All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
March 29, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Thank you.
It's good to be back.
I want to start the program talking about the issue that everybody in America is talking about, illegal immigration.
The good news in this country is we're finally talking about illegal immigration.
The bad news is we're talking about illegal immigration.
The bad part of it is this issue is one that can tear the entire country apart.
It's one in which there are 19 different sides to the issue.
Nobody literally is speaking the same language on it, and I fear that for all this talk we're not going to do anything about it.
The good news though, at least, is we are talking about it.
And I'm going to start my discussion on illegal immigration by talking about France and General Motors.
It doesn't make any sense, but work with me on this.
France right now is cracking up.
They had a full day of protests yesterday.
The entire country was shut down.
They even shut down the Eiffel Tower.
Most French newspapers didn't publish.
There are protests all over the country.
The reason for the protest isn't particularly important because they're always protesting in France.
This one has something to do with the Prime Minister Dominique de Villipin proposed as this new rule that is aimed at getting employers to hire young workers.
So he says you can fire them if they're under the age of twenty six, you can fire them within two years without any sanctions against you.
His idea is is by making it easier for employers to fire young workers, they may actually go out and hire some of them.
Well, this has created riots in France.
Why this is terrible.
How can you say that an employer would actually have a right to fire someone?
Remember, this is France, the epitome of the welfare state.
So they've they're shut down because of that.
In the meantime, they're trying to assimilate their huge Muslim population, which is largely a result of totally open borders.
France has welcomed, opened its country up to all sorts of Muslim immigrants from Middle Eastern nations, and they aren't assimilating into the French culture.
It's not working.
And France doesn't know what to do about it.
France is a classic example of what happens when you have a total welfare state and you have totally open immigration.
You become dysfunctional, and that's what France is right now.
Now let's talk about General Motors.
I have this fear that what's happening at GM is what America's future is.
General Motors is trying to save itself.
The reason General Motors is drowning is because of decisions that were made 30, 40, and 50 years ago when everybody at GM was getting fat.
The company was getting fat, the corporate executives were getting fat, and the workers were getting fat.
There were only three major American automobile companies.
Everybody was buying a GM or a Ford or a Chrysler.
They were able to charge whatever they wanted to charge, and they were making money handover fits.
There wasn't much foreign competition.
Even there wasn't even much competition in the United States.
You had two major companies that were rivals.
So they had all this money they could carve up.
So, fearing that employees would walk off the job and strike, which would shut down production, GM kept giving more and more and more to the workers.
They not only increased their pay, the benefit structure became lavish and they established these huge pension plans that say that once the report a worker retires, they're going to get enormous amounts of money, even though they no longer work for the company, and that money will continue even after they die with the survivor's benefit as part of the pension.
When they agreed to these things, it was easy to do.
GM was incredibly profitable.
To not give this kind of money back to the workers would not have made any sense.
It would have seemed preposterous to try to have a unionized structure in which a company is making a fortune, but the workers aren't getting a piece of the pie.
So GM agreed to this.
It's real easy to agree To massive retirement benefits when nobody's retired.
They were all active workers at the time.
Furthermore, corporate management is always thinking about the next quarter and the next fiscal year.
They're not thinking about, well, gee, this is going to be tough to pay out in 2006.
Who was thinking about that in 1966?
No one, not the union and not management.
But guess what?
2006 has gotten here.
The reason GM and Ford and Chrysler have a hard time competing, particularly GM, is not because their cars aren't any good.
GM's cars right now are as good as they've ever been.
This is they've got tremendous products coming out.
The Cadillac Division is outstanding.
People love the GMC trucks and SUVs.
They're doing rather well in terms of the automobiles they're building.
Their problem is they have a cost structure that is way out of whack with makers of imported automobiles.
Honda and Toyota, which are making just as many cars in the United States as GM, or so it seems, they don't have all these retirees.
They don't have all these benefits.
They don't have a pension plan.
So when GM sells a car, their cost has to include all these benefits that are being directed toward people who don't work at GM anymore.
And GM is trying desperately to solve this by offering to pay workers $140,000 to quit, doing everything they can to reduce their cost structure.
Now what does this have to do with immigration and what does it have to do with the United States?
What's happening to GM is exactly what's going to happen to our own country.
And we all know this.
