Posted on 05/16/2006 2:52:45 PM PDT by Libloather
Rush Talks with Vice President Cheney
May 16, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And once again, we are thrilled and honored to have with us the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney. Mr. Vice President, welcome back. As always, great to have you here.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, good afternoon, Rush.
RUSH: All right, question: Is the president -- are you and the president, the administration -- aware of the dissatisfaction on the whole issue of illegal immigration that exists, not just within the Republican base but within the country at large?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes we are, Rush. In my travels out around the country I've found for a long time now immigration, illegal immigration in particular, to be a big issue, and it's true no matter part of the country you go to. Of course you find it down along the border of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, but I also was out in the Seattle area the other day and talked to several folks out there, and it was a significant issue up there, too. It takes different forms in different places around the country but it's a tough issue. It's complicated; it's important, and so there are, I think, legitimate concerns out there on the part of a lot of folks.
RUSH: Why do you think so many people -- and I'm just judging from telephone calls I've had and when I make trips to California like you just mentioned, I can't get away from the subject. It's all anybody wants to talk about, particularly in southern California. Why is it that so many people don't think that the steps the president is outlining and has outlined over the years will address the seriousness of the problem?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think part of it is that a lot of folks aren't aware of what's already being done. I mean, the president pointed out in his speech for example that since we got into office, we have arrested, turned back, sent back across the border some six million illegals. That's huge number. There's a huge amount of effort that's gone into that. We've had a very significant increase in resources. It's just that the problem is so big, there's still a lot more to be done and to date we've not been successful in getting a comprehensive approach out of the Congress that would allow us to address some of these issues. So we've been doing what we could administratively; we've been doing what we could with appropriations bills but in terms the basic legislation we've still got a ways to go. The House has acted; the Senate has not yet acted, and then of course we'll have to get something out of conference, and what the president did last night was lay out a fairly precise program in terms of what he'd like to see.
RUSH: Well, let's talk about what's going on in the Senate. There are a number of bills there. The compromise bill we're being told is Hagel-Martinez, two Republicans proposing this bill. Robert Rector at Heritage and Senator Sessions, who I know you respect, both did joint analyses of this bill and what they project, using conservative estimates, is anywhere from over the next 20 years 110 to 217 million legal immigrants entering the country and illegals as part of that number being granted legal status. What is the public policy purpose for doing that in these kinds of numbers?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen their analysis, Rush, and at this point, of course, what you have in the House bill is specifically a border-enforcement bill. What you've got in the Senate bill is a bill that goes after border enforcement but also you've got Hagel-Martinez and there's Kennedy-McCain. There are a lot of proposals kicking around. The Senate has not finalized its package yet so we don't know what's going to come out of the conference. Obviously we're going to want to look at it very carefully to make sure it does achieve the objectives the president's talked about.
RUSH: Well, if you haven't seen it, let me give you the bare essentials. Senator Sessions did his own analysis. It's a 614 page bill. I know it's gotta be conferenced, but this is a pretty radical starting point. They have anywhere from 117 to 217 million legal Americans -- that's two-thirds of the population -- over the next 20 years if this bill were to become law and if the president signed it as is. Now, hopefully that --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: These are people who would attain legal status?
RUSH: No, this is a combination of both. This is an increase in the number of legal immigrants as well as added to illegals who would then be made legal over that 20-year time frame and it also allows for exponential growth because these people would be allowed to bring in their family members as well, and one of the big concerns here is the strain this would put on an already stretched social safety welfare net and this sort of thing --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: -- and so these numbers are just striking to me. Add two-thirds of the country's population in 20 years? I don't think we can handle that financially and certainly not in an assimilation way.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. Well, if that's the case I would hope that would inform the debate and that Congress will consider those kinds of impacts very carefully before they finally pass something. We'll certainly weigh in on it.
