Rush Addresses Illegal Alien Issue

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | January 6, 2004

[sweetliberty]

[Moderator's note: threads regarding immigration issues and border issues have been spiralling out of control for some time on Free Republic. This is going to change. Fair warning: this would be a very poor thread to engage in flame warring, flame baiting, or otherwise being needlessly instigative. If you have not yet read this thread, you may want to before engaging in the debate on this or other similar threads. If there are any questions regarding the new scrutiny of these threads, please take them to that thread rather than cluttering up these threads.

Up until last night, people had been very cooperative with this effort, and for that I was grateful. Last night, I think there must have been a full moon or something, but we'll get that straightened out.

Thanks, and happy Freeping.]

I started this thread because there has been much discussion here about Rush never seeming to address the illegal alien problem. Today he has been talking about it in the context of President Bush's meeting with Vincente Fox and the payment of Social Security benefits to illegals who have paid into the system even though they did so with false documentation.

At the moment he is talking about the increase in black Republican voters, but said he will get back to the illegal alien issue shortly and take calls. I thought there'd be interested FReepers that might be missing it.

[RKV]

Same as federal minimum if I remember correctly. Overtime rules are different for ag workers as I recall. We sold the farm 2 years ago so I am not current.

[usadave]

Failing that some of them move into bringing up xenophobia, racism and bigotry.

If a person was actually xenophobic, racist, and bigoted toward Mexicans, wouldn't they feel that way toward ALL Mexicans in the U.S. instead of just feeling that way toward Mexican illegal aliens? People are angry about out-of-control illegal immigration and the largest group of illegal aliens are from Mexico, so Mexican illegal aliens are going to incur the wrath of many Americans, not because they're Mexicans, but because they're illegal aliens. By the way, Mexico is one of the most xenophobic, racist, and bigoted countries in the world.

[o_zarkman44]

Reduce welfare benefits to American citizens and they will fill the job market. Those same Americans will become contributing citizens rather than a net drain on resources. Eliminating the freeloaders can reduce our taxes, and close the opportunity for illegal immigrants to fill those jobs.
If those low paying jobs are good enough for immigrants, then they are good enough for American citizens. Especially the able bodied freeloaders with their hands out like they are obligated to be given a free ride.

Anyone who hires illegal immigrants has to be prosecuted, no negotiation. Period! The law is the law. Dereliction of duty by law enforcement and sympathetic judiciary is also criminal actions demanding prosecution.
Also, anyone entering America illegally forfeits any claim on benefits. The money collected from illegals paying taxes and social security should go to general revenue to help pay for enforcing the law of the land, written in plain English, that qualify immigrants.

The economics of the job market dictate wages. There should be no unemployed American citizens. Getting rid of the illegal workers can only put American citizens back to work. That is good for America. We should not worry about what is good for Mexico or wherever. That is why those countries have governments. Let them work out their problems!

[WilliamofCarmichael]

My comments above critical of the pro "migration" folks were general in nature but IMO essentially true. There have been a few good comments to explain why we need younger workers even if it means importing millions of them.

I am absolutely convinced the "migration" has always had the approval of both political parties. What infuriates me is they let this get out of hand. The "ruling class" was dishonest by refusing to talk about the reasons they believe the "migration" helps us. They should have moved quickly - like in 1987 - to set up an orderly process.

Now the "ruling class" folks are stuck and sputter about compassion, a "nation of immigrants," work "that Americans won't do," racism, and xenophobia.

Frankly, IMO the kind of people who have the drive to risk life and limb to get here and work when they get here are the type of people America has always attracted.

I would happily accept all of them if they and our "ruling class" would require that when in America do as Americans! English only except in their homes, is a good start. And remove the Spanish language version of whitehouse.gov! Or create a version for all the many languages.

I am furious at the corrupt government of Mexico because I believe they are forcing their unwanted citizens out and Mexico meddles in our internal affairs to keep them loyal to Mexico. It's their "Mexican diaspora" or "nation without borders" policy. Our government does nothing to stop the meddling.

