Posted on 06/14/2013 12:55:13 PM PDT by servo1969
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, I can't tell you, I don't even want to have to say this. This is painful. Did you hear what Senator Rubio said? We need to bring the illegals here so that they will pay for the border security that we need. I know. I can't tell you, this is painful for me.
I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the exact quote, but the immigrants that we legalize, we have to have 'em because they are going to pay for border security, to pay for the fence. I guess what is meant by that is that we need the new taxpayers. Now immigrants are more fertile. They create more businesses than native born Americans over the last 20 years. They love their families. We don't. He didn't say that, but why point out that they love their families? They're more intact families, younger population. I'm trying not to be reactionary. That's why I'm not saying anything.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The Rubio quote: "We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security. If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'll tell you why it pains me, why it is really, really painful, this stuff. Because I really like Senator Rubio. I remember Senator Rubio campaigning against Crist. I know who Rubio is. I wish he would get out of this whole immigration fight and not tarnish himself because there is a lot of potential in Marco Rubio. This immigration thing is gonna taint him. I just hope it doesn't.
JOHNNY DONOVAN: And now, from sunny south Florida, it's Open Line Friday!
RUSH: Look what happens when you get in bed with these people on the left. I don't want to call it moving over to the dark side, but look what happens when you cross the line and go over there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Immigration story here from Reuters, folks. It has an interesting development in the House that really is news. First off, the headline: "Senate Rejects Republican Effort to Gut Immigration Bill -- A landmark immigration bill survived a major challenge in the Senate on Thursday when its bipartisan 'Gang of Eight' sponsors beat back an amendment that would have delayed a pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal residents."
This was the Grassley amendment that was beaten back. The Grassley amendment would have prohibited a first step toward granting of legal status until the Department of Homeland Security has maintained effective control of the US-Mexico border for a period of six months. That was the amendment, which is what we had all been assured had to happen or there wouldn't be any Republican support for the Gang of Eight bill. Then that changed, that we have to do the legalization first and then do the border, for two reasons. We have to do the legalization to get 'em out of the shadows. We have to do the legalization to find out who they are. And then we have to levy fines so that the fine money we collect will pay for the border security.
But this story also has a development in the House that could be big news and disturbing news. The House immigration legislation includes, quote, from the story, "provisions giving state and local police departments powers to apprehend undocumented people." Now, remember what Michele Bachmann said. Michele Bachmann said that the House bill is gonna look really good. It's gonna look like it is really, really good. It's gonna get a lot, lotta support, and it's gonna pass the House, but the stuff in it that everybody likes is gonna be taken out in conference. That's the conspiratorial theory that has evolved about what's gonna happen in the House.
The immigration legislation in the House, again, includes provisions that give state and local police the power to apprehend undocumented people. Now, the Democrats in the House are calling that a step backward that would lead to racial profiling. John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "It's alarming that this bill would turn millions of undocumented immigrants into criminals overnight. It's not only terrible politics but its inhumane policy."
So what we know, which we already did, but what we've had confirmed, therefore, Democrats do not want to ever detain illegal aliens, even after this latest round of amnesty. Now, that ought to open people's eyes. That ought to tell everybody everything they need to know about this whole idea of immigration reform. It really is just a plan to open the borders. The House bill grants amnesty. Well, no. The House bill moves it forward, but the House bill has a provision that local cops and state cops can apprehend undocumented people. And the Democrats say no. Now, it's still going to be illegal to cross the border after amnesty, folks. This is the key.
Even if the Senate bill were to pass and be signed by Obama, crossing the border illegally is still going to be illegal. Amnesty will not mean that anybody in the world is also free to come. Amnesty will, theoretically, only apply to the 11 million or whatever number are here. But anybody after amnesty signed into law who crosses the border illegally is still an illegal immigrant. And the House bill would therefore permit local and state authorities to apprehend those people. Democrats say, nope, no way, Jose, we're not agreeing to that. Meaning, as far as the Democrats are concerned, at no time is anybody to be treated as an illegal, which should tell everybody what the Democrats' real objective here is. And amnesty is just one step of the objective.
