All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
May 30, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'd say it's amazing what we don't know out there versus what we think we know.
We think, well, I don't think, but some of you might think because you're being told that we are destroying species on this planet left and right because of our profligate ways.
A U.S. entomologist has just discovered several new aquatic insect species in Thailand.
Some of the bugs pack quite a powerful bite, ladies and gentlemen.
Greetings and welcome back.
We're finding new species all over the place.
Yet it's Panic City out there.
We're destroying the planet.
Bunch of lies, it's a hoax.
EIB network Rush Limbaugh back.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Time now, ladies and gentlemen, to get to the immigration stack of stuff as successful.
No, no, no, no.
Re-cue that.
What was that anyway?
Okay, something else.
Are you going to surprise me with something and I don't know what's coming?
Okay, stand by.
I'll give you the Q-tone when it's ready to start the tune.
I've successfully put off the immigration stack until the second hour, just to get some variety in this, but it's time to get to it now.
And as we always do, we introduce our discussion of illegal immigration in the Senate bill, legislation to destroy the Republican Party.
We all stand for the Star-Spanglish banner.
That's Jose and the Illegals, or Jose E. Los Ilegales and the Star-Spanglish Banner.
Great to have you with us, by the way, on the program today.
This from the Salt Lake Tribune just updated mere moments ago.
Angry Utahn by the hundreds are calling, emailing, and faxing Senator Bob Bennett, Republican, Utah, demanding that he oppose an immigration bill that's in the Senate right now.
The voters generally receive a coy answer.
Bennett said, my public position is I'm reviewing the amendments.
It is a ploy to diffuse emotion.
But here's what Bennett's staffers are not saying.
He plans to vote for it.
And he points to St. George as part of the reason why.
St. George, the fastest growing metro area in the nation, mostly because people from California and Las Vegas continue to relocate there in many ways, this Washington County economic powerhouse fueled by workers from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Bennett said, one of the realities is our economy is dependent on labor that's coming from illegal immigrants, and that is true of St. George.
Now, Orrin Hatch has not said how he's going to vote on this, but his office has been hit by a whole lot of similar things, deluge of voters arguing against the compromise.
Senator Hatch's spokeswoman, Heather Barney, said the intensity of the callers is tremendous.
Many are very, very angry.
This is the thing that irritates me about this.
I don't think right now they care what you think.
They cared what you thought when it came to the Dubai ports deal, but they don't care what you think about this.
They are locking arms in the Senate to force this on the country, and it's nothing short of scary.
Many people have said they've never seen quite a divide between constituents and representatives and senators in a long time, and it seems to be deepening.
The more they hear from you, it seems like the more dug in on their position to oppose what you want they become.
It's like a human nature thing in the sense that nobody likes to be told what to do.
I'm not saying some of these guys don't support it on their own for whatever inexplicable reasons to us, but it is clear that all of this outpouring of complaints that they're hearing is causing them to stiffen their backs.
Now, there are a lot of things if you read this bill that, and the first two stories I have here in the stack, are indications.
There's all kinds of things in this bill that literally make no sense.
And the president's out there saying, read the bill.
I'm wondering who has read the whole bill, who is supporting it.
Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, has done some great work on chain migration.
You know what chain migration is.
If you don't, stick with me on this.
Chain migration, according to Stanley Kurtz, killing Europe and causing serious difficulties here in the United States as well.
In conjunction with New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, I just heard something else.
Is something wrong?
Just heard.
All right.
Never mind, folks, a little internal noise.
In conjunction with New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they're sponsoring amendments designed to strengthen and expand family reunification policies, thus making the chain migration problem far worse than it already is.
Now, the point is, everybody's out there saying this is not about families.
Well, it's about families and meritocracy.
It's about work.
But the fact is, it is about families.
The other day, Senator Menendez gave a speech in which he rejected the term chain migration as dehumanizing.
Well, it's a helpful term in common use among academics, very much including academics who have no problem at all with chain migration.
But Kurtz links to an article on chain migration among Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. and the piece gives supporters and opponents of the practice a chance to sound off.
Now, the picture it paints, according to Stanley Kurtz at NRO, is far from comforting.
The article focuses on the story of one man, his name is Pablo Balthazar, legalized in the 86 amnesty, Simpson Mazzoli.
