All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
March 27, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do you see this?
Zacharias Masawi says he knew about the plan to fly the planes into the World Trade Center in the Pentagon, but he was not part of it.
He's testifying today in the penalty phase of his trial.
Greetings, my friend.
Of course he said Bush knew.
Bush knew everything.
No, he didn't say Bush knew, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he did.
Bush knew.
Bush lied.
Greetings, folks, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, happier now than I have been since two months ago.
Well, no, happier in the last two months than I can ever remember being.
That according to a caller in the previous hour who wanted me to keep it up.
800-282-2882 is numbered.
That's Professor Hazelt's laugh.
800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
We congratulated George Mason for their victory over Yukon, and Professor Hazlett was upset.
We forgot to watch the game.
We were having so much fun doing other things.
We did watch, who was it?
UCLA and who?
Was it George Mason, UCLA?
We did watch that.
It was a pretty low-scoring game.
But I'm just wondering, did anybody who watched George Mason in UConn, did anybody cry after the game?
Did you watch it, Brian?
You didn't watch it.
Los Angeles Times editorial today, making their voices heard.
Downtown Los Angeles hosted the most awe-inspiring political rally in recent California history on Saturday.
As an estimated half a million people came together peacefully, the ostensible reason was to protest harsh anti-immigration legislation being considered in Washington, but the rally's broader purpose was to celebrate immigrants and reclaim the initiative in the debate from strident anti-immigrant voices.
Is that really what we is that's the I told you this is going to be the take?
The broader purpose was to celebrate immigrants and reclaim the initiative in the debate from strident anti-immigrants.
Nobody that I know is against immigration.
Nobody has anything bad to say about legal immigrants.
We're talking illegal immigrants.
This is flat out amazing.
You have 500,000 people, a vast majority of which are here illegally.
And what they do, they're going out there and they want to portray themselves the backbone of America, but they're out there shaking their fists at the law.
In this case, proposed legislation in Congress.
Here's the final paragraph of the brilliant editorial in the L.A. Times.
At the end of the day, the United States needs to bring its immigration policies in line with reality for its own sake, not for the well-being of foreigners, not even those earnest marchers at Saturday's rally.
All Americans benefit from the labor of millions of hardworking immigrants, and all Americans see their democracy's moral firmament, not to mention their security erode when the nation willingly relies on an undocumented and even fugitive underclass of millions.
Okay, sounds like they're a little confused here.
The reality is that the borders are way too insecure and something needs to be done about it.
Because as I say, that 500,000 people that you saw in Los Angeles on Saturday, that's, according to best estimates, that's the number of illegals that get in the country every year.
A couple stories here about one of my all-time favorite U.S. Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia.
The first is in the Boston Herald today.
And if nothing else, Justice Scalia is a man with guts.
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
Now, why would that happen?
Why would there be a special mass for lawyers?
And they need more forgiveness?
Do they need more.
And I don't.
Look, folks, I come from a family of them.
Don't misunderstand here.
They need special attention.
Maybe confession takes longer.
That's what it is.
Thank you.
Confession takes line.
Knew there had to be a reason for this.
You can't tie up the rest of the parishioners if you have the lawyers and politicians showing up at Mass.
You'd be there all day.
All right.
So Justice Scalia was at this special Mass, and he had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
Justice Scalia is now 70, by the way.
He said, you know what I say to these people, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flack for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
That's Sicilian, the Italian jurist said after his gesture, interpreting for the Sopranos challenged.
It's none of their business, continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday's Catholic Lawyers Guild luncheon.
This is my spiritual life.
I shall lead it the way I like.
None of your business.
I just love this guy.
And then there's this.
This is from Newsweek.
It's on the MSNBC website.
The April 3rd, 2006 issue.
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case, and that's whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused.
But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter.
During an unpublicized talk on March the 8th at the University of February, Freeburg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions.
He added he was astounded at the hypocritical reaction in Europe and elsewhere around the world to Club Gitmo.
He said, war is war.
It's never been the case that when you captured a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts.
Give me a break.
Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human rights conventions, Scalia shot back, if he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that's where he belongs.
I had a son on that battlefield.
They were shooting at my son.
I'm not about to give this man who was captured in war a full jury trial.
I mean, it's crazy.
Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.
Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned that there may be no end to this war.
The comments provoked quite an uproar, said Samantha Besson, a member of the Freeburg Law Faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk, which was mostly about his originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
She said, I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him without hearing all the arguments.