RUSH: Well, Senator Sessions, I think in floor debate today, spent some time really working the numbers and he thinks most senators aren't even aware of these numbers and he's going to do his best to make them aware during the debate.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
RUSH: So hopefully that's true. Now, let's talk about the National Guard. Six thousand Guardsmen. What's the length of time that it is expected they will be needed?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the total proposal is to run for one year in terms of using the National Guard, and over that period of time we've added some 3,000 Border Patrol since we got here. We're going to increase that by an additional 6,000. That's a 50% increase in the Border Patrol over where we are today, and the National Guard would be, in effect, to supplement what's there already in terms of the Border Patrol during that period of time while you recruit and train additional Border Patrol officers. That is it's Guardsmen as a temporary measure. Units, it is expected, would go down as part of their regular training rotation, and this would be for up to 6,000 at any one time. The way they'd handle their annual training exercise, would go down in support of the Border Patrol themselves.
RUSH: Let me ask you this on behalf of my audience simply because of a number of e-mails. People don't think that this number of 6,000, which probably will add up to two or 3,000 on duty at any given time, is actually going to make much of an impact. What would you say to them?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'd say it's not just about the National Guard. You've already got a large number of folks working down there under the auspices of the Border Patrol. We've got big investments going in now in terms of additional technology, in terms of sensors and aerial vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and so forth, as well as fences. One of the very useful things the Guard can do is what they did there in San Diego a few years ago when they installed a section of fence there that's turned out to be very effective -- that particular section has been very effective -- basically was built by Guard troops. So there are a lot of things they could do to support the effort and to beef up the effort that's already underway and I think that's the intention with respect to the Guard. It's not a be-all and end-all of the operation. I think a lot of our folks who sign up for military service don't sign up to go stand on the border for two or three years of active duty. But this is a way to use the resources of the National Guard to support the professionals who are otherwise involved in that activity. We think it makes sense. It's been done before to some extent in the counter-narcotics area. It's not a new concept to have the Guard working the border in support of federal officials.
RUSH: As all of you in the administration discuss the issue and formulate a plan, do you ever, has a wall, an actual wall, ever been given serious consideration?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is given serious consideration, not a wall, for example, from ocean to ocean. There are a lot of places out there where it doesn't make sense. There are other places where it does. I'm told -- I'm not an expert in this by any means -- that when you get into built-up urban areas fences -- "security barriers" might be a better word for it -- are in fact an important part of the overall plan and need to be part of it. There are other areas where you've got vast spaces out there where you need other kinds of arrangements. You need roads to be able to patrol. You can use remote cameras; you can use unmanned aerial vehicles. It's partly a matter of getting technology into it as well, too. It's a very complicated problem. We're talking just about one piece of it, just the border security part of it. But you've also got to address, I think, some of the basic economic incentives that attract people in the first place: all those folks who want to come here for the jobs that they can find working in the United States for a lot more than they can make in Mexico or someplace in Central America. We think you've got to address all those aspects and facets of the problem, and where appropriate fences or security barriers make good sense, but I think the experts got to go through and figure out what's the best technique or procedure for each part of the border.
RUSH: Let me ask you a quick political question, two prongs to it. The Dubai Ports deal. The American people spoke out loudly against it: "We don't want any part of it." It got killed. The illegal immigration deal is generating just as much negative response, but the American people are not getting the reaction, the same reaction from government to that that they got on the Dubai Ports deal. A little confused, asking questions: What's different here? We're still talking security. The second thing is, Democrats, Mr. Vice President, frankly, are getting away with being total bystanders and spectators on this. They offer no solution themselves, yet they continue to sit around and criticize the administration and the Republicans over this. Is there a plan to deal with them politically on this?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well! (chuckles) It is a very tough issue. There's no question about it. You mentioned the Dubai Ports deal, Rush. That created a firestorm of controversy, and so Congress quickly backed provisions that would have made it impossible to go forward, and of course the folks at Dubai Ports withdrew their proposal. The fact is that, from the perspective of United Arab Emirates and so forth -- I worked closely with those folks. They have been very good allies of ours, and I don't want to go back and redo the whole Dubai Ports operation. But the fact of the matter is I thought there was a very strong emotional reaction there. I can understand the emotional reaction, but it didn't bear much resemblance to the basic fundamental facts. What we have here... I mean, I suppose there's a difference between trying to govern and solve a major problem which is what the president and those of us who work for him are trying to do, versus the Democrats, in this case, who don't have any responsibilities or at least aren't willing to take any responsibilities, willing to sit on the sidelines and take potshots. This is an important problem for us to deal with. We've got some 11 or 12 million illegals in the country. It is a national security problem. It's also an economic problem. If you could round all those folks up tomorrow and put them back over the border, you'd have a big hole in your workforce. It is not an easy, simple proposition. If it was, it would have been solved a long time ago. It's one of those tough, intractable problems where you're going to make progress three yards and a cloud of dust. We need to get started. We need to get the border secured. That's our top priority. But then we also need to deal with other aspects of the problem.
