All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
May 30, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So on, I guess it was Friday, Dawn came up to me very excitedly.
She said, I'm going to do my Allen Brothers hot dogs this weekend.
I said, what day?
She said, Monday.
I said, well, let me know how you like them.
He's all excited about Allen Brothers hot dogs.
So I asked her today, I said, well, we didn't get to taste them.
They got burned.
They got burned?
How can that happen?
They got burned.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and we are back ready to go here on the EIB network.
Our telephone number, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Dawn, I have to ask you this because I forgot to ask you, did you put every hot dog that you bought from Allen Brothers on the grill and every hot dog you bought burned, or did you still have some in the fridge and just didn't bother to go back and still have some in the freezer and didn't go back?
I can't believe it.
You had a reserve supply.
You burned the initial a lot.
Oh, Dawn, I can't believe you.
When's the next time you're going to have a barbecue?
4th of July, probably?
Oh, I can't believe it.
I had some Allen Brothers hot dogs over the weekend and some other stuff.
Did you, Brian?
No, no, no.
Well, anyway, folks, I hope your Memorial Day weekend was everything that you expected it to be.
Hope you all had a great time.
Time to get back down to business here at the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservatives.
What?
What now?
What are you laughing at now?
Time to.
What business is out there to get down to?
What are you telling me you think this is a slow news day?
You can't be serious.
I've got news overload here today.
My problem is squeezing it all in.
I want to start with the concept.
I want to start with illegal immigration because I continue to be stunned by this, but I want to start with a concept.
Have you people who've been paying attention to this noticed that the conventional wisdom inside the beltway is that we've got to get a bill?
We have to have a bill if the Republicans don't get a bill.
And this is primarily coming, I have to tell you, I'm going to call him out here.
It's primarily coming from the White House spin machine and the Weekly Standard people, Bill Crystal and Fred Barnes.
And they're all out there saying, there's got to be a bill.
Why, if there's no bill, I'll never grow.
It's the end of the president's presidency.
I mean, the epitome of lame duck.
If he can't get this done, why it's over for Bush.
And for a lot of people, it's already over for Bush when it comes to immigration and a number of other things.
And I'm talking about in the conservative base.
It is this notion that we have to have legislation for legislation's sake is typical thinking from people inside the beltway who believe that nothing good happens without it first originating in Washington and in government.
And as conservatives, ladies and gentlemen, this is anathema to us.
It is pure anathema.
And the idea that a bunch of conservatives are running around saying that, well, if we don't get a bill, nothing happens.
In fact, nothing good can happen unless we get a bill.
And I think it is hilarious how all these people now insist that Congress has to do something, has to do something, even if it's damaged, even if it's the wrong thing to do.
Congress has to do something.
And notice, though, in this whole concept of doing something, nobody is pressuring the Senate to accept the House version.
Nobody's pressuring McCain.
You know, are you prepared to make some compromises with the House?
All the pressures being brought to bear on the members of the House of Representatives.
They don't pressure the Senate to accept the House version, or voters will respond by throwing out senators.
They always say, if the House doesn't do the right thing here, why voters are going to throw members of the House out?
Well, for all of you who think that there has to be a bill in order for something good to happen, it's time to go back to limbo fundamentals.
It's time to go back to conservative fundamentals because this is the kind of thinking that grows government, the kind of thinking that disempowers average citizens, the kind of thinking that causes everybody to get up and the first thing they do, look in whatever direction for them Washington is and ask, how are you going to make our lives better today?
When the fact of the matter is they've got so little to do with making your lives better, most of that's up to you.
And we love government shutdowns here.
We love congressional recesses here.
We love when nothing gets done because odds are no damage is going to occur and no taxes are going to be increased.
No regulations are going to be written.
It is classic fundamentalism here.
The Weekly Standard is, let me just read this from Mickey Kaus.
Mickey Kaus is a blogger.
And he says, the bogus conventional wisdom on immigration crumbles.
How wrong can you be?
He asks this wrong.
And then he quotes Fred Barnes from the Weekly Standard in April.
The immigration issue has flipped in President Bush's favor.
The public now firmly supports toughened border enforcement, plus, and this is a big plus for the president, a system for letting illegal immigrants already in America earn citizenship.
The ones with the politically untenable position are Democrats who want an immigration issue, but not actual legislation to use against Republicans in November, and Republicans who want merely to increase border security.