That's what he's saying.
There are no arguments for this.
This is a purely bogus issue to try to take war powers away from the president of the United States on behalf of a bunch of liberal lawyers and liberal judges.
It is absurd.
It's always been absurd.
The whole notion that captured and by the way, why is this case even at the Supreme Court?
Because some lower courts and liberal judges have just taken it upon themselves to rule against the concept of military tribunals, meaning we capture somebody on a battlefield and we're going to do our own version of a trial there.
Military tribunals are part of the history of this country at war.
But we live in such a roiled and partisan political age with Bush and conservatism so hated and America so hated by so many people that live here over being imperialistic or what have you.
They're trying to take power away from the executive, in this case, Bush, by suggesting that you can't do these war tribunals, military tribunals, because these detainees, these terrorists, captured on the battlefield.
Remember, they're captured in the battlefield.
They're not captured at Club Gitmo, or they're not captured at Abu Ghrab.
They are taken to both of these places after being captured.
And to assume and to assert as lower courts and liberal judges, ACLU types, that these people have constitutional rights and are entitled to a jury and civil trial in the United States is flat out absurd.
If this is upheld, it would fundamentally be the end of war.
I mean, it's capturing prisoners anyway.
It's absurd.
But the anti-war movement in this country is so ingrained and growing in the left, and they hate this president so much that they don't care what they wreck in order to get their power back.
And that's been the case for quite a while.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
Just found out about this today.
I've lived in California for four years, and I never knew there was a Caesar Chavez Day.
I don't know how old it is.
We can't have a Lincoln Day.
We can't have George Washington Day, but California has Caesar Chavez Day.
Well, Hugo Chavez Day, that'll come when he invades us.
Yeah, folks, I'm telling you, culture is they've got some red flags waving over here about the culture.
Caesar Chavez Day, we can't have an Abel Lincoln Day.
We can't have George Washington Day or anything.
I have to go back to this because I just can't get over how the left has to be feeling since these protests began on Saturday.
Do you realize that all of the protests they've attempted to mount the last five years have fizzled all the anti-war protests?
They've tried to get people out there protesting the small size of the minimum wage.
They've tried to get people out there protesting living conditions and nothing and can't get anything done.
They can't motivate their believers and followers to get out there in the streets.
But this thing happens, and you just know that they're looking at this.
Where have we gone wrong?
Why they're more concerned about this than the war in Iraq.
They've actually got themselves believing that is the big issue with people.
And I know they're watching immigration, but the Democratic Party's vested interest in this is they see a bunch of voters.
And they see the Republican Party dividing over this.
So that's why they're not saying anything.
Like they're not taking a position on anything if they can help it.
Scotty audio soundbites on this.
Well, let me grab a phone call first.
This guy's been waiting a while.
Matt in Redlands, California.
Hi, what's up?
Hey, Rush.
I'd like to compare the growing crisis with illegal immigration to the crisis we had with radical Islamic terrorism prior to 9-11.
Now, prior to 9-11, neither Democrats or really Republicans were really willing to face the problem of radical Islamic terrorism head-on.
Just like today, I mean, the majority of both Republicans and especially Democratic politicians are afraid to face the growing immigration crisis.
And all of these huge marches and all of this debate that's going on in Congress, I mean, ultimately, it's irrelevant because we all know at the end of the day, even if Congress passes some immigration reform and Bush signs it, nothing much is going to change with immigration.
Unfortunately, it's going to take a dirty bomb coming across the Mexican border or some bird flu pandemic which is brought by people coming from Mexico before the politicians are forced to close the Mexican border and enforce the existing immigration laws that are already on the books.
What do you think, Rush?
I think it's actually an interesting point.
I think you have a point.
The people dealing with this at the legislative level are not treating it as though they actually see a problem.
They're reacting to constituent anger and doing something, as little as possible, to deal with that and allay the fears of their constituents without actually attacking the issue on a substantive basis.
I think you've actually stumbled across something.
And if something like you suggest happens, a dirty bomb or some other type of explosive that can be traced to the southern border with Mexico, then yeah, of course.
And we have the port deal all over again.
And if that ever happens, wouldn't that be something?
Here we raised, holy hell, we went nuts as a country.
We went into hysterica over the ports deal.
And where's the same consistency in two ways?
When you told your elected officials that you didn't want the ports, the terminals, run by a country from the United Arab Emirates, you got it done in two days.
