct such a poll. "The conservative rank-and-file have a loud and clear message for Republican officials: Support citizenship for illegal immigrants at your own peril. A sizable plurality of registered GOP voters say they will be less likely to support their incumbent lawmaker if he or she votes for immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those currently living illegally in the United States, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll. The findings show that even as national Republican leaders tout the Senate's reform measure as a political necessity for the party, it remains a risky vote for individual GOP lawmakers wary of a primary challenger."
The poll found that while most people don't really care about amnesty one way or the other, Republicans and independents do. When I say most people, I don't mean the vast majority of the American people. What this poll focuses on is that Republican and even independent voters do care about it, and they care about it a lot. The reason other people don't care about it is because it's not perceived as a crisis. It's not even at the top of anybody's list of priorities, not even Hispanics, is the way to look at it. It's being treated as a crisis. It's being treated as the thing that must happen now.
What this bill is is effectively the end of the Republican Party because this will send the Republican Party base fleeing. And that's probably why, aside from the money from big donors, I mean, that's gonna happen here, the Republican Party, many members of it probably wouldn't mind at all if the bitter clingers in its base went away. Very important what the article calls "the most conservative bloc of voters -- blue-collar whites -- and in places where many Republicans draw their support, rural areas. Forty-five percent of whites without a college degree said they are less likely to support lawmakers," because they do this. It's not good.