The upshot is that an immigration bill appears likely, but not certain, to pass when Congress returns in the Easter recess on April 24th and probably in a comprehensive form congenial to Bush and Republican congressional leaders.
Senate Majority Bill Frist, House Speaker Denny Hastert have indicated they back this approach, not a bill simply calling for stronger border security.
The turning point came in March.
That's from Fred Barnes, bordering on Victory Weekly Standard, April 24th.
Denny Hastert has flipped on this.
Denny Hastert has said he's not going to bring a vote to the floor unless the majority of his caucus supports it.
I don't know what they're drinking over there at the standard.
I'll tell you, you might want to go out and ask some people about this, ladies and gentlemen.
You might go on to ask people like Chris Cannon what he thinks in Utah.
Chris Cannon is an open borders guy.
He had a scary primary.
He's got a runoff.
Well, not a runoff.
He's got his general election in June, June 27th, and everybody's going to be watching that election.
He's polling right now 48 to 28 over his opponent, who is a get tough on illegal immigration opponent.
And if Chris Cannon, if he loses this or even just slightly wins it, House Republicans are going to be looking at this and are going to be saying, there's no way we're going along with the Senate bill.
You might want to go out and ask the former mayor of Herndon, Virginia, what he thinks about the conventional wisdom on illegal immigration, or ask Congressman Tom Osborne in Nebraska what he thinks.
He went down to defeat running for governor in Nebraska because he's an open borders guy on immigration.
And then we have this from the state of Washington.
It's from the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
The Washington State Republican Party has adopted a resolution calling for an end to the Constitution's guarantee of automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Delegates supporting that platform said their concerns included the cost of public hospitals and the expense of welfare for the children of indigent or deported illegal immigrants.
I don't think voters, I think voters realize immigration is a problem.
We're trying to grapple with solutions to the illegal immigration problems that Diane Tublis, the state GOP chairwoman, is the resolution which was adopted on Sunday with a little debate and few dissenting votes.
So again, in Utah, we see Representative Chris Cannon face the closest primary of his career on this one issue alone.
The sitting governor in Nebraska, appointed after the former governor, was named Agriculture Secretary by President Bush.
Sitting governor won a primary he was expected to lose to Congressman Osborne because the governor vetoes an in-state tuition bill for illegals in Virginia.
We saw the mayor of Herndon and most of the city council wiped out over this issue.
There's a rebellion going on out there within the Republican base, within the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which is its majority.
The people inside the beltway don't get it.
They're still stuck on this notion: we've got to get a bill.
If we don't get a bill, why it's bad for the president?
Why the president will be a lame duck if it'll send a signal to Democrats that a do-nothing Congress can campaign on that.
This whole notion that even if it's bad, even if it's a mistake, we've got to get a bill, is emanating from people who live, work, and breathe, drink, sleep, and drive inside the Beltway, where what government does is first and foremost, secondmost, tertiary.
It's the only thing that matters, what's happening in government every day.
And that's why there is a huge disconnect here on this issue between people inside the Beltway and the voters and the citizens of this country.
I have to take a quick timeout.
Do that and be back right after this and continue.
And we're back, El Rushbow, America's real anchor man here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Over the weekend, I received a memo, third hand.
I'm not on the direct mailing list.
Matthew Dowd, the senior strategist for the Republican National Committee, who has worked for Bush and works for McCain, sent out this memo to the GOP: Stop Worrying and Love the Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate.
Stop talking about how this is the only way the Republican Party can advance is if the Senate bill is passed, if the House finds a way to compromise with it.
And I'll tell you what, folks, what is going on here is real simple.
The powers that be in the Washington Republican Party establishment are trying to come up with a way to accommodate both President Bush and Senator McCain, both of whom, well, McCain primarily made some in his recent immigration speech allusions to border security, but let's be honest.
Used to start talking about border security first, and you lose the Senate.
You lose the inside the Beltway Republican intelligentsia when you start talking about border security first.
And that's all that really is at stake here.
I mean, that's what people want first.
It's real simple.
You know, we get all tied up here defending things instead of advancing principles.
Most of these issues like illegal immigration are far simpler than people would have us believe.
Most of the time here's taken up unraveling the spin of the other side and clearing out the clutter rather than just advancing principles.