Look at the Social Security crisis that is about to come.
What's the problem with GM?
Right now at GM they have five, they have one worker for every five retirees.
This is our future.
Once the baby boom all goes on to retirement age, which is coming very, very soon, and they're gonna live forever.
You're going to have all of these retirees receiving Social Security benefits that are scheduled to go up and up and up, and there won't be enough workers to be able to pay enough Social Security taxes to pay for them.
The system will go on tilt, exactly as it is at General Motors.
And we can look back at General Motors and say, well, why?
Didn't GM realize this when they were granting the benefits?
Turn it around to the United States.
We all know this is coming.
Both political parties know it's coming.
Same thing is true with Medicare.
The cost of health care is exploding.
How in the world are we going to pay all the medical bills of every baby boomer once they retire and live and then live another 40 years in retirement?
We know this is coming, but we don't do anything about it.
We don't do anything about it because politically it becomes impossible to do.
Which brings me to immigration.
We can't solve Social Security.
President Bush tried.
He put his toe in the water.
He came up with a plan I thought a very good plan.
He got pounded by the Democrats, who don't care about solving anything, particularly when they're not in power.
They only care about beating up the president and beating up the Republicans.
Timid Republicans therefore backed down.
Bush's plan went nowhere.
So we've got the Social Security problem still out there.
Nobody's doing anything about it.
Now, immigration.
We have about twelve million people in the United States illegally.
Twelve million.
Everyone agrees that that's a problem.
You've got, as I said before, nineteen different proposals on the board as to what to do about it.
I have grave doubt that anything is going to be done about it.
The Republicans, for better or worse, are at least trying.
There are several different Republican plans.
President Bush has his plan.
There's the plan that came out of the United States Senate.
Senator Frisk, the majority leader of the Senate has his own plan.
Then there's the bill in the House, which is radically different than what the president is proposing and what the Senate is proposing.
They're all different, but they're at least trying.
They are addressing the issue.
And what are they getting for that?
They're just getting killed.
Right now the Republicans have managed, and this is a mean trick, they've managed to make everyone unhappy.
Those who do not support a crackdown, those who support allowing illegal immigrants to simply stay in the United States and to allow as many others who want to come in to come in unimpeded, they're furious at the plan coming out of the House, which talks about a fence, which talks about criminalizing illegal immigration, and which talks about going after employers.
In the meantime, the plan that is coming out of the United States Senate that doesn't deal much at all with enforcement, that creates a guest worker program, that's infuriating everyone who believes that we're allowing immigrants to come into this country with impunity.
As for President Bush, he threw out his own plan, which is somewhere in between.
He's got no one happy.
So what you have now is a situation in which the Republicans find themselves for addressing the problem, they've managed to anger absolutely everyone.
In the meantime, the Democrats sit back and twiddle their thumbs.
What is the Democratic plan on illegal immigration?
Guys want to help me out on this?
What's the Democratic plan on illegal immigration?
They don't have one.
They don't have one, and they don't intend to come up with one.
They've got no plan whatsoever.
Their strategy is to wait and see whatever the Senate and the House pass, put a bill in the conference committee, maybe it mixes parts of both plans, and then they tend to vote again and tend to vote against it.
And they tend to say that the Republican plan is terrible.
And they're going to try to get other Republicans to peel off with them, chances are they will.
I think this is going to be like Social Security all over again.
And then the Democrats can A, attack the Republicans for proposing such a terrible plan in the first place, and B, attack them for not doing anything about it.
So as long as you have one political party that is not interested in fixing problems at all, and you have another political party, terrified of the consequences of addressing a problem.
Is it any surprise the problem doesn't get fixed?
Well, just as is the case with Social Security, if we don't fix illegal immigration in 2006, can you imagine what it will be in 2009 and 2013 and 2017?
If we don't get serious about dealing with these things, we're going to become France.
And if anything ought to terrify you, it's that.
Who wants to be like they are right now?
That country's falling apart.
So we need to grow up and get serious about the issue.
And I'd like to try to start doing that today, right here on Russia's program.
My name is Mark Delling.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for rush.
Okay, now let's start with this.
On the subject of illegal immigration, everybody's wrong.
Nobody's position here makes any sense.
I'm looking at President Bush's plan, I'm looking at the tough bill out of the House, the soft bill out of the Senate, I'm looking at Senator Frisk's plan.