RUSH: Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time. I wish we had a little bit more but I know you're on a tight schedule and it's thrill whatever time we have with you, whenever. So thanks very much for being with us now, and we look forward to the next time.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, it's good to talk to you, Rush. You render a great service out there by hosting these debates.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
Bush: "It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border."
We did 6 million but it wouldn't be realistic to do 12. Nice try Bush/Cheney, but that don't fly.
No one is perfect we live in an imperfect world and all have sinned and fallen short.
Natioal Guard - guarding the nation.
Makes sense to me.
That's foolish. Cheney isn't perfect on everything either.
Gay marriage ring a bell?
-----
Of course Cheney is not -- but he has cajones and strong-willed experience.
And I would trade the impact of queer marriage for the cost and impact of 12 million illegals, open borders, trashed border security, trashed soverignty, a joke of citizenship, $100 BILLION per year in tax robbery from the American CITIZEN, overloaded social services, destroyed culture and demographics, continued breaking of U.S. law, urination on our Constitution, more votes for LIBERALS, and the basic destruction of American culture.
Any day.
That was my point. I wish more FReepers understood that.
Well maybe you wouldn't. But the point is that all politicans make mistakes - and give Bush time. He is starting to come around on this one. (and in the mean time, remember all the great things he's done for our country and where we would be today with a President Gore or Kerry)
"Considering the steps the Administration has taken in the past day, and the reaction to it of certain FReepers, this further step toward their position will make them FURIOUS."
Kinda like the way liberal democrats react, eh? Hmm.....
No, they are installing radio fences and asking all Mexicans to wear shock collars.
Charles is probally jealous of Barnes being a white house water carrier.
"According to Bush's speech, we can turn back 6 million, but 12 million is an impossible task."
With all due respect, Sir G. President Bush did not say it was 'impossible' to deport "millions of people." What he said was, "It is neither wise nor realistic...."
And on a purely practical level, there's no comparison between turning illegal aliens around and sending them home AT the border, versus tracking them down, apprehending and filing deportation papers on millions of people.
Can you imagine what fun the ACLU would have defending each and every one of them? The mere thought of that is such a nightmare I think I'm getting a migraine.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm actually on your side. I just don't think it's possible to divest ourselves of illegals who have lived here for any period of time.
I knew before President Bush spoke that he wouldn't say everything I wanted to hear about our immigration problems. I also recognized that it's been decades since ANY American president has been willing to take any real, definitive steps to rectify the situation. Somewhere in the middle of that I decided to give him a chance. I wish others would do the same.
If they pay for the tickets and have to hit all six numbers. Drawing every day! Might pay for immigration enforcement....
No, a lottery to gain legal admission into the US. There would be many restrictions but there would be a way to gain admittance. Every illegal would have to register and those that didn't would be deported when discovered. A plan can be formulated but in my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is securing the border. NOBODY gets in until we know who they are...
Great! I'm glad you were able to hear him. I love his voice, don't you?
oh, hah, hah. hah, hah, hah. how droll. bon mot, sir. bon mot.
i want this done in my life time. now. no excuses. no reason not to start tomorrow. (yesterday, in fact.)
this is all bs. total bs. you know it and ... guess what? ... we know it, too.