[sweetliberty]

"Terrorists can also ride into the country in the flow of illegal immigrants."

Can, and do. This is the biggest, gaping hole in the war on terror, and it is very hard to believe that keeping our borders as lax as they are is conducive to making any real inroads against terrorist threats, at least on our own soil. I don't doubt that many attacks have been foiled, but closing that enormous loophole could make some of the more complex measures unnecessary.

[sweetliberty]

"I will not support a federal candidate who will not stand up for meaningful border control."

You might as well plan to quit voting altogether then, becaue I don't believe that's ever going to happen. It should. It's desperately important. But let's face it, getting our priorities in proper order hasn't been foremost in the minds of politicians for years, and probably won't be until we reach critical mass, which is coming. Then, those who don't (or won't) see the problem now will be saying, "why didn't somebody warn us?"

[Aetius]

Actually, that is because the question is not put to them in the correct form. Try it this way. Considering the low birthrate over the last 30 years, and the massive retirement wave about to hit the econonmy, do you think it is OK if we bring in a massive influx of workers, so YOU can be sure to collect the Social Security, that you just paid into for the last thirty years, while keeping it run as a Ponzi Scheme? You will recieve a much different answer. So you prefer push polling. Fine, but why stop with your version of the correct form? Why not: Considering that immigration adds very little or nothing to GDP, or may even be a drain, should the US reduce present levels of immigration? or Considering that mass immigration was unleashed accidentally after the 1965 reform act whose sponsors promised would not result in increases in net immigration, or a change in the demography of the nation, yet did both, shouldn't we repeal that act? or Considering that current immigration policy brings in immigrants more likely to not have completed high school, and who are more likely to receive some form of welfare than the native born, shouldn't we change policy to favor immigrants who will not be a public charge? or To the extent that environmental damage and urban sprawl are caused by a rapidly growing population, and considering that immigration directly and indirectly accounts for over half of US population growth, should we decrease immigration? or Considering that affirmative action (i.e. racial preferences) began as a way to redress past wrongs done to victims of institutional racism --black Americans and American Indians--but has now been extended to non-white immigrants who have no such history of institutional discrimination all in the name of diversity; should we decrease immigration so as to lessen this importation of people who will then be given preference of white Americans? or Since it is clear that current immigration policy favors one political party over the other, should we decrease immigration so as to make it politically neutral? Thats' just a few examples. I would say mine are more based on fact, however, seeing as how it is undeniable that the 1965 act was predicated on either mistaken assumptions or lies, and it is undeniable that there is an unintended collision between racial preferences and immigration, and it is undeniable that immigration is the chief cause of population growth, and that the data on graduation rates are fact. Your example of immigration saving Social Security has its proponents, but the whole idea was effectively shot down by U of Michigan economist John Attarian in his study; 'Immigration: Wrong Answer for Social Security.' He found the claim that massive increases in already mass levels of immigration would not solve the problem, and that any positive effects (like more workers paying into the system) would be offset by the downward effect of such a wave on labor productivity and wages. In short, mass immigration will not save the hopelessly flawed Social Security system. Anyway, I'll assume you are a conservative, and as such it seems odd to favor one bad policy --mass immigration-- to prop up another bad one--Social Security. The only way that Ameicans will ever be secure in retirement is if they start saving for themselves early enough. Just about anything that helps bring that culture change about is a good thing. And if the US were to reduce immigration levels to say, less than 300,000 per year, our population would not suddenlty start declining. White Americans have a higher birthrate than European whites, especially in the conservative states. It is still above replacement level I believe, as is the birth rate of black Americans and of course Hispanic Americans. We would be in no danger of depopulation.

[dmz]

The employers would just have to raise the wages for those jobs.
___________

The above is a quote from you. (and I'll pass on the fact that you referred to my reply as stupid, while making the above comment).

Tell me, exactly what mechanism would the state use to make the employers raise the wages for those jobs? What government agency would need to be created to oversee that? Or would the employers out of the goodness of their hearts, based on what's good for America, simply do it? How many employers do you know that seek to pay higher wages than they need to?