Baldazar was able to bring over the entire extended Balthazar family by importing all nine of his siblings, followed by their spouses and their children.
More disturbing, and in a clear echoing of the European pattern, the article notes: chain migration has cleared out an entire village in Mexico, and it's turned areas of rural North Carolina into places where Spanish is the dominant language.
And that's the heart of the problem.
Not only does chain migration make nonsense of numerical limits, it transfers entire extended clans, even whole villages from one country to another.
By setting up a little world that's culturally and linguistically just like the originating country, chain migration effectively blocks assimilation.
And this bill promotes chain migration while people are out there saying it does just the opposite.
Amnesty isn't the only serious danger in this bill.
If either the Clinton or Obama amendments pass, the story of the Baltazar Klan will be magnified many times over.
But the kicker is that while claiming to end chain migration, the immigration bill, as written, will actually accelerate extended family reunification by clearing out the huge existing applicant backlog for the next eight years.
So even without the Clinton and Obama amendments, we're looking at a possible chain migration fiasco with this bit of legislation.
And those of you in this audience instinctively know this because it's happening now to one degree or another.
And then we have Senator Bennett, God love him, God bless him, talking about how we need these illegals to support the economic base of an area in his state of Utah.
And once again, we're, I guess, being asked to accept the notion that the future of America is dependent on low-wage, uneducated, unskilled labor.
Mind-boggling.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Just got a note from a friend who says that when Hillary heads into Utah to campaign, she'll probably announce she's discovered some long-lost Hispanic bloodline in her family.
Wear a sombrero to the campaign appearance instead of a Yankee hat.
Welcome back.
El Rushbow, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have while in service to humanity.
Wall Street Journal today, their editorial, also available at opinionjournal.com on the legal visa crunch.
And this, and the Wall Street Journal, pretty much in support of this bill, or they have been.
This editorial says the Senate bill is worse than current law for skilled immigrants.
And I don't have time to read the whole thing here, but we will link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
The vote last week to have the size of a guest worker program for low-skilled workers, a big step in the wrong direction, they say.
Skimping on visas will only lead to more illicit border crossings.
The theory being that if you let 400 grand in here a year, you're going to put less pressure on people coming in illegally.
What's the difference?
I swear, I swear some of this just does not computer make any sense at all.
Whether you call, what do you think 400,000 are coming in legally or not?
They're all going to be legal once they get here, once this thing passes.
This notion that they have to have been here prior to January 1st, who's going to be able to prove that?
Or disprove it when somebody says that they were when they weren't.
At any rate, the goal here is to move immigration policy away from a system based on family connections and toward one based on skills.
The Senate measure calls for a merit system that awards points to would-be immigrants based on their education and work experience.
But employers who recruit foreign professionals and aren't too keen on Uncle Sam taking over those duties are balking at the proposal in the Senate on grounds that it'll introduce all sorts of inefficiencies to their hiring.
Now, we're talking about legal here.
This is stunning to go through this.
And when you look at the hoops and the restrictions that are being placed on legal immigrants, highly skilled, educated people from around the world who want to come into this country, when you look at the hoops they have to jump through and the limits, and boy, we are going out of our way to control a number of those that can get in here.
Yeah, we're going to raise their fees.
I mean, we're treating the legals here as though they're the illegals.
U.S. businesses aren't looking for skilled workers in general.
They're looking for people with specific skills.
And in the high-tech industry, especially, where the demand for new products and services is constantly changing, employers need the flexibility to fill critical positions as quickly as possible.
The last thing Hewlin-Packard or Texas Instruments needs is uncertainty about whether the workers they want to hire will pass some bureaucratic point test.
If the Senate wants the U.S. to keep attracting the world's best and brightest, this bill is an odd way of showing it.
So here, in the legal side, we are focusing on merit, not families.
On the illegal side, it's chain migration.
Okay, Pablo, come on in, and then bring everybody and your brothers, your sisters, and their wives in there.
It can bring everybody in, Pablo.
Not based on merit at all.
In fact, on the illegal side, the less merit, the less skill, apparently, the better.
Last month, the supply of H-1B temporary visas for foreign professionals not only ran out in one day, but it did so six months before the October start of the 2008 fiscal year.