And that's because the Republican Party in power inside the Beltway has eschewed conservative principles for its own political hackdom.
So this memo goes out saying, well, the Republicans will go down to stinging defeat, lose everything, including the White House at 08, unless the Senate bill is passed pretty much intact as is.
Now, John Fund today in the opinionjournal.com section of Wall Street Journal's website talks about Chris Cannon, the Utah congressman I opened the program talking about, and how close his race is.
And he mentions the other candidates that I have mentioned to you also in discussing the vulnerability that Republicans face from their own base out there, outside the Beltway.
He mentions Mike Pence's Congressman Mike Pence and his compromise proposal.
And as Fund writes about it, he says, proposal already building bridges between the warring immigration camps.
Tamar Jacobi, a pro-immigration scholar at the Manhattan Institute, says the Pence approach is a middle ground that bypasses the cumbersome federal bureaucracy.
James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a fierce opponent of President Bush's approach, is also conciliatory.
A guest worker program, I think, could be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty, he says.
So there's movement out there.
But what the Fund piece points out is that Tom Osborne lost Chris Shays, moderate Republican, is changing his mind on this in Connecticut after having all these town meetings.
Chris Shays told Fund that his recent town hall meetings in his upper income district have convinced him he must oppose citizenship for illegal aliens.
I mean, I'm not kidding.
I mean, this is all being missed by the people inside the beltway.
So what Fund's piece here is an attempt to do is to position Mike Pence's suggestion, compromise, as something that will work and save people.
But this still misses the point because it's still founded in this notion, there has to be a bill.
Legislation for legislation's sake.
And that whole idea is just, as I say, folks, it's anathema.
The idea that we have to have a bill just because we have to have a bill, even if it's bad, to me, it would be hilarious if it weren't so onerous what is being talked about here.
By the way, the Washington Post, I'm going to go back to what Fred Barnes wrote back in March, talking about how Haster had flipped and that is now on the president's side in this whole thing.
There's a piece, I guess, in Sunday's Washington Post, Republican House members facing the toughest races this fall are overwhelmingly opposed to any deal that provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, an election year dynamic that significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he's seeking.
This, according to Republican lawmakers and leadership aides, the opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans.
Despite some national polls showing strong support for a comprehensive solution of the sort favored by Bush, nearly every GOP lawmaker interviewed for the Post article said the House plan to secure the borders and enforce existing immigration laws is unquestionably the safer political stand in his or her district.
Many Democrats from vulnerable districts say the same thing, although the Democratic caucus as a whole is more sympathetic to a Senate-style compromise.
Well, of course, they are.
It's a pathway to more Democratic votes.
It's a pathway to the eventual destruction of the Republican Party.
That's what's so nonsensical about this.
Yesterday on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Steve Scully, the host, talking to the editor-in-chief of the hotline, Chuck Todd, Scully says, How will the immigration issue play out this year, Chuck?
I tell you, I don't think they're going to come up with a deal.
I think House Republicans, in their own mind, think this is their opportunity to excite the base.
You have Rush Limbaugh going on the air saying, forget the Senate, folks.
The House is the only place where there are any conservatives left in Washington, and they're the only ones fighting on immigration.
I think these guys are going to use this as a wedge to make sure, because they think at the end of the day, they can't win without the base turning out, and they'd rather kowtow to the base on this and fire them up and figure that they'll try to win with 51%.
And, you know, there's an addendum to this.
Why is the House conservative Republican caucus?
Why are they so up in arms?
There's a whole bunch of reasons.
And you could throw in the William Jefferson office raid here to explain some of the actions.
The House leadership feels totally sold out by the White House on a number of issues.
In the first place, Porter Goss.
Porter Goss, a huge friend of Denny Hastert's.
And he was thrown under the bus by the president despite promises to Goss that he would not be dispatched in this way.
On Iraq and illegal immigration, which two issues that the House Republicans are most afraid of this November, House leadership has not gotten any help from the White House.
In fact, to the contrary, the House is hanging tough against the Senate amnesty bill, and the president sent Rove up there to try to talk the guys in the House out of their position on this.
And then you have the situation with the William Jefferson search, and it all just came to a boil.
But the notion here that the House is on the verge of compromising with the Senate, it's just the exact opposite.
And Chuck Todd pretty much has it right here, as does the Washington Post, amazingly so, that the conservatives in the House who are in touch with their base, you understand entirely what they face should they do the wrong thing.