They're all wrong.
They're all wrong.
I know this sounds arrogant, but I stand by it.
I think I'm the only person in America who's making any sense on the issue of illegal immigration.
Me.
This is what I think we have to do.
The first thing we have to do is acknowledge what the problem is.
The problem is that anyone who wants to come into the United States illegally is allowed to do so.
People say we have to increase enforcement at the border.
We don't have a border.
If twelve million people have managed to come in here illegally, how can we possibly say we have a border?
That's not even a revolving door.
It's a welcome mat.
We have declared immigration to be something that legally you have to follow this incredibly cumbersome and laborious process in which you deal with the American bureaucracy and all its ugliness, or you're violating the law.
But while we say you're violating The law, we haven't done anything about that.
We have allowed our border to be a joke.
And before we decide what we're going to do with the twelve million who are already here and what status they ought to be given, if any, we have got to address the situation on the border.
What would I do about that?
I support the fence.
It's not a perfect solution, and the fence may be something that will be able to be breached rather frequently, but at least it's something.
You need to take that entire border and it's about 700 miles that the United States shares with Mexico and put up some sort of protection, some sort of obstacle to slow down or stop people from getting across.
Coupled with that, you must dramatically increase the border patrol.
It might not stop everyone who is trying to come in, but it will certainly slow down and deter many from doing that.
But until you do that, you're not focusing on the problem.
Let's suppose we simply declare all twelve million illegal immigrants right now, guest workers, they can move towards citizenship, they can move toward legal status, and sweep the problem under the rug, which is what a lot of people want to do.
Just make it go away.
Okay, you do that.
How many more new people are going to come in right after them?
We had an amnesty about 20 years ago in 1986.
Illegal immigration increased dramatically since that point.
If we declare that twelve million people suddenly now have legal status, but don't address the border, we're going to have another 12 million within eight years.
What are we going to do then?
Come back and say, okay, well, the second twelve million, they get to stay too, they're now also guest workers.
That isn't a solution.
Any proposal out there and any program aimed at addressing illegal immigration that doesn't deal with the border isn't serious.
There is nothing wrong with putting up a fence and having a strong border patrol.
That's not racist.
It's just common sense.
If we are going to have a policy on immigration, if we are going to say there's a legal way and an illegal way to come into the United States, you have to make it harder to come in illegally.
The absurdity of the situation right now in our country is that legal immigration is very difficult.
And illegal immigration is very easy.
Why would anyone come in legally right now?
If you come in legally, you have to often demonstrate that you have a job waiting for you or you have a sponsor.
You've got to deal with the bureaucracy endlessly.
You've got to register and re-register and re-register, keep your information updated.
You've got to immediately file for all sorts of documents.
You have to get a social security number.
You have to become part of a process that is very difficult to deal with.
Talk to someone who's come to the United States legally and talk about the complete hassle that it's been for them.
On the other hand, you come in illegally, you're certain to be able to get a job, you don't have to register with anyone, you just wander on in, and we welcome you with open arms.
We've got to start to do something to make illegal immigration at least harder to do.
And I'd start with a fence, and I'd include enforcement.
And any other proposal out there without regard to what we do to the twelve million who are here that doesn't address border security is not serious.
Now the Democrats say they don't like the fence.
They're against the fence.
The New York Times is railing that the fence is absolutely contrary to everything that America stands for.
We have Lady Liberty standing out there in the New York Harbor saying, come on in, what's sign what does a fence say?
Everybody has a fence.
Everybody has Some kind of security.
If it's going to be called a border, we have to at least make it some kind of a border.
Coupled with this, however, I would make legal immigration easier.
Why do you have to go through all this rigmarole?
My immigration policy would have a tremendous bias toward allowing anybody who wants to come in to come in.
There'd be limitations, but I would make legal immigration, trying to get people who do come in from this point forward to be part of a process, to be to be part to be legitimate residents, make that easy, encourage legal immigration while at the same time deterring illegal immigration.
If you make both go hand in hand, you have a possibility of finally limiting the illegal immigration problem while encouraging people to come in legally.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush.
If you're not already a subscriber to Russia's newsletter, the Limbaugh Letter, this is a very good time to become one.
The next issue is going to feature an interview between Rush and David Horowitz.