Maybe a week.
Well, three weeks.
I mean, you got it done.
You got it done so well that they are still writing legislation about reforming the whole investigation process and committing it to statute rather than just regulatory level.
And people are still trying to appease and show their constituents that they heard the message and they're going to get tough about it.
And they're going to let any Arab company or country that has ties to terrorism run our terminals at any of our ports.
Well, what is an unsecure or an at-risk port?
It's an open border, is it not?
What do we have?
What are we dealing with here?
And the same people, and by the way, you talk to the right elected officials, they'll tell you they're hearing the same intensity on this issue as they heard on the ports deal.
But this one, they're just trying to placate you.
They're just trying to placate you and make you think they're doing something about it.
Whereas the port deal, oh, they got into gear and they were in a race to see who could be the first to make sure that deal wasn't going to happen.
Let's listen to some audio sound bites.
The president in Washington this morning at a naturalization ceremony said this about the immigration debate.
The immigration debate should be conducted in a civil and dignified way.
No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other.
No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to American identity because immigrants have shaped America's identity.
No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy.
We should not give in to pessimism.
If we work together, I'm confident we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system and deliver a bill that protects our people, upholds our laws, and makes our people proud.
Well, what would a Monday be without a sound bite from Senator Kennedy?
He was on, what was Face the Nation yesterday.
Gloria Borger interviewed him.
She said, let me ask you about President Bush, because he says, allow these workers to be here temporarily and then send them home.
Do you think you and President Bush can come to some kind of a compromise on this because he disagrees with lots of people, his own party?
The hard right of the Republican Party is doing everything they possibly can to make it a political issue.
The real question is, will the Senate yield to the hard right and be distracted with, in effect, criminalizing the 12 million individuals in this country?
I'm always interested in our Republican friends because they're talking about family initiatives, and one of their family initiatives is going to mean that Cardinal Mahoney from Los Angeles may very well be a felon because as Cardinal Mahoney says, my dedication is to helping the poor, and I don't make a judgment about whether the person is here as a green card worker or as a legal immigrant.
Yeah, I want to criminalize Cardinal Mahoney.
That has been one of the techniques here that they're using to discredit the legislation.
Don't forget Prop 187 was about just this very thing.
Californians became fed up with ever-rising taxes in order to pay welfare and health benefits for illegals.
We're not talking about green card people.
We're not talking about green card workers or legal immigrants here.
Nobody is.
Now, also, I need to make a stipulation.
When I say the Republican Party is divided over this, the grassroots of the party is and the people in the Republican Party are not divided over it.
The division occurs between the grassroots or the base of the Republican Party and the Republican Washington elites.
And the Republicans have their own elites, the blue-blood country club types.
And they're the ones that have a differing point of view from the base in their party.
Here's Senator Specter this week with George Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos said, Senator Specter, let's begin with you.
This is a very emotionally charged issue.
Probably the most loaded word is amnesty because the bill that you're talking about would give a path to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants.
Congressman Tan Credo and his allies say that's thinly disguised amnesty.
It is not amnesty, George, because these undocumented aliens are going to have to pay a fine.
They're going to have to work for six years to be on the citizenship path.
They're going to have to go through a criminal background check.
They're going to be checked out very, very carefully.
They're not going to go ahead of people who have been waiting in line for citizenship.
They're going to go to the end of the line for people who have stayed at home and gone through the normal channels.
We're facing a difficult situation because we have approximately 11 million undocumented aliens here, and we've got to find some way to deal with them.
We have a national security problem.
They've not been identified.
What makes you think they're going to show up and be identified?
What makes you think they're going to willingly go to the end of the line?
How are we going to apprehend them to assess the fine?
And with what are they going to pay these fines?
And I'm sorry, you know, I was one of the original people out of the gate here doubting that there were 3 million homeless.
Now, I don't know if they're undocumented.
How do we know that there are 11 or 12?
I'm not saying there aren't in this because I know there are a lot, but 11 or 12 million is a bunch.
How do we know it's that many?
That's one of the figures.
Oh, it's too big, George.
We can't deal with that.
We've got to allow them to stay.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, utilizing talent on loan from God.
Welcome back, folks.
800-282-2882.
All right, a question that I have, ladies and gentlemen.
How long will it be before Zacharias Masawi gets his full scholarship to Yale after his sentencing?
Or might he be granted a full scholarship to Yale before he is sentenced?