It's the fourth straight year that companies in America have exhausted the supply of H-1B temporary visas.
These are highly educated, qualified immigrants, before the start of the year, which is a clear market signal that the cap should be raised.
The number of people should be allowed in, if not removed.
The Senate bill would increase the supply of H-1Bs by 50,000 to 115,000 and put in place a market-based escalator that couldn't exceed 180,000.
Now, the journal says here that that's an improvement, but it will still leave too many firms in the lurch.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of about 100,000 jobs per year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014.
Worse, the visa increase is combined with other provisions that seem designed to make employing foreign professionals both costly and cumbersome.
Larger companies can probably live with the proposed increase in the fee for each H-1B visa hire and renewal.
It's going to go to $5,000 from $1,500.
But companies would also be forced to prove for the years surrounding the hiring of a foreigner six months before, six months after, that a U.S. worker has not been displaced.
Unbelievable.
So we're going to go out and we're going to hire, we're going to allow 180,000 max qualified, highly educated and skilled workers to come in, but the employer has to prove that a qualified American hasn't lost his job in the process.
Now, one of the reasons for this so-called economic boom that's taking place in Senator Bennett's Utah, and he says in Georgetown, we couldn't get away.
This community wouldn't survive without the influx of the illegal immigrant labor force.
Why do you think that is?
Why people are fleeing California and Arizona in droves to get away from the influx?
Some of this stuff is so plain as day, it's right out in the front of everybody's nose to see, and it's just being ignored.
That town in Utah would not be booming if so many people from California and Arizona, California and Arizona weren't leaving the states and fleeing for their lives.
That's why that town is booming because people are moving to Utah, they're moving to Idaho, they're moving to Montana, other places from California and from Arizona.
Meanwhile, on the legal side, can you imagine on the illegal side, if employers want to hire them, had to prove that an American was not losing a job in the process six months before and six months after?
Try this.
Robert Hoffman, vice president of government and public affairs at Oracle, said the H-1B visa program is already costly, and all things being equal, there's already a heavy incentive to hire Americans.
But there comes a point where the program is so costly, we have to decide if it's better to move this work offshore.
And that's something that can't be in our overall national interests.
They're talking about in order to find the qualified people they want at the wages they want.
Let's all admit here that an immigrant, highly skilled and highly qualified.
And I know some of you in this audience are just making a mad dash to the phone and say, wait a minute, this is really no different than the illegal side rush.
They just try to get cheap labor in there.
There are plenty of Americans to do these H-1B jobs, but they want to pay the immigrants less money than us because they'll accept less money.
Understand that labor costs are one of the primary objectives businesses tackle, try to keep down and so forth.
But this guy from Oracle said, hey, we may have to take the company offshore, i.e. Getting away from U.S. law on this, to hire the people we need, to hire the people we want.
He says, if we have to do that, we're going to take a PR hit.
That cannot be in our overall interest or the country's interests.
So the journal concludes here that it's obvious the immigration bill was written with the fate of 12 million illegal aliens foremost in mind.
The journal says, but we hope Congress is mindful that foreign professionals also fill important niches in the U.S. labor market that help keep American companies competitive and jobs stateside.
Immigration policy should acknowledge.
I get this graph from the journal editorial today.
Immigration policy should acknowledge that the U.S. is not producing enough homegrown computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to fill our labor needs.
Now, I know there are a bunch of you computer scientists and mathematicians and engineers out there screaming at the radio.
That's not true.
It's not true.
They just won't pay what we're worth as Americans.
I know.
I know you're out there.
But the journal is passing it off here: there's a shortage of qualified people in these industries.
And by the way, the high-tech Silicon Valley people will agree with that.
I've talked to a couple of them.
They've called this program, and they've lamented the hoops and the restrictions, the H-1B visa program.
Last year, U.S. universities awarded more than half of their master's degrees and 71% of their PhDs in electrical engineering to foreign nationals.
It's foolhardy, says the journal, to educate these individuals and effectively expel them so that they can put their human capital to work for U.S. competitors.
There's no shortage of countries that'd be thrilled to benefit from a U.S. brain drain.
That's probably happening.
We are probably kicking them out of the country for whatever reason, getting them out of there, educating the rest of the world, and they become our competitors.