Horowitz is a really interesting guy.
Used to be a radical, he's become a right winger, and given that he knows whereof he speaks, very, very good at debunking uh lefties.
Anyway, Horowitz is a new book entitled Professors, the 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America, and he's going to be interviewed by Russia on the uh current issue of the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
Uh you can get the Limbaugh letter at Russia's website, which is WWW.rushlimbaugh dot com.
I believe that any attempt to deal with the illegal immigration problem that doesn't start with better enforcement at the border doesn't address the problem at all.
Without regard to what you believe we ought to do to illegal immigrants who are here, we have got to make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration harder.
And it is infuriating to me that not everyone agrees with that.
How could you disagree with it?
To Cleveland, Ohio, Vince, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Uh the reason that I'm calling is regarding the border uh down with Mexico and the United States.
I think the last thing we should be looking at is a wall or a fence.
But I'm all for enforcement.
Uh Congressman Norwood from Georgia has made a proposal that it would take around 36,000 troops to patrol the border, somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 troops immediately deployed to the southern border, uh, within two weeks we could end illegal immigration in that area.
Well, only as long as they're there.
Well, uh we have troops all over the United States.
I'm a member of the Guard uh active status.
Uh already, willing, and able, we would go.
Uh the thing is, if we were on patrol, just deterrence alone, seeing uniforms on the border.
We don't need a wall.
I think a wall is a sign of weakness like Khrushchev's wall in Berlin.
Uh, like the Great Wall of China and China didn't keep the Mongols out.
Uh the Berlin Wall we're gonna be able to do.
Well, the Berlin Wall was an attempt to keep people in Berlin.
This wall would be an attempt to stop people coming out.
Now I'm not suggesting the wall is foolproof.
I'm just saying that some sort of fence, some sort of border that would make it more difficult.
I I'm not also a real strong supporter of using the American military.
I don't think that that's their function.
But I I would rather have the border patrol be empowered to do things like that, but that isn't as important to me as the notion that you have some kind of enforcement there.
I think starting with a fence makes sense because if nothing else, it will slow things down and make it more difficult.
And I'm not suggesting that you have some cheap chain-link fence that anybody with a bolt cutter can come through, build an actual wall.
It doesn't have to be the Great Wall of China, but have something there, then I do agree with you, whether they be the National Guard or the military or the border patrol, and I prefer a beefed up border patrol, you got to have people there to try to enforce that and make it difficult and make it a hassle.
But even with that, it has to be coupled with attempts to make legal immigration more attractive.
Can you think of a dumber policy, and this is our policy, a dumber policy than saying that we're going to make illegal immigration easy and legal immigration hard?
Well, I think that's what we're doing.
Mark, a hundred percent I agree with you.
I just think no matter what kind of a wall you would build, you would still have to patrol it.
Oh, I agree with that.
I agree with that.
I want to do both.
I want to do both.
I want to have a more secure border than we presently have.
And I think if you don't start at that point, you're never going to address this problem, and that number 12 million is going to get to 50 million.
Thank you for the call, Vince.
By the way, I didn't mention the number here.
It's 1800-28282 cell phone in Kalamazoo.
Mike, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Uh yeah, the cost meet I kind of got what I said wrong, but I agree with you about enforcing the border better, but we also need to cut off benefits to illegal aliens.
I mean, California got it right a few years ago when they passed that proposition, but then some judge struck it down.
Well, the problem with saying that we're going to cut off all benefits is that we're never going to cut off all benefits, as you said a federal judge struck it down.
Now I do think we've got to accept a reality.
And that reality is there are at least twelve million illegal immigrants in the United States.
And you know what?
We're not sending them back.
As much as a lot of people want to send them back, we're not going to send them back.
Right.
It is not going to happen.
And we've got to figure out what to deal with them.
I do think that one form of a guest worker program, and I don't like that term, but it's the one that's being used while roll with it, does make some sense.
I think, and this is where I park company from a lot of the hardliners that I sounded like I was with my discussion of the fence.
People who say we've got to throw everybody out, you can say that.
Just as I can say I'd like to live until I'm 195 years old, but it isn't going to happen.
It's impractical that we even think about it.
The country isn't going to stand for rounding up millions of people and throwing them out.
And we don't have a process to do it.