It is not the case that legislation for legislation's sake will save the Republican Party at the polls this November or 2008.
Doing the wrong thing and in the process ignoring the expressed will of millions of Americans is what will do great damage, perhaps irreversible.
All right, a quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Lots more in the stacks of stuff today.
Sit tight, the EIB network continues.
Don't forget what I told you last week, folks.
There is a I sized this immigration bill up.
And when I was making jokes about it, I was closer to being right than I even knew at the time.
But I ought to take example or take advantage of my own example.
And every time I make a joke about something or somebody, it seems to always come true.
In this case, the joke was that we were looking for extended numbers of Democrat voters and the Democrats needing new victims.
And lo and behold, that's what this bill is, is the Senate side of this.
It's not even about immigration per se, as we have as we've always known it.
But there's something else going on here, too.
As we know, the liberals are doing their best to destroy conservatives.
That's their game, and that's predictable.
I think the Republican country clubbers and blueblooders are trying to do the same thing, are trying to ace out conservatives.
I think there is a deep resentment among the Republican elites and has been since Reagan took over the Republican Party and made it a conservative party.
There's been a deep resentment for the fact that so many conservatives are Christians, evangelicals, they're pro-life.
These things are embarrassing to the elites who have to go to these cocktail parties and defend their association with these kind of hicks.
And in light of this, I want to go back and play Chuck Todd's question and answer, his answer to Steve Scully from C-SPAN's Washington Journal again.
Listen to this.
I'll tell you, I don't think they're going to come up with a deal.
I think House Republicans, in their own mind, think this is their opportunity to excite the base.
You have Rush Limbaugh going on the air saying, forget the Senate, folks.
The House is the only place where there are any conservatives left in Washington, and they're the only ones fighting on immigration.
I think these guys are going to use this as a wedge to make sure, because they think at the end of the day, they can't win without the base turning out, and they'd rather kowtow to the base on this and fire them up and figure that they'll try to win with 51%.
Now, what's wrong with this?
What's wrong with this is this whole notion that conservatives, the House conservatives, are going to try to use this as a wedge because they think at the end of the day, they can't win without the base turning out.
And they'd rather kowtow to the base.
Notice that listening to your boss, listening to the person who elects you, listening to the person you represent is kowtowing.
Now, what this means is that inside the beltway, we are all thought of as a bunch of hicks and a bunch of hayseeds.
We have to be kow-towed to.
We have to be pandered to and so forth.
Well, the truth is, we didn't pick this fight.
We don't look to create a wedge issue here.
We are not into wedge politics.
We're standing on principle.
This is what conservatives do.
Long-held positions about the rule of law, long-held positions about border security, long-held positions about limiting entitlements.
There's so much wrong in this Senate bill that offends our principles and our sensibilities.
We don't believe in expanding government as conservatives.
We don't believe in legislation for legislation's sake.
We don't believe in expanding entitlement programs and the social safety net.
We're for reducing it because that's real compassion when it comes to human beings, teaching them to fend for themselves, those that are capable of it.
Border security is a principle.
It's not a wedge issue for crying out loud.
Without a border, you don't have a country.
Whenever conservatives take a stand, we are said to be looking for hot-button issues or wedge issues.
And the people that talk about us have no clue who we are and what we stand for, even after all of these years.
And so don't get caught up in the same mindset that the inside the beltway crowd gets caught up in, folks, because it's something that's entirely foreign to, well, not entirely, but it's largely foreign to the hubbub and the daily activity of everyday life in this country.
If anybody is out of touch, and if anybody's trying to wedge anybody, it's the Senate led by Senator McCain and the missteps that have taken place in the White House on this and other Republican elites who want to cast us as restrictionists, nativists, and all that.
When, as I say, things are much simpler than they usually appear to be.
This is an issue about border security, and it's not being dealt with.
It's just that simple.
All this other stuff is, well, we got a labor shortage.
We need to keep this labor company.
We can deal with that, but we've got to have border security first.
They say, well, let's do it all at the same time.
You can't do border security, wait a couple of years.
Yes, we can.
It's a principle.
It's the right thing.
It is what's the best thing to do is to secure the border.
Especially when you look at the sad-sack state of the Mexican economy, there is nothing down there that's going to stop these people from heading this way other than our own border security.