Yale's got a Taliban student.
Why not get an al-Qaeda student in there and balance things out?
Maybe Harvard could offer a scholarship to Zakawi.
Not to Masawi.
I want to go back to Senator Specter here.
This bite is literally amazing to me because we've heard all of this before.
Anybody remember, I think it was the Simpson-Mazzoli Act back in the 80s, 1986.
I think it was Simpson-Mazzoli.
It was the same thing.
Okay, you're upset about the borders, and we'll control the borders.
We'll come over immigration policy, blah, blah, blah.
And that immigration policy and the sum total of all of our immigration policies has led us to 500,000 illegals jumping the fence every year.
Here is Senator Specter explaining why his bill is not amnesty.
It is not amnesty, George, because these undocumented aliens are going to have to pay a fine.
They're going to have to work for six years to be on the citizenship path.
They're going to have to go through a criminal background check.
They're going to be checked out very, very carefully.
They're not going to go ahead of people who have been waiting in line for citizenship.
They're going to go to the end of the line for people who have stayed at home and gone through the normal channels.
We're facing a difficult situation because we have approximately 11 million undocumented aliens here, and we've got to find some way to deal with them.
We have a national security problem.
They've not been identified.
Right.
Just one more point on this 11 million business.
This number gets bandied around, and yet they're undocumented.
So how do we know this?
I mean, how do we really know it?
And now the number is getting close to 12 million, by the way.
So if it is that high, 11 or 12 million, even if it isn't, you put that message out there, and that becomes the basis on which you form the argument, well, we can't deport them.
I'm crying out loud, 11 million.
Can't do that.
We got to find a way to deal with these people.
That sets up the premise of accepting all of these additional measures and steps after that.
But the question, well, why, if they're illegal, why can't you deport?
Well, you couldn't round them all up.
How would we do it?
Put them on airplanes?
Well, we do.
How do we make sure they stay out?
That's probably the best question.
How do we make sure they stay deported once we deport them?
Just get back in.
But beyond that, they would say, well, many of these people are doing work the American people refuse to do.
We need these jobs filled by somebody.
But the whole notion here that 11 or 12 million are in the country forms the basis of, hey, we can't do anything about that.
We've got to do something.
We can't get rid of them.
There's way too many people.
As I listen here to Senator Spector, keep in mind, Senator Specter has spent months attacking the president's terrorist intercept program, this NSA spying program.
He thinks it's illegal.
He wants hearings.
He wants to ditch this program because he said it violated federal law.
Okay.
He thinks it violates a federal law.
Meanwhile, here he is, you just heard him making excuse after excuse for those who come to our country illegally.
So I guess the president has to be held to a different standard when it comes to federal law than these people.
And he admits that it's a national security problem, but we've got to do something about it.
But he wants to stop the program that helps us identify who might be plotting events in this country from afar and wants to tie our hands in that national security effort, but in this case, acknowledges the national security problem, but doesn't seem to really have a plan to deal with it.
I mean, isn't he chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Ask that rhetorically because, as host, I know that he is.
Isn't he supposed to help ensure that the laws that Congress has passed are enforced by the executive branch?
Isn't that one of the oversights of the Judiciary Committee?
But for some reason, we can't enforce this.
There's just too many people here, Rush.
Nobody has any idea how to enforce any proposal allowing for amnesty, even though they say it's not amnesty.
It is, you know, we got Simpson Mazzoli, I think it was, the same bill of goods in that piece of legislation that were being sold here.
We've been there.
Every 20 years or so, something happens in this issue and it gets all roiled out there, and people get all bent out of shape about it.
And so Congress moves to placate everybody.
And in the process of placating everybody, they say, all right, this time we're serious.
We are really serious.
We are this.
We're going to really enforce the border.
We're really going to do it.
I mean, we are going to, I mean, we're not joking around anymore.
We mean it.
We're going to get tough.
We've got to finally get into gear.
And they want you to think that they're really getting serious about it.
We're going to enforce the border.
We just have to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
Can anybody cite for me anything Senator Spector has done that would illustrate his history effort to enforce the border before?
Obviously not.
This is why we have 500,000 coming here every year illegally.
He's been in Congress 26 years.
He's in charge of writing these laws.
He's chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Oversight grants him the responsibility of making sure that the federal law that Congress passes is not jimmied with by the executive branch or by anybody else.
It's just, I don't know.