Virtually every deportation takes six months.
Can you imagine how long it would take to deport just five hundred thousand people, much less twelve million?
So since we're not going to throw them out, we need to come up with some sort of process to deal with them.
And I believe we need to create a process that they would gradually become legitimate residents of the United States, in which their employment becomes on the table and above board.
They don't have to keep using phony social security numbers, but they use real ones.
that employers don't face all sorts of sanctions for continuing to hire people who've worked there for a long time.
I think we've got to do all of that, because I think any other alternative isn't going to happen.
Let's accept the fact that they are here.
But once we build my fence, my glorious fence, and once we establish that these twelve million are here, they're issued cards that say you are now a legal resident of the United States.
And everybody's got to get one within a period of time.
And after that, people who don't have one will be deported without much mercy.
I think you've got to accept that the 12 million are here.
But we can't let it get to 25 or 30 or 35 million.
We've got to we've got to stop making illegal immigration so easy, but we also need to accept that the 12 million who are here are here, and in most cases are contributing to the United States of America.
Almost all of them who come here have at least one family member who tries to work.
They do seem to want to be part of the United States, although some of the protesters don't seem to want to be.
And they're contributing to our economy.
And they're doing jobs that Americans don't want to do.
So, instead of demonizing them, accept the fact that we allowed them to come in.
I don't know that it's necessarily arrogant for them to say we want to stay when we were wink, wink, nod, nodding at them when they came in.
If you're somebody who was in Mexico in 2001 and you see a border that is completely unprotected and you see thousands of your friends coming across and you see that once they get to the United States, their kids get to go to public schools, they get free health care by sheltering.
showing up at the emergency room of their choice, they get all sorts of other benefit programs.
You'd be saying to yourself, Well, I guess the United States is allowing this to occur.
For us to turn tail now and all of a sudden act shocked that we have 12 million people here and threaten to throw them all out is stupid when it was our policy to say, come on in, we welcome you in, and we're going to give you all these benefit programs.
What we need to do is change our policy.
But that means that we accept the fact that we've allowed the situation to be out of hand.
I don't think we suffer from fairly loose immigration, which is why I want this to be a process that encourages legal immigration.
What we can't have, though, is just swarms of individuals who come in and immediately tax the social service structure of a number of states like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, the border states that are really, really drowning here in this problem of illegal immigration.
But the answer isn't to throw everyone out.
The answer is to take those individuals who are here and try to make them legitimate Americans by putting them on a process toward legality, welcoming more to come in legally, but stopping future illum illegal immigration by deterring it and making it clear that from this point forward, you will be thrown out if you come in illegally.
Now that's my proposal.
The problem is that nobody agrees with it, because everybody is either a hardliner, put up a fence, throw them all out, execute them, or like some of these protesters, everybody should be able to come in.
We shouldn't be expected to assimilate into the United States.
We should still hold our rallies and wave the Mexican flag.
And as many people who want to come in get to come in.
Both positions are ludicrous.
What we need to do is something that is reasonable here.
But I think so many people are caught up in their either their idealism on the issue, or their attempts to scam our system that people don't want to come up with a process that makes some sense.
For better or worse, that one's mine.
Fullerton, California, Richard Richard, you're on EIB.
Hi, Mark.
Um the problem is uh they're all wrong, but you're wrong also.
What we've got is the biggest problem we have is Mexico's underclass, they're economically impoverished people kept that way by corrupt government built of a long-term elitist class.
How do we fix that, though?
They don't want to be Americans, they want to have money.
We need to make a way for us to spend all the billions we're spending on illegal aliens, spin it over the border, and they'll it'll suck them out of this country.
I don't agree with that.
I mean, uh the fact of the matter is that for all the anti-American sentiment that was expressed at some of these protests, America is always going to be a more attractive option than Mexico.
They're coming here for a reason.
We still have more opportunity, we have a greater lifestyle, we have better schools, we have better health care, we take care of people better, and we are going to be a magnet.
And I think that our attempts to make ourselves less attractive are just going to be counterproductive because we're always going to be a more attractive option than living in Mexico.
In fact, the biggest contributors in the Mexican economy right now are the illegal immigrants who are here, but sending money back to their families in Mexico.
Since we're having such a hard problem dealing with our own part of this, I don't know how we solve the Mexican problem.
