All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
June 21, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you and welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB Network.
Tom Sullivan filling in uh tomorrow, rush back on uh Monday.
Time to talk about the uh immigration bill a bit because there is news today.
First of all, Zogby in a UPI Zogby poll asking how asking Americans how they uh uh rated Congress and the president on the question of dealing with the immigration issue.
You'll recall that Gallup records nearly an all-time low of approval rating for the Congress, the Democrat uh led Congress at 14% overall.
Uh they're not going to be happy about the UPI Zogby poll results focusing in on the immigration issue alone.
Congress, says Zogby, is rated in favorable terms on immigration by just three percent of American adults.
Three percent.
The president is rated at nine percent.
The president is is rated at nine percent.
Now, I don't know what the Ian, I don't know what their uh their plus or minus uh rating is.
I guess down here, wait, let me look in the article here.
A margin of error of plus or minus 1.1.
So it could actually be close to zero.
Or as much as uh uh uh just under five.
So you you never know.
Uh it's in that range, though.
Zero to five is their rating now for how they're doing on the immigration issue.
Man, you got you gotta love it.
You gotta love it.
Um let me get to the politics, however, more seriously on this immigration bill.
You know the one I'm talking about, XS 1639.
It's renumbered now to try to confuse you even more.
Senate uh bill S 1639 called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
Placed back on the calendar by Mr. Reed a couple of days ago.
He is talking about a cloture vote as early as tomorrow, but possibly next week with the threat of working through the July 4th holiday if the senators don't do what he tells them, which is to pass the bill.
Here's where we stand in terms of the count.
This from Kate uh O'Byrn O'Byrne.
How do you pronounce that?
From uh from the uh O'Byrne, yeah, from the National Review.
Immigration vote count, she writes.
Uh quote, opponents of the immigration bill recognize that the vote on cloture, she says maybe tomorrow, but probably early next week, will be the key vote.
Outside groups are scoring a vote for cloture.
This is the vote to cut off debate and get to the vote uh on the floor.
The vote for cloture is as a vote for the bill.
In other words, if you vote for cloture, you're going to vote yes on the bill.
Now, cloture needs 60 votes in the 100-member United States Senate.
Outspoken critics of the bill can be expected to vote no.
Yesterday, Georgia Senators Chambliss and Isaacson, who had been part of the grand compromise, announced their opposition to cloture.
This is new.
Given the size, uh says Kate of the unpersuadable caucus that will support cloture, opponents are fighting uphill.
But based on talking with well-informed sources, this is the most accurate list I've seen of the Republican senators whose intentions are unknown and whose support will be needed in order to defeat the cloture motion.
So listen up uh EIB network listeners.
If you hear your senator here, you know what to do.
Richard Burr, North Carolina.
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee, Kit Bond, Missouri, Pat Roberts, Kansas, Gordon Smith, Oregon, Thad Cochrane, Mississippi, Mike Crapo, Indiana, Norm Coleman, Minnesota, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas.
Orin Hatch, Utah, Bob Bennett, Utah, and John Sunu, New Hampshire.
Um, these are senators, according to Kate Birn, Byrne, in National Review, these are senators whose intentions on this cloture vote Are unknown, and whose support will be needed to defeat cloture.
In other words, there would be 60 votes if they vote in favor, given the Democrats' uh intentions.
So with Chambliss and Isaacson of Georgia coming out against cloture, there is now a push on the remainder of those Senators.
So where do we stand in terms of the amendments?
Well, uh amendments.
There's a list of them out now.
Most of them are going to challenge the issues we've raised on this program.
Isn't it amnesty to give, for example, a probationary Z visa with barely a twenty-four-hour security check to each and every one of the 12 to 20 million illegals in this country?
Sounds like a blanket amnesty to me since you look at the probationary Z visa language, and it turns out that not only are is it going to be well, it's probationary, of course they could repeal it, they could throw it out, they could deport you later.
Sure.
Anyway, um what is it, six months, maybe a year, you get the first one.
Then you get four years, then you get another four years, then you get how many four years you need?
It is a permanent temporary probationary visa.
So uh Senator Webb, a Democrat wants to challenge that and limit residency to those who have lived for more than four years in the United States and have not just been here since January 1 of 2007.
That's a step, that's a step in the right uh direction.