So much wrong with so much of this.
And it's so plain as day.
It's right out in front of everybody's face to see.
And I guess the fix is just too big, Rush.
It's just too hard.
It sounds to me, Lowe, like the way we're dealing with legal immigration would be the ideal way to deal with the illegals.
Back in just a sec.
That's right, a man of living legend, a way of life, rush limb ball with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Now, there's a story from thehill.com today.
House conservatives are ready to stop the Senate immigration bill in its tracks with a potent procedural weapon should the contentious measure win passage in the upper chamber.
The Trump card that conservatives may hold is a constitutional rule that revenue-related bills must originate in the House.
A Senate bill requires that illegal immigrants pay back taxes before becoming citizens, opening the door to a House protest that's called a blue slip because of the color of its papers.
The supporters in the Senate, you know, they're on their Memorial Day recess, and you people are giving them all kinds of static, and they're getting all kinds of it.
I mean, there's a wildfire out there.
And all of these senators are hearing about it.
And the Senate reaching out to their Republican conservative friends in the House, and the House guys are not taking to this well.
And they say, we don't want to do this, but a blue slip may be their only resource to stop a process that they believe Democrats will dominate once they go to conference with the House.
Now, the back taxes provision that could trigger the blue slip came from Senator McCain, who continues to take big fire, heavy fire, on the presidential hustings for supporting the immigration deal.
McCain introduced a back taxes amendment after a conference call to which Republican bloggers was primarily Captain Ed Morrissey of Captain Quarters.
McCain introduced a back taxes amendment after a conference call at which Republican bloggers mentioned reports the Bush administration had asked that this year's bill not force the very costly process of tax collection among illegal immigrants.
So McCain was out there trying to score points as a presidential candidate.
I'm not going to, I'm going to put it in there.
You got it, Sailor?
We're going to put it in.
So McCain put it back in after some people had persuaded him to take it out or the president wanted it taken out.
So putting it back in, if it stays, the Republicans can say this bill is flawed.
I mean, we can't go with it this way.
Now, it could easily be fixed by simply the Senate doing this and taking the back taxes thing out of it.
If they do that, you know, we already know they're going to waive the $5,000.
Now, the $5,000 fine doesn't even kick in unless they apply for citizenship.
They don't have to do that because the minute the bill signed into law, they become legal.
So if they eliminate the back taxes provision, the firestorm resulting from that from people like you is going to be even more intense than what's happening now.
So anyway, that's the latest manifestation of this.
You know what would really repeat this because what would be ideal is if this thing just got bottlenecked and became part of the presidential campaign.
Make it an issue that is debated by the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.
That's how this should actually occur, not some of this backroom undercover of darkness speed to push this through while everybody's asleep before they know what's happening.
Luke in Roosevelt, Utah, I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Rush, it's an honor to get to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I was just calling.
I had another topic, but once I heard the thing about Bob Bennett, I was trying to call in.
I can't believe I got in.
But I was just telling you, Screen, I think it's absolutely absurd and offensive that this state, which I was born and raised in, will collapse without illegal workers who have only been here for the last, you know, what, 50 years at the tops.
I mean, this state was, I'm sure many states are like this, but I can only speak for you, though.
This state was founded on principles and on values and on moral responsibility.
And the fact that this guy, who I've actually kind of supported, would say that our state is going to collapse and we need these illegal workers to keep our state thriving.
I mean, it's crazy.
Let me read the quote to you.
Here's what he said.
One of the realities is that our economy is dependent on labor that is coming from illegal immigrants, and that is true of St. George, Utah.
I mean, it's discrete.
That is a stunning statement.
That is an absolutely stunning statement because what he's saying is that the future of Utah depends on low-wage, unskilled, and uneducated workers.
Yep.
Now, why do you think that there are jobs in St. George, Utah?
Why is it booming?
Why do you think that there are jobs for low-skilled, low-wage, uneducated workers?
It's because people are moving there from California and Arizona and other places that are being overrun with illegal immigration.
People just fleeing.
They're just getting out.
Rather than stand and fight it, they're just leaving.
And Utah is one of the places they're going.
And so they're revitalizing areas like St. George, creating the jobs for these people.
It's a which came first, a chicken of the egg situation.