Here's Carolyn in Kirkwood, Missouri, near St. Louis.
Great to have you on the program, Carolyn.
Thank you.
I agree with everything you just said.
It's completely right on.
And I'm calling for two reasons.
The first one is that I am so mad at this whole John McCain issue.
I think he is a totally dangerous person.
I resent the fact that the rest of the Republican Party has to kowtow to him.
And I wish there was some way we could rise up and get rid of him or let the Republican Party know we're not going to go for this plan.
There is.
There is.
It's called the presidential primary.
Now, that's not going to get rid of him as a senator.
But if you're worried, it's called elections.
That's how it happens in this country.
If he's in the primaries in the 2008 presidential, you and others will have a chance to express your just expressed preference.
Well, I guess that's, we'll have to wait till then.
But the other thing I don't hear anybody talking about, but I think you mentioned earlier today that somebody was talking about, is that I don't think nine out of ten of the immigrants, the illegal immigrants that are in this country today came here because they wanted to be citizens.
They came here to earn some money and improve their economic lives.
I don't know why everybody's worried about giving them citizenship.
They didn't even want that in the first place.
And I think they would be just as happy if we just left them alone, the ones that are here, and let them earn money and do it, you know, pay taxes or go home or whatever and just forget about the whole citizenship thing.
Well, I think there is a certain element of truth in that, judging by some of the protests that have occurred.
The people on those protest marches have essentially asked to be exempted from U.S. law.
How dare we stand up for our own laws and enforce them against them?
Yeah, they have no respect for us or our laws or our system.
They don't have any respect at all.
So I mean, I don't think they deserve to be citizens.
And I think if you come into this country illegally, you ruin your chances of becoming a citizen, period.
Well, you should.
I mean, you should.
And I know you're making the judgment that if they're here illegally, they're here illegally and therefore trying to game the system, therefore not really trying to become citizens.
Those who want to immigrate and become citizens go through the legal channels to do so.
I don't know for sure how many illegals there are in this country.
And so I find it difficult to, on a grand scale, impugn them and their character.
They, when you boil this down, are not the problem here in the sense of solving the issue.
The first thing that nothing else in this is relevant right now except for border security.
And the fact that so many people don't care about that is troubling.
It's problematic.
And those people who elected officials who don't really care about border security are going to have to face their voters at some time on that issue.
And they will find out.
Just as Chris Cannon has found out, just as Coach Osborne found out, just as Chris Shays in Connecticut is finding out from his town hall meetings.
And I'll tell you what, if a moderate liberal Republican in Connecticut is hearing about this from his wealthy, moderate Republican constituents and Democrat constituents, then I guarantee you it's an issue hotter in other parts of the country.
But I think, you know, here we go.
The Pence, Mike Pence said, I love the guy, but he's come up with this compromise bill to bridge the gap between the House bill and the Senate bill.
And I fear that what its purpose is, is to come up with a way to accommodate Bush and McCain.
They are the two ranking Republican principles in this.
And I'm sure there's some think, my God, we can't let him go down to defeat on this.
Why?
What would it say about him?
Oh, my gosh, and the president loses this.
Why?
This is horrible.
So we got to come up with a way legislation for legislation's sake.
So the political class is aligning to protect itself here down the road.
And under the rubric of legislation for legislation's sake, why we have to get a bill.
And that's what's now guiding this on, I guess, what would I say, the pro-illegal immigration side of this.
And again, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is fundamental and it offends me greatly.
This notion that only with legislation can decent things or the right things happen.
Can we look at recent Senate action and take a look at just how well it panned out?
Sarbanes-Oxley is not panning out very well.
How about McCain and Feingold and their campaign finance reform?
Whenever the Senate puts reform, comprehensive reform in something, go back and look at it, and you tell me if what happened is what was supposed to happen in the legislation.
It was not, and it hardly ever is, particularly when it comes out of this massive Senate reform blah, blah, whatever follows that.
Legislation for legislation's sake is not the answer to serious problems.
Hi, welcome back.
El Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling maha-rushy behind the golden EIB microphone.
Leon in Nashville.
Leon, welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
I appreciate it very much.
This morning, El Rushbow, I walked into my Los McDonald's to have my morning fare of Huevos Rancheros, sorry, sausage and biscuit.
And I saw a copy of the USA Today.
And when I saw that, no, well, I'll never buy it, okay?