Senator Dodd wants to increase family reunification.
That's a step in the wrong direction.
Family reunification in this bill is limited to spouses and uh and kids.
Family reunification today in the law is unlimited.
People have brought in their uh second and third cousins uh twice removed, uh swear on a stack of Korans.
This is uh this is an unmitigated disaster because what has happened is that when you become legal, then you bring in, you know, 15, 20, 25 other legal people.
Many of them are in your grandmother's category and immediately go on some kind of disability uh social security number.
Yeah.
They're taught to do that too.
So uh Dodd, no, you're wrong, because even with this by the way, even this bill is horrible because it doesn't even get to the merit-based legal immigration instead of the family reunification thing.
The merit-based legal immigration doesn't kick in for eight years, leading some analysis to indicate that instead of twelve million or even twenty million, we'll have three times or four times that number once every one of them gets used to bringing or gets uh through bringing in their whole family.
So those uh amendments, and that's just two examples of um the amendments that will be uh that will be voted on are coming up probably next week for you to keep after those Republican Republican uh Senators.
Now, um in the meantime, I wanted to tell you about the clay pigeon uh issue, because the clay pigeon issue is something you need to know about how this is going to work.
And of course I had that right here a second ago.
Uh where'd I put it?
Here's what happens.
Under the rules of the Senate, clay pigeon means, uh much like the uh target in uh you know your shotgun practice, that uh you take the whole thing first, the cloture vote first.
You commit to everybody, yes, you're going to have all these amendments, but the amendments will come after we cut off debate, meaning you can't introduce any other amendments.
We'll vote individually on the 22 amendments that the uh inner secret meeting group of senators came up with, but we will uh entertain no other amendments and we'll have the cloture vote first.
So then it's just a majority vote instead of sixty votes, it's just fifty plus one to get all the amendments either passed or if they don't reach fifty-one uh rejected, and then on the overall bill, hopefully we've got fifty votes at the end of that day, fifty-one votes at the end of that day.
So the clay pigeon uh means that you vote on cloture, then the clay pigeon is hit, boom, it's 22 votes on the amendments, and then it's a vote on the on the overall bill.
So if they fall for that, if they fall for cloture first instead of the right to introduce amendments, I think people are going to have a very hard time coming up with that cloture 60 votes, because right now Demint and a whole bunch of other senators are hanging tough on not having an amnesty.
They're hanging tough on having border security first.
They're hanging tough on real employer verification, which I'm not sure the president is hanging tough on.
He made a speech to the associated uh builders and contractors, ABC, in Washington, D.C. at their convention a couple of days ago.
Our president uh, in addressing this issue of what he wants from employers, made some assumptions and made some statements about this issue.
It also includes benchmarks for giving honest employers the tools to verify that they're hiring legal workers.
Most people want to comply with the law.
I know you do.
Yet it's awfully hard for you to be a document verifier.
That's not what you now that applause, ladies and gentlemen, is from employers who do not want to be document verifiers.
In other words, they don't want to verify the legal background of their employees because they're making money by hiring people illegally in this country.
They're making money by paying them under the table.
They're making money by paying them when they do pay them with uh just turning the other cheek in terms of fake uh obviously fake social security numbers.
And ladies and gentlemen, you should know if you don't already, that the IRS has last year had nine and a half million plus returns, uh tax returns, in which the Social Security number and the name did not match in their computer.
They know the federal government knows, with the same certainty they know where that calf is that's got mad cow disease.
They know where at least nine and a half million of these people are working because they don't match.
You know, ordinary citizens don't have a problem.
You know, my name, my name, my number match.
In fact, I got a guy in the local, he sent it in to me at the local show, and he sent in this uh, you know, notice he sent out to so to Social Security and said, okay, what is my status?
And they brought him back and said, Well, your status, sir, and this is your number, uh, is such and such and such and such.
Oh, and by the way, uh this fellow who's using your number, here's his status, too.
Huh?
The federal government knows, ladies and gentlemen, where the illegals are and where they're working.
We could today require those employers to either to give a chance to that person to reconcile the problem of the number not matching the name, and if they cannot do it, to get out of the country.
They don't belong here, they're illegally here.
Get the hell out.
Make these jobs available for Americans and for people legally coming into this country.
