Replies

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis16.htm

Phyllis Spivey
April 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has joined the ranks of Americans calling for strict enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Or has he? True, he has lately given the subject lots of air time and, true, he’s been sounding more like a Minuteman than a Republican diehard. But his passion is new.

Limbaugh seemed hardly aware of the issue until it became too big to ignore. When hundreds of thousands of Hispanics took to the streets to demand citizens’ benefits and rights, many waving Mexican flags and promising to reclaim U.S. land for Mexico, Limbaugh had to weigh in.

Better late than never, some would say of Limbaugh’s recent awakening. But others remember how Limbaugh has for years – under Democrat as well as Republican administrations – supported the very policies that led to the current immigration crisis.

Consider his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Negotiated under the first President Bush, approved in 1993 under President Clinton, NAFTA garnered steadfast Limbaugh support. Never mind that illegal immigration had been skyrocketing since the amnesty of 1986 and that NAFTA specifically mandated wholesale cross-border movement.

From the beginning, NAFTA was structured to open borders, permitting the “temporary” entry into the U.S. of just about anyone who wanted to come. Clinton’s NAFTA Implementation Act classified the temporary entrants as non-immigrants and welcomed spouses and children as well. The agreement defined temporary as “entry into the U.S. without the intent to establish permanent residence” and failed to mention that children born to so-called non-immigrants while in this country would, under U.S. law, be accorded automatic citizenship.

If you’re thinking this sounds a lot like President Bush’s guest-worker plan, you’re catching on. NAFTA also specified that in most cases eligibility for entry would be established at the border and would require scant documentation. Not only were numerous categories of border-crossers authorized, they were to be grandly accommodated. Service providers, for example, were to receive “treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment...” accorded to our own service providers.

The agreement not only authorized numerous categories of border-crossers, it ordered far-reaching accommodations for them. Service providers, for example, were to receive “treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment ...” accorded to our own service providers.

The pact also prescribed continent-wide standardization of credentials, while prohibiting anything that might be construed as an unnecessary barrier to licensing or certification. Participating countries were to eliminate any requirements for citizenship or permanent residency within two years and work toward liberalizing or lifting any numerical or quantitative restrictions as soon as possible, including limits on visas.

It wasn’t as if Limbaugh didn’t know. Even proponents admitted that NAFTA would cause a “temporary” escalation in illegal immigration, and Clinton’s immigration chief, Doris Meissner, defined “temporary” as 20 years.

But Limbaugh thought NAFTA was keen. Ditto with another border-opening, sovereignty-killing trade pact – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), passed December 1, 1993 by a lame duck Congress. For days, if not weeks, preceding passage, the agreement was the major topic on radio talk shows and in legislators’ offices. Senate leader Robert Dole admitted receiving 2,000 calls a day, mostly against.

But on Limbaugh’s show, GATT scarcely existed. Concerned callers reported on other talk programs that Limbaugh’s screener wouldn’t let them through. Then, the week of Congress’s vote, a handful of individuals breached Rush’s GATT gap.

A woman from Aurora, Colorado told Limbaugh he had let everyone down. He had spent more than a year detailing flaws in Clinton’s healthcare plan. Why so silent about GATT, the most important trade agreement of the century?

Why, she wanted to know, does GATT approval mandate that U.S. babies have taxpayer I.D. numbers at birth? Why should an international trade agreement dictate changes to U.S. pension plans and interest rates on savings bonds? What else had been slipped into GATT and why was an ousted Congress rushing it into law before people could find out?

Rebuffing Limbaugh’s attempts to intimidate her, the woman reminded him that, after all, it was he who had encouraged Americans to analyze issues according to conservative principles. In her view, GATT-WTO in no way conformed to those principles.

Other callers raised questions about GATT’s powerful World Trade Organization that gave the U.S. one vote and no veto and about U.S. workers’ ability to compete with slave labor in China. They decried Congress’s fast-track process that allowed no amendments to the 26,000 page agreement, and accused pro-GATT Republicans of jeopardizing U.S. sovereignty and of reneging on their “Contract With America.” Like NAFTA, the GATT stood in stark contrast to the philosophy usually proclaimed by the radio personality.

Limbaugh, clearly uncomfortable, admitted he hadn’t read the agreement, but had trusted the advice of “friends.” Unable to field questions competently, Limbaugh’s good humor evaporated in hostility and condescension. Obviously frustrated, sputtering at times, he dismissed GATT opponents as fringe, conspiracy theorists – just a bunch of kooks, in other words.

But nine days later, GATT approval secure, the old Rush returned. He lambasted The Summit of the Americas, saying it should be renamed the “Anti-America Summit, because that’s what all these things are.”

“We had the Rio Summit on the environment,” he said. “You know what that was? That was just a place where all the Third World countries could go and rape and rob the United States for money ... and this is the same thing we’re going to have at the Summit of the Americas ....”

Right! How, then, could Limbaugh support sweeping trade agreements that blessed the Rio Earth Summit and the Summit of the Americas? Why has he kept silent about subsequent border-opening, redistribute-the-wealth summits and agreements, e.g., the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)? Until he fervently exposes and opposes them, his apparent outrage about the invasion of America is so much empty rhetoric.

We can put the protestations of hypocritical politicians in the same category. In recent weeks, many have taken to the talk shows to assure voters of their fidelity in the fight against illegal immigration. But if, like Limbaugh, they have supported the trade agreements of the last 15 years – and most are guilty – they’re not good bets for staying the course. When faced with the granddaddy of all Western Hemisphere trade agreements – the Free Trade Area of the Americas – they’ll line up to launch the ultimate and final immigration avalanche, the one that will forever bury a free and independent America.