I just picked it.
It was laying on the table.
So we're not spending any money on it.
We're just looking at what the opposition is doing, okay?
And there was a result of a survey that they did of the American people regarding the immigration issues.
And it was obvious that the survey, that the wrong results of the survey didn't match their preconceived criteria.
So they split the survey into four groups so that they could report that the American people were divided on the immigration issue.
I saw conservatives, you know, immigrants.
Testing, one, two, three.
Can callers hear me?
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
Okay, yeah, I just want to make sure.
I'm trying to stop you because I've got a time constraint problem here.
I've got the poll.
I've seen it.
And you're exactly right.
They didn't get what they want, so they had to divide the poll into four groups and then add those groups up in a convoluted way.
The four groups are starkly at odds on basic issues, making it difficult to see common ground.
No one in the hardliner group supports a proposal to allow illegal immigrants to work toward citizenship, but more than three-fourths of those in the other three groups do.
The Senate bill includes such a provision.
The House bill doesn't.
Let me tell you what the elephant in the room here is, Leon.
The elephant in the room is that this poll deals strictly and with nothing other than what to do with illegals currently here.
That's all this poll is about.
The elephant in the room that the USA Today poll did not get into was that 75% of the American people want a secure border.
That was in a poll last week that we shared with you, and it stunned everybody, and it's got everybody on the pro-illegal immigration side of this really convoluted.
So you get a poll like this from USA Today, which has to separate the hardliners and then add the other groups up so that they're larger than the hardliner.
I mean, listen to this.
It is so pathetically obvious what is being attempted here.
The four groups are starkly at odds on basic issues, making it difficult to see common ground.
No one in the hardliner group supports a proposal to allow illegal immigrants to work towards citizenship, but more than three-fourths of those in the other three groups do.
So you add three groups up and you get a larger number than the others in the hardliner group.
And then you point out the Senate bill includes such a provision.
Look, these people in the media and the elites everywhere can continue to get this issue wrong all they want.
They have to be trying to get it wrong.
These people inside the beltway have, you talk about out of touch.
They are just not in touch at all or have the slightest understanding.
And it's patently obvious on this issue at least.
They haven't the slightest understanding where the American people are on this.
And if they do understand it, they resent it and are trying to say, well, the American people are a bunch of idiots on this.
They don't really know what they're talking about.
We can't really let them win the day on this.
Why are they unsophisticated, uneducated, uninformed opinion of why we can't do this?
So anyway, I appreciate the call, Leon.
Let me grab one more before we have to go, and that's Dean in Chicago.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Just a quick comment.
I think that the birthright citizenship, which everybody asserts in the 14th Amendment, really isn't there.
And I think that is really ripe for a challenge.
The 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
And obviously, illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because if they were, they would turn themselves in and be deported.
And they're not doing that.
And I would find it hard to believe that a child of an illegal alien would assume the same, not hard.
The child of the illegal alien would, in fact, assume the same status as his parents.
And the Supreme Court has never directly dealt with the issue of the status of illegal children of illegal aliens born in the United States.
It did deal with a case in 1884 having to do with an American Indian who sought to vote in an election in Nebraska and had renounced his tribal affiliation.
And the Supreme Court rejected the argument, saying he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even though he was born in the United States.
So it's the illegality that is the focus.
And I think although there's really not much law on this issue, I think it would really be subject to a really interesting argument before the Supreme Court on whether children of illegal aliens do have a birthright citizenship.
Yeah, I think, well, I mentioned earlier, the Washington State Republican Party has already passed a resolution suggesting that this be changed.
A lot of other people are talking about it as an ongoing solution.
They're talking about it in the context of a constitutional amendment.
Maybe a legal test case will happen.
But this is something that's going to gain momentum, too.
It's going to be a while because it's such a long-standing provision.
You're born here, you're a citizen.
But the fact that so many people are now looking at this as perhaps a way of dealing with this is a sure sign that they are dissatisfied with the way it's being dealt with in Washington by their elected leaders.
And at some point in all this, something's got to give.
And we will be here when it gives, ladies and gentlemen.
It'll give big back after this.
The problem with the test case on the 14th Amendment and citizenship for the children of illegals is that the courts are activists.
The courts actually said education for these kids is constitutional.
So we can't, it has to be a constitutional amendment.
▲
Export Selection