UCLA recently did a study on the relationship between farm wages and the price of produce (the proverbial $5 a head of lettuce, and all that). per the study, farm wages account for 15% of the price at the market. in other words, of your $1.00 head of lettuce or pound basket of strawberries, farm wages are about 15 cents.
okay, everyone, let's put on our thinking caps ... what happens then if you double wages to $20 an hour, or treble them to $30, or, or, well, why not? times four to $40 an hour?
answer: head of lettuce costs a buck and a quarter. (yawn.) and, and ... all of a sudden we got a million or two american citizens in california off the welfare roles and making 80k a year, instead of a bunch of illegals living off the taxpayers. why is that such a bad idea?
and ... the $5 a head lettuce canard? the study concluded that farm wages would have to rise to $300 or $500 an hour (can't remember, but it was hundreds) for that to happen, and for that kinda dough, not only would i be the first in line to pick strawberries, but i would wager that a lot of people reading this thread would be right behind me in line.
and who would dispute that all of the farm positions would be filled by competent, capable, grateful americans ecstatic to have such a job at levels considerably less than $300 an hour. $100? $50? get it?
i'm in favor of a wall. enforcement. deportation. employers in jail. meaningful stuff.
but the answer in a way is simpler: we all pay thirty or forty cents more for a head of lettuce (big deal) and the problem goes away. moreover, potential prosperity for millions of unskilled and young americans.
and this is the crux of the problem with the whole guest worker nonsense which works as follows: place an ad: strawberry pickers for $4 an hour. no takers. (gee, whiz.) okay. then the farmer gets to bring in as much third-world trash as he wishes with the blessings of the federal government. huh?!?
well, how 'bout this instead: place another ad: $20 an hour for strawberry pickers? or $30? or whatever market forces require?
importing third-world slave labor, legally or otherwise, to undermine the basic economic law of supply and demand is not the answer. it's the problem.
why not an ad, instead of strawberry picker for four bucks an hour, oh, say, school teacher for four bucks an hour? or store manager for four bucks an hour? or engineer or doctor or nurse or tire guy for four bucks? (you know, the jobs americans won't do.)
"oh, i advertised but couldn't fill the positions. so now i get to import guatemalens."
all of them.
the answer is not to import cheap labor. the answer is to raise the pay of americans to the level that is necessary to attract and keep qualified people. simple. everyone (except george bush and the senate) knows this. (actually, they do, too. but they lie.) even harry reid. my five year old daughter knows this. it is an economic law, immutable as gravity.
and finally, what is this smug, superior attitude of everyone that strawberry pickers deserve to be abused with low wages, disrespect, etc.? what is inferior about a job (the jobs) that place food on our tables? that feed our nation as well as others?
just 'cause it doesn't take a degree from berkeley? (which i had thought we had all agreed was not necessarily a good thing?!?)
why not reward the people who actually do something good for each of us every day (putting strawberries on our tables) instead of the swine brainwashing our children to believe crap (professors at berkeley). who says a teacher should make more? (cushy indoor job. don't have to get your hands dirty. work half the year. etc. face it: if we weren't f*****g with the laws of economics, strawberry pickers WOULD be paid more than teachers.)
If 12 million have made it all the way across our southern border since the last amnesty, that means that there has roughly been 600,000 illegal immigrants getting past our southern border every year. Now if we add to that the 1.1 million failed attempts, we can assume that there are 1.7 million attempts to illegally cross our southern border each year. That means 4,600 illegal entry attempts are made each day along our southern border. Of these, about 3,000 are being rounded up and sent back right now each day. Obviously, sending back thousands of illegals back to Mexico can not only be done each and every day, according to the presidents own numbers it is currently being done each and every day.
So it is at least physically possible then ? Will the earned amnesty crowd at least admit that small point ?
And on a purely practical level, there's no comparison between turning illegal aliens around and sending them home AT the border, versus tracking them down, apprehending and filing deportation papers on millions of people.
In a practical logistical point of view apprehending them at their daily work places is a much easier task to do then apprehending them along a border over a thousand miles long when you do not know where and when they will appear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.