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.

[Pro-Bush]

The issue of legalizing Illegal immigrants currently in the United States should not be decided unilaterally by Bush.

This issue needs to be debated in the public and a vote needs to be taken to the people.

If President Bush makes a deal with Vicente Fox allowing Illegals the ability to stay in America legally, he will lose a lot of votes. Rove has got it all wrong if he thinks otherwise.

[navyblue]

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?

Good question! Lemme think here. Do we have folks out in "dem ole cotton fields?"

How do we get all that wheat harvested? And whats the name of that big corporation that makes machines for this purpose?

Funny how nobody thinks about the mega farmers investing in a little capital.

[Aetius]

'The jobs that Americans won't do'
There are several problems with this unproven claim. (1) Who did these jobs from 1922 to about 1970 when immigration levels into the country were reasonable, at about 220,000 per year? The answer is native born Americans (and of course immigrants from the 1880-1920 mass wave and from the moderate years that followed). (2) Who does these jobs now in areas of the country where the immigrant population is low? Again, the answer is native born Americans. (3) But still, yes you are probably right that there are some jobs that Americans just won't do, but then the question that must be asked is why? Mabye some Americans feel it is beneath them, but for others it isn't that they will not do the jobs, it is that they will not do them at the going amount of pay and benefits. That is one thing often left out of this debate, which is that mass immigration works to suppress wages. Its simple supply and demand. If immigration were reduced, then you would see a combination of the following: Employers would raise wages and benefits to attract new workers and keep current ones; employers would find ways to make their workers more productive; and employers would invest in labor-saving technologies. There would be no crisis, the economy would not implode. Even noted late conservative immigration enthusiast Julian Simon said that immigration was not necessary for economic growth.

Now as to your produce example: The price probably would go up, but by how much?. Mabye it would be alot, but maybe it would be moderate. And of course if you think the alleged lower consumer prices and taxes immigrants (legal and illegal) pay justifies mass immigration, you shouldn't forget to weigh that against the extra tax burden they place on Americans. And then of course there are other non-economic matters, like the fact that most immigrants will go on to vote Democratic. Bush cannot out-pander the Democrats for their loyalty, and even if he could the cost would be alot of those conservative white voters whose vote has somehow come to be of lesser moral value in this age where 'diversity is our greatest strength'; so much so that the Supreme Court thinks it justifies racial preferences. And that's another issue; the collision between racial preferences and the mass immigration of people eligible for those preferences. And it should be obvious that the more people we have eligible for these preferences, then the harder it will be to get rid of this type of aff action.

So this is a complicated issue. The economics of immigration are not so clear, but it is almost certainly true that the people who benefit most economically are the immigrants and the people who employ them. Politically, there is almost no reason to be optimistic about the results of mass immigration for conservatives. The demographics of the country are clearly moving in favor of the Democrats. The GOP response is not to do what most Americans want and reduce immigration, but to apparently try to out pander the Democrats. They are doomed to fail, or lose their soul in the process.

But as to Rush Limbaugh: From the few times I've heard him talk about immigration it would be hard to draw a firm conclusion as to his views on this matter. The worst thing I heard him say was one day when he went on some left-wing sounding speech about how he had been contacted early on by 'anti-immigrant' groups wanting to enlist his voice to their cause, but they he wouldn't because immigration was one of the things that made this country great....I say it was left-wing sounding because that is the type of thing liberals often say when debating this subject, as opposed to reasoned points about what policy should be today. It was also left-wing sounding because like liberals Limbaugh used a bogus description of those in favor of reform. Most are not 'anti-immgrant' or even 'anti-immigration.' They are anti-mass immigration. They want levels of immigration reduced, not set to zero forever.

And by the way, most polls show a majority of Americans want the same thing.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Cardini]

Unfortunately large numbers of conservatives are turning away from Bush. He has proved to be the most liberal republican president since Lincoln. Like Clinton he has pandered to every special interest group in existance, signed the CRB, has promised to resign the assault weapons ban and now is kissing the filthy feet of illegal criminals.

Even though he did a great job in Iraq there is no way I will ever vote for this liberal again. I am not ashamed that I did but the only thing conservative about Bush is his religious views.

[Cardini]

Unfortunately large numbers of conservatives are turning away from Bush. He has proved to be the most liberal republican president since Lincoln. Like Clinton he has pandered to every special interest group in existance, signed the CRB, has promised to resign the assault weapons ban and now is kissing the filthy feet of illegal criminals.