And then you go back to these various things.
How are we going to get them to sign up?
How are we going to get them to register?
How are we going to get them to pay the fine?
What are they going to pay the fine with?
How do we get them to the back of the line?
How do we know who they are?
What are we going to do?
Put out a PSA, say, okay, every illegal, you got until noon Friday or sundown Monday to show up or else.
Or else what?
Well, we're going to send Wyatt Earp after.
What are we going to do?
If they don't show up, how are we going to know they don't show up?
We don't know who they are.
That's one of the things they tell us that, well, we can't deport them and we don't even know who they are.
Let's go to Tom Tancredo.
He was on this week with Stephanopoulos as well.
And after Senator Specter's answer that you just heard, Stephanopoulos said, there you go, Congressman Tancredo.
Senator Specter says it's not amnesty.
The penalty that is supposed to be applied to that under the law that we have today is deportation.
If you say you can be here, you can do that.
You can come across the border without our permission and you will be able to stay.
And yes, there will be some a little fine or whatever.
It's not deportation.
It is amnesty.
And what it does is send a horrible message.
It's a slap in the face to every single person who has done it the right way and to everybody who's waiting out there to do it the right way.
It's bad policy for the Republican Party.
Here is Stephanopoulos following up.
So you're saying that all 11 million or so undocumented aliens in the country right now should be deported.
We just go after them, round them up, and send them home.
Let's try this.
Let's try enforcing the law.
We don't actually even need another law on the books.
We don't need Senator Specter's.
We don't need any that I have introduced.
No law is necessary if we actually enforce the ones we have on the books today.
Because one of those laws that would go a long way towards solving this problem, by the way, if you enforced it, is the law against employers hiring people who are here illegally.
If you actually began to enforce that, then you would see that millions of people will return home to their countries of origin voluntarily because, frankly, there's nothing else to do.
If you can't get a job in this country, and if you can't get social service benefits, you go home.
Who says they won't get social service benefits?
There is another option in this country.
It's called the hammock.
People refer to it as the safety net.
I refer to it as a hammock.
People get in a hammock, lay around, drink iced tea, maybe sip a piña colada now and then, and think they're in the safety net.
But I understand his point.
We don't need new laws.
And that's probably the best point that's out there.
We don't need new laws.
We've just got a bunch of people who are trying to placate you by getting tough with these new laws to deal with these supposedly new developments that have got you upset.
But again, I'm telling you, the attitude in Washington, both parties among the elites, is, okay, the natives are restless out there, meaning you.
The hoy poloi is getting all upset.
We got to make sure that they think we're serious about it.
So we'll come up with some blah, and show them that we really, really mean it this time, just like we did about 20 years ago.
More Tancredo.
Finally, Stephanopoulos says, Congressman Tancredo Hillary Clinton basically says your approach is un-Christian.
I am not really surprised that Hillary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about the Bible.
Her impressions, her analysis, her interpretation of both the law and the Bible are certainly wrong, to say the least.
This has nothing to do, the bill we passed out of the house has nothing to do with criminalizing good Samaritans.
Nobody is talking about prosecuting, nor have we ever prosecuted under the law while it was in existence, anyone for providing, you know, soup at a soup kitchen or a place of rest for somebody who turns out to be an illegal alien.
That is ridiculous.
Amen.
Back in just a second, folks.
Don't vanish.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Rush Limboy, your host for life, not retiring until every American agrees with me.
And by the way, welcome to those of you watching on the Ditto cam today.
It's been up and running for the entire program, and barring some embarrassing occurrence that will remain on.
Such an occurrence has never happened.
But I always hold out the possibility in case we have to go to the bars like that.
If you see that, you know that something embarrassing is happening.
I only hope I have time to get to the bars if such an event does.
I don't expect it, but you just never know.
800-282-2882 is a number.
If you'd like to be on the program, I'm sure that you have noticed in the soundbites that we've been playing today, the questions from the interviewers like Stephanopoulos that I've been reading to you to set up the answers, is this term undocumented aliens.
And it's not new, but it's being used more and more.
And it's the politically correct term.
Why?
We can't hurt these people's feelings, Rush.
Don't you understand?
They're the backbone of America.
They're out there trying to take the jobs that Americans won't do because they're gotten too uppity.
We couldn't get along without them.
They don't want to insult these people.
They've chosen our country.
Of all countries in the world to come, they've chosen ours.
They're not illegal.
Why humiliate them?