I'm Roger Hitchcock, back with your comments after this.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB network.
I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush, Tom Sullivan tomorrow rush back on Monday.
So uh this little group of uh people, you know, uh Lindsay Gramnesty and uh and Ted Kennedy and uh and that group got together to say, okay, uh Harry Reid, here's what we're gonna do.
We're gonna allow these 22 amendments, we're gonna define what they are, we're gonna define who they can bring be brought forward by.
And based on that, all these senators who get a chance to at least offer an amendment so they've got cover from their outraged constituents on this amnesty bill, uh, they will uh then vote for cloture so we can cut off debate, cut off real amendments, cut off making this thing tough, and and proceed to the amnesty.
Senator John Cornyn of uh Texas, who was once a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, filed 30 amendments to this bill, narrowed them to five critical security-related amendments.
None of them made the list.
None of them.
Yikes.
The 24 hour period for background checks for the Z visa thing.
That's still in there.
So we've got to watch this stuff.
Uh and we've got to watch Senator Charles Grassley, uh Republican of Iowa.
He and uh Barack Obama, now there's an odd couple, uh have an amendment in.
It is going to be considered.
It's one of the twenty-two.
This amendment would require would remove the requirement that's currently in the bill that any uh applicant for a job present a real ID, in other words, a tamper proof driver's license, conforms to the real ID Act that uh Sensenbrenner passed a couple of uh years ago, requiring that our you know, we have some integrity in these driver's licenses.
If they're going to allow terrorists to get on airplanes, we ought to at least have, you know, something, some kind of a check situation.
So the bill requires that anybody getting a job present a real ID ID.
Other words, a real ID.
Not the one you bought down on the corner for 200 bucks, something that's actually real.
What do you mean real?
says Grassley and Barack Obama.
Well, we're not in the real business.
I mean, we won't even be able to buy these.
I mean, that's free enterprise, isn't it?
Get a forged ID?
Come on.
Didn't you uh, you know, drinking Tijuana when you were sixteen?
Come on.
What's wrong with you?
So this is um what we're gonna be fighting on this thing.
By the way, even MSNBC, and I've quoted them twice uh today favorably.
First time for revealing that the Democrats have reporters have been giving Democrats money over Republicans at a ratio of nine to one.
Uh they did this report.
Fake papers easy to find along border, that's the headline.
Fraudulent documents easy to obtain, NBC News investigation reveals.
Reveals.
Better five decades after it becomes a problem than, you know, never.
Uh here's the story.
Juarez, Mexico.
Juarez, Mexico.
Quote.
We're on the streets of Juarez, a few feet from the bridge leading across the U.S. border.
NBC News producers with hidden cameras came here this week to see how easy it is to get fraudulent documents to enter the U.S. The first offer came within 15 minutes.
A man offered U.S. residency and social security cards for 1,000 dollars.
For about $500, we could rent what is known as a lookalike document.
A real green card with a photo of someone resembling our undercover producer.
Because the document is authentic, it will pass inspection unless a customs officer notices the photo doesn't match the person.
Another man wants 400 to rent us a look-alike passport long enough to cross the border where his female partner would retrieve it so it can be used again.
This is a guy who makes 400 every time they go through, and then the pass comes back and he finds somebody that looks like the picture, and then they go through again.
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not be deceived by reassurances that somehow the U.S. has or can obtain control of this situation.
The ugly truth is, unless we get a real ID driver's license in our states, and unless in the biometric or whatever you want to call it, and unless we stick with that, instead of allowing any kind of thing to be uh submitted, whether it's the matricula consular from the Mexican government or these fake documents, U.S. documents you can buy anywhere along the border, anywhere in your town.
They can be bought anywhere.
Uh we are not going to get a control of the border.
So now even MSNBC knows.
The um Ramos and Compion cases need to be uh remembered every day.
Ramos and Compion are the names of two border patrol agents doing their job along the Texas uh Mexican border, uh now prosecuted by U.S. attorney and Bush pal uh Johnny Sutton in the courtroom of a judge appointed by Mr. Bush for the specific purpose of demoralizing the border patrol.
And I I can only come to this conclusion because it's the exact purpose that has been served.