Even though he did a great job in Iraq there is no way I will ever vote for this liberal again. I am not ashamed that I did but the only thing conservative about Bush is his religious views.

[Libertina]

And I don't believe ROVE should be making national policy.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

If Bush does this, I just might write in "Tancredo" come November.

You and bunch of others, myself included. The country's future is at stake over this issue.

[azhenfud]

"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?"

< said like the "What's in your wallet" commercial > Where does your lettuce come from?

[gubamyster]

You are correct. Since the 1970's there has been very little capital invested in produce harvesting machines while machinery in other areas of farming have advanced rapidly. Money has been spent on Mexicanization rather than mechanization.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Someone pays and it ain't them....

All anyone has to do is look at NYC and California to see the accuracy of that statement. They're going bankrupt thanks to so many illegals doing the jobs "no one wants to do".

[hobbes1]

Most are not 'anti-immgrant' or even 'anti-immigration.' They are anti-mass immigration. They want levels of immigration reduced...
. And by the way, most polls show a majority of Americans want the same thing.

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.

[hobbes1]

see above.

[Lead Moderator]

I knew it! Thanks

[WRhine]

Rush stated that numerous big money contributors to both parties had long term illegal alien servants and employees who would be affected by immigration and social security policies.

Ah, the Beltway/Fortune 500 Crowd that continually put their OWN personal interests ahead the American People. This irrevocably corrupt bunch of Elitists have to be removed from power if this nation has any hopes of surviving.

[Conservative_Nationalist]

I think true conservatives should send a clear and powerful message to Bush that we won't stand by and support him while he makes ignorant decisions when it comes to national issues. We need to let Rove and Bush know this is a mistake and that they better reverse their policies if they want our support. If we make a loud enough noise Bush will change his policy. The problem is that many conservatives will support him and vote for him no matter what because they are afraid that if they don't it will lead to a democrat in power. But basically we have a democrat in office, he's just not a democrat like the ones around today.

[azhenfud]

"And whats the name of that big corporation that makes machines for this purpose?"

new INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER = mexican pepper picker

[SpaceBar]

... but the facts are that a lot of the illegals perform work that native Americans just wont do

There is no evidence to support the above statement. It is based on nothing but conjecture and blanket assumptions. Lettuce didn't just appear on the US market once plentiful illegal aliens were available to pick it. Some americans might not want to pick produce for a paycheck, namely educated professionals, but the above statement rings hollow, and assumes that there is no pool of unskilled labor available or willing to perform low rung manual labor in the US which is simply not the case. As the encroachment on US sovereignty and self-suffiency continues, "facts" such as the above will be used to justify the status-quo with increasing frequency. As for the Republican Party and GW Bush in particular, I can say with 100% confidence that if amnesty in any form comes to fruition, I will look elsewhere for an electable president this November.

[gubamyster]

see above.

Not sure to what you are referring. Can you elaborate?

[sarcasm]

Fed says immigrant wave may slow productivity

CHATHAM, Mass. (Reuters) - A new wave of U.S. immigrants over the next century will enlarge the labor pool at a time when a growing proportion of the nation will be retiring, but their arrival may slow growth in U.S. productivity, a Federal Reserve report said on Tuesday.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow more slowly over the next century than ever before and age rapidly, with the proportion of those over 65 years hitting record highs.

This will mean the U.S. will once again become a nation of immigrants, a report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank said, noting immigration in the past decade had already neared proportions last seen in the early 1900s as Europeans flocked to U.S. shores. The Boston Fed is opening a conference Tuesday morning in Chatham on the economic impact of demographic change. The report is due to be presented at the conference.

The new wave of immigrants, mainly from Latin America and Asia, and their children, will account for more than half of the increase in the U.S. population over the next century, the report said.

``These demographic shifts are likely to trigger some major adjustments within the U.S economy -- many of which will play out in U.S. labor markets,'' said Jane Little and Robert Triest, Boston Fed economists and authors of the report.

From an economic standpoint, the key question is whether the new wave of immigrants, many of whom have relatively lower levels of schooling compared with U.S. natives, will be able to achieve the higher productivity -- output per worker -- needed to meet the living standards expected by the aging population.

Although economic analysis suggests productivity growth is fastest when population growth is slow, the report said this fails to take into account the past trend of increasing educational attainment.

``While immigration is projected to make a huge contribution to the growth in the U.S. working age population, this gain comes at a price, since the gap between the average educational attainment of the foreign- and native-born populations is large,'' the report said.