I never said we *needed* the illegals to do the work, but I did make the point that our standard of living as a nation does, in some measure, depend on cheap sources of labor, and I'm not speaking simply of the agricultural sector, but also manufacturing.

[Aetius]

Most of the pro "migration" folks fail to note that the oppostion distinguishes between legal and ILLEGAL immigration. Yes, that's true. But the issue of mass legal immigration should also be addressed. Americans want illegal immigration stopped, and they want legal immigration REDUCED. Compare that to what their representatives are actually trying to give them: Phony guest worker programs that are in truth trojan horses for massive increases in legal immigration and for stealth amnesties for current illegals. How will they increase legal immigration? By allowing the so-called 'guests' to attain permanent residency at the end of their guest worker term. They will then of course be able to import their extended families, unless of course they are already able to do that as 'guests.' Why can't those in favor of amnesty and solving illegal immigration by massively increasing legal immigration levels just be honest? Why must they stoop to semantic tricks with deceptive phrases like 'Guest Worker', knowing that the work 'guest' puts in the mind of most people someone who will eventually go home, while in fact the legislation would almost ensure that never happens?

[sweetliberty]

"If Rush turns against W, some bots' heads are going to explode."

Oh, I don't know. Some of the bots have already turned on Rush....WOD don't you know.

[sweetliberty]

"All they have to do is go to those regions of the country where illegals aren't yet and see for themselves how we don't need them."

There are getting to be precious few of them left.

[Burkeman1]

Rush has often been very harsh in his rhetoric against Bush on domestic issues. Conservatives of all stripes whine and complain and bitch at each other in between elections but most everyone comes back home for election times. Rush is not about to drop Bush.

[wjcsux]

The average illegal alien family consumes $7K per year more in services than they pay in all taxes combined.
Unfortunnately, it is probably worse than that. I have heard that the average illegal family costs the U.S. taxpayer over $40k/ year.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

No one would have to "make" these guys raise their wages. They would do it because if they didn't they wouldn't have a business to run. They would raise wages enough to get AMERICAN workers and then the price of produce MAY go up a little but it would be worth it when you consider the amount of money illegals steal from us. You are one of many who try to make things out to be more difficult than they actually are. Illegal immigration could easily be dealt with and it wouldn't have a very big negative effect on our economy.

[Kenny Bunk]

Rush has never had illegal immigration on his radar. He has always considered illegal immigration just another expression of the free market. Doesn't worry him in the least.

[gitmo]

I just heard Rush say that a couple of minutes ago. What did the Bush administration do that warranted that?

[sweetliberty]

"exactly what mechanism would the state use to make the employers raise the wages for those jobs? What government agency would need to be created to oversee that?"

The only mechanism that the state would need to use would be the enforcing of the laws. In other words, prosecute enployers who hire illegals and deport illegals. If there are no illegals to do the work and the employer needs the work done and he pays a high premium for violating the law, then it would actually become more cost effective for him to pay a little better and have Americans do the work. A few large fines for violating the law would put the big picture in proper perspective for him in short order.

[Ben Bolt]

Sweet ! I wish I had caught that myself ..

[Burkeman1]

It caught me off guard because it was a bit harsh- they way he slipped that line in the end- I didn't see it coming. Rush is just expressing what many conservatives feel about Bush's spending and his creation of huge new entitlements the likes of which haven't been seen since Johnson. Specifically Rush has been rather upset about the education bill, CFR, Medicare/medicaid, the new drug entitlement, and has expressed concern about Bush's committment to appointing "conservative" judges.

[TaxPayer2000]

Can you imagine what some of your produce prices in the Grocery store would be if we had Native Americans demanding $15.00 per hour to pick lettuce?

GASP!!! imagine that!! Having to pay the fair market value for a head of lettuce!!! We can't have that now can we....by all means, lets take advantage of people from poorer nations and have them do our dirty work for next to nothing!!

/sarcasm>