The objective is a constant, never-ending, inflow of low-skilled, uneducated people that will make up a permanent Democrat Party underclass. That's when the Democrats shine. That's when the Democrats think they are at their best, when they're speaking up for the downtrodden. When the Democrats are speaking up for the little guy, when the Democrats are speaking up for the poor, when the Democrats are speaking up for the hungry and the thirsty, when the Democrats are defending and speaking up for the people who have not won life's lottery, that's when they think they are their best. That's when they know they get their votes. That's when they know that they win the battle of who happens to have the most compassion, Democrats or Republicans.
The Democrats need poor people. The Democrats need a never ending inflow of poor people. And they need those people to stay poor as long as they can. They need poor people depending on Democrats. They need poor people in the welfare state rolls. They need poor people looking at government as Santa Claus. And just because we grant amnesty does not mean, as far as they're concerned, that that shuts off immigration. No. We're just gonna deal with these 11 million and we're gonna start all over again. We're gonna have millions more in another 20 years, have to do it all over again. That's what their agenda is and this pretty much shines the light on that.
Democrats need poor people so badly they have to import them. The Democrats must keep people in the dark about the source of prosperity. The Democrats must make sure that people do not learn where real prosperity comes from. As far as the Democrats are concerned, you need a never-ending flow of poor people who think that government is the source of prosperity, that government is the source of life. And as people in America grow and perhaps, maybe in time, fall out of that arrangement, the Democrats need replacements. The Democrats need poor people so badly, they have to import them.
The Democrat mission is not to raise people up out of poverty. The Democrat mission is to make sure there is a constant number, growing number of poor people. That's when the Democrats shine, folks, is when they're defending them, when they're speaking up for them, when they're making the case for the poor. That allows them to blame Republicans for practically everything, accuse Republicans of being heartless and cold and cruel and extreme and all the rest. You need victims. Victims of the Republicans, victims of conservatism, ergo you need a never-ending inflow of poor people. And, as an added bonus, the less educated they are, the better.
END TRANSCRIPT
Regrets I didn’t here it. Only read the transcript here.
Good to know he rejected the “explanation”.
Well...maybe the fact that he at least kept silent, instead of jumping to Rubio’s defense, is a good sign. I hope so. While Rush could be seen as a member of the boys’ club, Mark is not...I hope his eyes are being opened.
I've yet to hear Mark come out and directly say he was lied to and betrayed by Rube...because that's exactly what happened.
Mark's directly (and, deservedly) called out so many others...like all of the other Senators who voted Yea to move this crap sandwich forward, Paul Ryan, Jebbie Bush...but, for some reason, not MarcoPhone.
I agree...Mark is NOT a member of the boys' club.
As I mentioned on another thread a couple of days ago...maybe they're both (Rush and Mark) a bit embarrassed about even putting stock in this guy...with the interviews, etc.
Mark has spent the week excoriating the Immigration Bill, Rubio and his Gang of Eight.
For anyone reading and wondering about this support/doesn’t support issue....ponder this bit of fiction.
Normie and Rush/Sean/Levin were sitting round the burned out shell of a car as behind them, the last of the echoes of gunfire rang out in the distance.
Following the disastrous immigration reform bill, the US economy crashed under the burden of over 50 million now legals flooding over the border.
“Why did this happen? It wasn’t supposed to be this way,” said the Constitutional scholar who should have known better.
“How did we not see this?” asked the NYC Fox host who ignored his audience?
“Why wasn’t this nipped in the bud when the GOP had the chance?” Queried the Radio talk show legend that made so many excuses.
Because you put the needs of your friend over those of your country, replied the only one left.
That could very well be. Rubio used them....they should be good and angry about that.
That's very good to know. Thank you. I haven't listened to Mark in a while; I need to get back in the habit on Monday.
I doubt it but it would have still been someone, Rubio was just a better tool for their purpose.
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.