Two excellent border patrol agents are serving time in federal penitentiary for shooting an uh illegal alien drug smuggler with over 700 pounds of marijuana in his van, shooting him in the butt when he wouldn't stop, shooting him after they uh grappled with him and he fought them and then ran off, pointing back at them with something.
Was it a gun?
Who knows?
They shot, they wound him, he keeps running, so it wasn't that serious a wound.
Now not only are they in jail, he wants five million dollars in his civil suit against the United States taxpayer.
This is the Bush administration at work on the border in reality.
Not in press releases, not in Tony Snow interviews, not in the snow job we're getting and a bunch of people from Chertoff on down.
But what actually happens at the border is our border patrol agents Go to jail, the drug runners go free.
Sorry, that's what's happening.
Now, if it wasn't happening, I'd be happy to report the other side of it.
Because generally, I'm obviously a Bush supporter, and I think he's done a lot of good things.
I am mystified by the way the border is handled, particularly after 9-11.
Particularly after you know that Al Qaeda and others analyze our weaknesses very well, exploit our weaknesses very well, know how to fight an asymmetrical war against the United States.
They don't have tanks and stealth bombers, but they do have a porous border, among other things.
It's time, ladies and gentlemen, for the Bush administration to get real about the border, to back up the border patrol to give this nation the security we deserve.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
More after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB network.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for uh Rush Today.
Tom Sullivan tomorrow, rush back on Monday.
Uh, this from the North County Times here in San Diego just this happens.
I could pick these out.
I could do the whole three hours just on local news about uh the border and the assault we are under continuously 24-7365 for the last twenty-five years, ever since the '86 uh law, ever since uh Ted Kennedy foisted the last immigration law on us, it has been a catastrophe here.
Just one.
Okay, I'll just do one.
But understand this is one of hundreds like it.
Border Patrol agent spots a 2006 Nissan Frontera traveling to the West on State Route 94 in the Campo area.
This is you know, not very not very far from the border.
7.30 a.m.
Uh spotting the law enforcement vehicle, the suspect driver pulls an abrupt Yui, speeds off, leading a chase back to the east, and then south on a dirt road going back to the U.S. Mexico border.
At the border, the motorist is finally pulled over.
He jumps out with a passenger and flees into Baja.
This area has no fence, by the way.
Um at the same time, and this is how busy this border is, at the same time a group of about a group of about 20 illegals see the the chase, they see the border patrol officer, they're coming north, they turn around and start running back to the border, one of them pointing a pistol at the border patrol agent while he's running, but firing no shots.
The border patrol agent knows better than to shoot without first being fired upon.
This is how bad this gets.
You get a gun pointed at you by what is a coyote, a smuggler.
And you cannot shoot until he actually fires.
Until maybe you're dead.
Then you can shoot back.
That's the Bush administration rules of engagement right on our border.
That's what actually happens.
Oh, by the way, the 2006 Nissan Frontera that the two scumbags uh ran back into the uh into Mexico and left it behind.
900 pounds of marijuana.
Worth, according to the uh border patrol, 735,000.
I don't know the street value of all this, but 60 bales of cannabis, 915 pounds.
This happens every single day, many times a day here.
What happens in your community?
Well, here's the health writer for the Greenville News and what's happening in Greenville.
Is this South Carolina?
North Carolina.
North Carolina.
State health officials uh live Osby rights, tested 286 employees at a Greenville poultry processing plant for tuberculosis after a case of TB was reported there, and nearly half of the employees had a positive skin test.
A hundred and thirty-one workers exposed to TB sometime in their lives.
Mostly because they came from other countries.
How many cases of TB were there in the United States in the 1980s?
Not very many.
We had pretty much conquered this disease.
But not so in other countries.
In poorer countries, we knew that this and many other health risks, diseases have not been conquered.
They're coming back.
They're coming back to your community.
They're coming back with these illegals.
Rick on a cell phone in Indiana is next on the Rush Show.
Rick, welcome.
Thanks, Roger, for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Roger, help me make my point here.
Back in the 60s, they were voting on the Civil Rights Act, and they were worried about voters coming into this country.
As they were now.
The Republicans are worried about the voting block.
And back in the 60s, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans.
But they didn't get any credit for that, Roger.
No.
And you can look at that voter block there and know that we've got what, maybe nine or thirteen percent of that vote block.