But you are right.
Their government has been so corrupt.
And the riches that the nation has gotten since NAFTA and because of their oil have not trickled down at all to common Mexican citizens.
My name is Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
You're listening to the Rush Limbaugh program on EIB.
Your guest host is me.
My name is Mark Belling.
We're discussing the issue that is in front of the United States Senate today.
Illegal immigration.
The bill that it came out of a Senate committee, out of the Judiciary Committee, is a very soft bill.
It includes no provision for offense.
It includes no real provision for increased enforcement of the border.
They talk about increased surveillance of the border.
It would allow the illegal immigrants in the United States before 2004 to keep working legally for six years.
They would have to pay a one thousand dollar fine, clear a criminal background check.
They would then be eligible for permanent residence if they fulfill other requirements.
It would require temporary work visas for new immigrants who could also earn legal permanent resident status after six years.
It would create a guest worker program for immigrant farm workers who can move toward legal permanent residency.
It does increase the border patrol by 14,000 agents, uh, but only by 2011.
I think that it doesn't do enough at the border.
I don't have a lot of problems with the language they include for those twelve million who are here now, but what are they going to do about those who continue to come?
The problem with that legislation is that it doesn't address it.
We've got to create a new status for future illegal immigrants.
I'm willing to swallow the fact that we didn't enforce our laws for years, and there are twelve million here.
But it's not reasonable to say that we're going to allow thirty to thirty-five million to be in this country by the year twenty twenty, and all under the table and not legitimate residents of the United States, and keep calling them illegal.
I want us to be able to say that the people who are here are legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants.
Back to the telephones, Lazar in Atlanta, you're on Rush's program.
Hi, uh Mark.
Hi.
Rush uh Limbo stands for relentless pursuit of the truth.
And that's one thing that I love about Rush.
Uh you made the statement earlier this uh program saying that the Republicans have something or are doing something about this, and the Democrats are not doing, and that is just factually not right because the bill that actually is the most uh worked with, the one that is really in the front, I guess with some amendments here and there, is actually the bill it's called McCain and Kennedy.
Right.
That's close to what's come out of the Judiciary Committee, the bill that I described.
Right, but that's the only but see, as far as you know, a bill that is totally formed, that's pretty much the only one that is.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, fine.
So we'll Lazar, let's get to reality.
When this bill, if the legislation that came out of the Senate, the McCain f the McCain Kennedy bill altered a little bit by Senator Spector and the Judiciary Committee.
If that bill got to the floor, do you think your Democrats would vote for it?
Well, let me let me let you know.
They're not going to vote, they're not going to vote for anything on the floor because they're going to find whatever negatives are in it and try to tire the Republicans with it in November.
Just as they didn't have a plan on Social Security, still don't.
They don't have a plan in Iraq, they didn't have a plan in Iraq, still don't.
They don't have a plan on security in the United States, they never will.
They just want to criticize everything that is out that is that is proposed.
Now let's imagine they take the portions of the House bill, which call for more enforcement, merge it with the legislation in the Senate, and come up with a bill that includes a guest worker program, legal status for those who are here, and increased enforcement, which is pretty much what I would like to see us do.
Do you think the Democrats will back that?
Okay, Mark, let me let me say this in very brief.
I'll accept that as a no.
I agree with what you're saying.
Wholeheartedly, I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a liberal.
That's exactly why that's how their behavior has been so far.
No question about it.
But I think at this point, the reality is that there are more Democrats, at least as far as signing on the bill, than the Republicans for one thing.
And second, you have you're telling me you're asking me if I think that the Democrats will vote for it.
I think they will, and that's why because of the elections that are coming up, and it's a political stake, and they are always trying to strategize.
I do not I can be proven wrong as always.
I do not believe the Democrats will vote for any bill that passes.
My name is Mark Gelling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
NBC News and the Wall Street Journal conducted a poll recently, and most Americans are not on the side of the protesters.
They want a much tougher immigration policy.
Fifty nine percent oppose the guest worker plan.
Seventy one percent said they would vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration uh controls.
In the meantime, the Republican Party itself is splintering off in all of these different factions.
The reason is it is a very hard issue, and I think the only way to solve it is to get tough on future illegal immigrants, but accept the fact that many are already here.
▲
Export Selection