And what Bennett apparently is saying is St. George wouldn't be where it is without the illegal immigrant employee base.
It's the exact opposite.
They wouldn't have jobs if there weren't people there to hire them and do all.
This is, You know, look at what I said, folks.
They have no intention of listening to you.
They're going to link their hands, link their arms, and they're going to force this on us if they can get away with it.
It's what it appears to be.
Jerry in San Rafael, California.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Russ.
I appreciate you teaching us and educating us and how to understand things that are going on about this.
There's a point that I don't think we've really addressed, and maybe something you could think about for the future, but it's the wrapping that everything comes in.
It's sort of like the means and the methods of the evildoers that want to change us in ways not beneficial to us.
It's some examples.
The immigration thing, and actually, everything they bring up to us has a framework that has a response in us, response for those who believe them that they have a war cry, and a response in most of us of some emotional, like, how can they be so crazy?
And we go back and we come on that basis.
And it also sets up their response to what we say that gives them more power.
What I learned a long time ago, maybe 40 years ago, first year of college type stuff, was the Communist Manifesto, and the point of it being psychology, that that's their implement of war, is that they tweak us and use it in every possible way to get at us.
It's their stiletto.
Somewhere I heard that they spent more, the only thing less than the money they spent on the warfare type of things and all of that jazz was the money they spent on psychological development.
So they use that to tweak us.
Well, let me keep it balanced.
Let me step here and give you an example.
It's interesting that you mentioned this because Dr. Soule has a piece today at National Review online.
And his headline here is, You want to make it a no-brainer.
It's all of the words you use.
He starts this way.
It's long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents.
The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.
Are you for or against social justice?
A no-brainer.
Who is going to be for social injustice?
What about a living wage?
Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?
Then there are things like affordable housing and affordable health care.
Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they're sick?
In real life, the devil's in the details, but the whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides.
You don't need to know any economics to be in favor of a living wage or affordable housing.
And he's got a point here because they come up with these terms, social justice, living wage, and we sit here and try to explain to no, that's not what it is.
It's another liberal ploy to expand government, to try to come up with equality of outcomes.
It's not a living wage.
It's just a moniker.
It's just a term to get you to support them for their ultimate objective of more redistribution.
It's like the thing about Robert Bennett saying one of the realities in our economy is our economy is dependent on labor that's coming from illegal immigrants, and that's true of St. George.
Why in the world would anybody want that?
Now, Bennett's a Republican.
Well, I can tell you right now why liberal Democrats want that.
These are people that are going to become dependent on an ever larger welfare state.
That's exactly what they want out of this.
They love economies that are dependent on that because that means those people are going to be dependent on the Democrats who run government.
This is a huge power grab to make sure they get control, they make control, and they never lose it again because there will be so many people dependent on government that they'll never vote against Democrats.
And they use these word games.
Conservatives, we talk about property rights or the market or judicial restraint or originalists.
And of course, those terms do not convey immediate, understandable emotion like social justice, affordable housing, affordable health care, and those sorts of things.
And you know what I've always said?
There's a reason for this, by the way.
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
It's the easiest thing in the world you can do.
All you have to do is basically be for everything, for social justice, and never think about it.
And after you say you're for it and you go out and vote for people who say they're going to provide it, you think you've been wonderful.
You have been fat.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is difficult because it takes thought, application, time, energy to understand it.
And then after you have understood it, it takes even more time and energy to be able to explain it in a persuasive way.
It's not because it's harder, and it's not because it doesn't make as much sense as liberalism.
It's just the exact opposite.
The reason is conservatism is an intellectual pursuit.
It's a mental pursuit to understand the various ways systems work, how freedom is irreplaceable in any free society working.
Property rights, market accountability, market economics, all these terms require definitions for people that require them, A, to listen and B, to think.
And once you get people to listen and think, you've got them forever.
Once you have made somebody a conservative, they don't turn back.
But liberals don't want to hear it.
All they want to do is feel good.
And they don't want to hear about things that will cause a little ripple in the cocoon in which they live.
There's a system.
That's why I had to laugh when the Democrats are out there hiring this George Lackoff, Rhymes With guy to help them come up with words to communicate their idea of what they do.