Call them undocumented aliens.
Well, let's call people like Jesse James and Willie Sutton undocumented bank withdrawers.
And of course, let's call the NSA foreign surveillance program undocumented wiretaps, just so we don't hurt anybody's feelings.
But no, when you're talking about the president's domestic spying program, illegal wiretaps.
You will never hear anything to mask it or to soften it.
What do we have?
You have an undocumented car driver, doesn't have a driver's license.
It's not illegally driving.
It's just an undocumented driver.
Somebody is not paying taxes, like some of you people in Rio Linda.
Undocumented taxpayers.
Undocumented pilots, the terrorists, the 9-11 hijackers.
Exactly right.
Undocumented pilots, not terrorists.
Who do we think we are judging these people the way that we do?
Now, let's go back to Senator Specter here for just a second.
Because this $12 million figure, this $11 million figure, that forms the basis for we can't do anything.
We can't deport them.
That's why too many people.
What are we going to do?
How are we going to find them?
Why are we going to deport them?
Where are we going to send them?
So that is used as the basis.
Okay, we have to accept that they're here and they're not leaving.
Now, what do we do?
Well, let's apply that to a number of other national efforts.
The war on drugs.
Well, we can't put every pot smoker in jail, so why have a war on drugs, right?
War on poverty, a demonstrable failure.
No question it's a failure.
We can't end poverty for everybody, so why have it?
Why have the war on poverty?
The war on terrorism.
I hear people say all the time, we're never going to stop all these terrorists.
Okay, so why even have the war on terrorism?
This is the Specter position on illegal immigration.
So it would have to hold true for the rest if they're going to be intellectually consistent.
We can't get rid of these people.
It's just too many of them.
Well, okay, then why even worry about the illegal immigration?
And I got another question for Senator Specter and his supporters.
If an illegal immigrant breaks the new law that you propose, will you deport him or her?
What if it runs in the millions of illegals who won't comply?
What will you do with them, Senator Specter, now that you've stated that we can't deport all of these people?
If we can't round them up, and if they don't willingly go to the end of the line, if they don't willingly identify themselves, they don't willingly pay the fine, then what do we do?
We have a toothless law.
What do we do there?
I don't know what to prevent.
Well, we've got to fine Senator Spector.
We've got a modest fine.
What are they going to pay the fine with?
So what this is adding up to, folks, is that the people who support Senator Specter's legislation, Senator Specter himself, are arguing that we cannot enforce existing law.
We simply can't.
It's too unmanageable now.
And that, of course, means ultimately deportation.
If he can't do that, then how would we enforce any new law that he or Senator McCain or Senator Kennedy will come up with?
When you just analyze this intellectually, it makes no sense whatsoever.
It just establishes what's going on here as a bunch of pandering and placating.
And imagine how you'd have felt if they did this with the port deal.
The equivalent to the port deal would be that they're talking tough and they're going to do the 45 days and they hear you.
But at the end of the day, you know what?
So many ports, so many terminals are owned by so many foreign countries.
We can't single out these poor nice allies from the United Arab Emirates.
Well, we gave it a good look, see America.
That's what they're doing with you on this immigration bill.
With the port deal, they heard you and they acted with immigration.
They're trying to make you think they're doing something about it.
But whatever they're going to come up with is not going to have any more teeth in it than what we already have.
And if these people don't voluntarily comply with this new law, how are we going to find them anyway?
And then what are we going to do?
Quick timeout.
I've got two soundbites off.
I'll have to save them for the next hour, but Hurricane Katrina Vandenhoevel weighed in on the what show was she?
Stephanopoulos' show.
I saw the other day the ratings for that show are coming up, and I playing these soundbites, I can't understand how.
Well, I know coming up to what, but they're coming up.
They didn't have much room to go any lower, but they still are coming up.
Or maybe it was a spin.
I don't know.
It was a little headline.
Stephanopoulos show gaining traction in recent weeks.
You got me.
Back in just a second, folks.
Stay with me.
You know me by now, friends.
I don't just rant and complain and moan.
I look for solutions.
And I've had a brainstorm of an idea here with the logic I'm hearing from our elected officials on why we can't really do anything about the illegal immigration problem.
That's what they're telling us.
We can't really do anything about it.
Well, what else do we not like that we would like to fix?
But they say they can't do anything about it, but we could force them to fix it our way.
That's the brainstorm that I have had.
▲
Export Selection