So why do they think that automatically, if they vote for this, they're going to get these people to vote for them, Roger?
I don't understand that.
George Bush thinks it because in his first election to president, he got forty percent of the Hispanic vote.
Now in his second one, I think he only got about 20 percent or 13 percent or something like that.
But and and look, here's another here's another giveaway about which party thinks they're going to do better with these new immigrants in terms of voting patterns.
The uh uh the um real ID Act was attempted to be applied to voting.
In other words, you have to show a verifiable idea that ID that you are here and that you are here legally and this is where you live and you're entitled to vote.
Uh this uh was beaten back by the Democrats who did not want a tamper proof, fraud-proof way of voting, because frankly, without fraud, how are they going to win?
I understand.
Well, you uh you commented on a poll a little while ago saying I think it was ninety-seven percent of the uh the people were against this.
And if talk radio, if talk radio is responsible for this, Roger, sounds like to me you need a raise.
You know what?
I'm gonna hire you, Rick, as an agent.
You're an excellent fellow, and I know that you can get right to the heart of the matter.
Thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, is the boss listening, Jeffrey in Orlando, Florida next.
Jeffrey, welcome to the Rush Show.
Thank you.
How are you doing today, Roger?
Just finding you.
Good.
I have a question to pose to you based on the 9.4 million taxpayers or excuse me, non-taxpayers that you say the IRS knows about.
What if 9.4 million citizens, taxpayers, changed their W 4 and didn't file a tax return.
Would the United States government have the same distaste for enforcing that law as they seem to on these other ones?
This is such a great question, Jeffrey, because I uh one of the reasons why I think ordinary Americans are turned off by this amnesty bill.
Last year, the amnesty bill at last year's Congress recognized that these illegals have been avoiding paying taxes that we require citizens to pay, and you can't give them a free pass, and so it said you've got to go back and pay three of the last five years of back taxes.
Now, even that's a deal, you as an American taxpayer would rarely get a break-on like that from the IRS.
I'd jump on it, absolutely.
There you go.
Now, this year the bill is silent.
It doesn't even talk about taxes.
There is no recapture of taxes that should have been paid by illegals when they were illegally employed here.
There's nothing in there.
This is a deal you would never get from the IRS.
Complete tax forgiveness.
And it would do one more thing.
It would not give Congress money to spend.
Well, your idea, of course, well, you know, obviously we've got to continue to pay taxes, uh, you know, or they're gonna put us in jail.
What they're gonna give is the the illegals are going to get a get out of a jail card free, and by the way, uh come freely and go freely and get your driver's license and have a good time and sign up to vote, and won't you please vote demo?
So, you know, I mean Jeffrey, this thing is so transparent.
It's a comprehensive immigration reform.
It's a comprehensive democratic vote for the Democrats Forever bill.
No doubt.
Now I appreciate the call.
And by the way, I think that uh you ought to be aware of uh the uh North American summit coming up.
It's called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
The meeting is going to be held August 20 and 21 in Montebello in Quebec at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello Resort, which I have been.
To to which to where to whatever.
I've been there.
And Sister Mary Elizabeth's wrapping my knuckles.
Okay.
Look, I've been in this hotel.
It's a gorgeous uh neo-gothic hundred and twenty year old place in Quebec.
And uh the uh Prime Minister of uh Canada will host the President of Mexico, El Presidente, and uh the President of the United States, El Presidente.
And the two El Presidentes and the Prime Minister are going to get together on what they call the uh security and prosperity partnership of North America.
Protesters are going to be there.
This third summit meeting uh reminds everyone that at the last two summit meetings, the groundwork has been laid by these three leaders to continue cooperation, who can be against cooperation between the three countries, to continue to uh figure out ways to integrate our economies so that we increase trade between our three countries, who can be against increased trade.
To do that, however, we are going down the road of the European Union.
The North American Union is the goal of these discussions.
The North American Union would obliterate.
There would be no more illegals.
There would be no more issue, because there'd be no more country.
Part of the infrastructure of this new North American partnership is the NAFTA superhighway, underway in Texas to be extended, according to World Net Daily, into Oklahoma and Colorado, a four-lane train, truck, car, and pipeline corridor from the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas, to Denver.
Uh Jerome Corsi, whose new book is a must-read, by the way, the late Great USA, the coming merger with Mexico and Canada has just been released.