They need help coming up with words and phrases that mask and disguise what they really want to do and penetrate your little heart, your emotions out there and trap you that way.
Liberalism is gutless.
Liberalism is easy.
It takes no work.
It takes no challenge.
It takes no mental application whatsoever.
Liberalism today, in fact, is propelled by the emotions of rage and hatred.
We'll be right back.
I want to go back to this Robert Bennett quote that's in the Salt Lake Tribune today in a story by Matt Canum.
Bennett is feeling all kinds of calls from people out in Utah opposed the illegal immigration deal.
And he's telling them he's making up his mind.
But the author of the story here claims that he already has made up his mind.
The staffers are not saying he plans to vote for it.
And one of his reasons why is St. George, Utah, fastest growing metro area in the nation.
Now, there's a reason for that, and it's not the arrival of illegal immigrants.
Mostly because people from California and Las Vegas continue to relocate there.
They are fleeing states where their neighborhoods are infested with illegals, and they're going to seeking refuge where they think there aren't any.
And they get there, and of course, the illegals follow.
They go to where the jobs are.
And so Bennett then says, one of the realities is our economy is dependent on labor coming from illegal immigrants.
And that's true of St. George.
Now, why do liberals want the uneducated, poor, third-world masses moving here and not the well-educated, highly literate immigrants?
We just shared with you this column, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
Look at the restrictions and the enforcement and the attention paid to the admittance into this country of highly educated, highly skilled legal immigrants is the kind of attention ought to be focused on the illegals.
And this is what the Republicans are missing.
This is what they're not getting and understanding.
And if they do get it and understand it, then they've fled the reservation folks, not Republicans anymore.
Because when this same bill, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, writing all these restrictions on the H-1B visas, all the legals, all the highly skilled, highly educated.
No, we're going to put a limit on those.
They're only going to be $150,000 a year, max $180,000.
Why is that?
Why do they want all these uneducated, poor, third-world masses moving here and not the well-educated?
The answer is uneducated are going to be far more receptive to demagogic arguments from the left in which they promote rich against poor, the right to national affordable health care, social justice.
Educated people are more open to debate and disagreement, and they are less inclined to become dependent, especially hardworking immigrants from foreign countries with strong family values.
Now, notice, too, here that what's happening, what was not mentioned in this story, that Senator Bennett is carrying water for the construction industry, not the public interest generally.
These jobs he's talking about, the construction business.
The place is booming, St. George is.
And Senator Bennett knows that these people will have to be educated and receive health benefits that they are not paying for.
He knows full well.
And he knows that if he's the guy seen out there as the one providing all that, then they're going to keep voting for him.
So the rest of the citizens of Utah, and this is a microcosm for what's happening in the country.
The rest of the citizens of Utah and the country will have to have their taxes raised to pay for this.
It's called the redistribution of wealth.
And what's going to end up happening is that the construction industry of St. George, Utah will be subsidized by the rest of Senator Bennett's constituents.
And this is what voters need to understand.
This is a massive, desirous effort.
This is not an unintended consequence.
This is the design to bring as many of the poor, third world, uneducated people, the masses, into this country and create a dependency need because they don't, obviously they're uneducated and they're not going to earn high wages.
So they're going to need people like you and me to pay their health care and their education and this sort of thing because we're a compassionate society rush.
We're not going to have them live in the streets.
We're not going to have them live inside the trash bin and we're going to take care of them.
Right.
Yeah.
Your taxes are going to go up in order to do that.
You're going to be subsidizing this influx.
So we've got this booming place, St. George, microcosm for what's happening in a lot of the country.
It's said to be booming because of the arrival of the illegals.
And guess what?
We're all going to end up subsidizing them.
And that's what people have to understand about this.
And when the president comes out, accuses us of not understanding what's here, we do better than most.
I think they know what's in it.
They just don't, they don't think, they don't want us to think that what we know is in it is right.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
This stuff starts to agitate after a while.
That's why I don't want to talk about three hours every day back in just a second.
You know, this is fascinating, too.
This is funny.
The Washington Post has a big story today, and they're beside themselves.
At trying to understand why the word amnesty works.
Well, it works because we've done it seven times before and it doesn't work.
That's why it's effective in drumming up opposition to this.
▲
Export Selection