The Federal Highway Administration is promoting a public-private partnership project to expand these superhighway projects.
And uh, this is part of the infrastructure of integrating our three nations.
Now again, I have no problem with increased trade.
Good.
Increased trade, good.
Uh increased contacts between these three countries, good.
Increased tourism, good.
All that stuff is good.
Hey, we need these two countries since they're uh respectively, I believe, number two and three or three and four uh of our oil uh sources now.
So uh, you know, I mean, obviously getting together with the Canadians and Mexicans on these kinds of levels is a very good thing.
However, what's on the agenda also is the kind of thing that dilutes our citizenship.
We don't need to do that to trade.
We don't need to do that to be tourists.
We don't need to do that to have regular legal immigration, but I'm afraid that under the guise of these good things, what we're being sold is the idea that, well, you know, you just need to be a citizen of the North American Union.
Instead of the dollar, we'll have something called the um peso dollar or the pesoler.
We've got to come up with a better name.
Uh but well, in other words, uh this is the kind of thing we need this to compete with Europe and to compete with China.
It's the sort of thing we're gonna need in the 21st century.
Well, the good old USA, the dollar, our American values and our constitutions are you a constitution is unique.
I don't want to be uh having the liberal elites of this country dragging us into the kind of constitution, what was it, 900 pages long that they wanted to do for the EU.
Eliminating, for example, right off the top that our rights are from God and not from the Democratic Party.
I'm Roger Hedgecock with more on the Rush Show after this.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB network.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush.
Let's take a call from Darrell in Uvalde, Texas.
Daryl, you're on the rush program.
Go ahead.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Uh as I was telling Mr. Sergley, I was born and raised here in South Texas, and we were several illegal aliens at any one given time, depending upon the season.
And right now we're we're at the height of our farming season.
And if they really wanted to tackle the immigration problem, they would come after me, the employer.
Because a wall is not going to keep anybody out.
Uh the dynamics of how people cross the border have changed in the 45 years that I've been alive.
It used to be that people would cross the border on foot, go to their respective employers, work the season, And then go back.
Now they take they use coyotes, and coyotes can cost anywhere from a thousand to fifteen hundred dollars, depending on how far um uh north you are from the border.
And so our guys simply uh get a ride back in back across the border when they want to go home, and then when they want to come back across here, they get a coyote to bring them within 15 miles of where we live, and we go pick them up.
Uh that's the first problem.
And then the the second is the the drugs, and we're far enough north that we don't have to worry about the drug pet peddlers coming through our property.
But you know, a wall simply is not going to stop that either because they're more sophisticated than that.
They they they have drops and they have with planes and they have people coming and picking the drugs up and then shipping them farther north into Texas.
So if they want to get at the crux of the problem of the employment, then come after me, make it a felony, and then I can guarantee you there's twelve people that are over here illegally right now that are going to be shipped back across the border uh sometime in the very near future, or they'll go find employment elsewhere.
But if you come after me, I can guarantee I certain certainly won't have them employed here anymore.
Darrell, I appreciate the call.
Let me tell you that I appreciate more than you know because you've been telling a lot of truth here to people who may not have heard all this before.
Uh the wall itself, the fence itself, of course, with nothing else does not work.
The fence, although it works to some degree here in San Diego and pushing this whole problem east of us, but uh what what we have to have is of employer verification.
You have to be hiring people that are legally in this country.
And if not, and I'm with you, if not, employers who continue to uh, you know, use illegal labor and therefore pay less uh ought to go to jail.
Um and and that's not going to happen under this bill, and I think it's wrong.
I think that people, employers have a responsibility to offer employment to people who are legally in this country and to verify, and government needs to work with them to do it, to verify that these people are legal.
Now, having said that, I also think that for seasonal workers, and apparently that's what you're in the business of getting there, seasonal workers, that you ought to have a guest worker program that allows people to bring people in on a regular basis.
We know who they are, they're checked through.
You pay them, you know, what you need to pay them, they're protected, they come, they come and go as a part of a program along the border, which a lot of agriculture and a lot of other people uh depend on.
So we I I think I think that, you know, if I if I felt the border was secure and we knew who was coming across, and we had a strong employer verification program where employers who try to cheat go to jail, then it seems to me that the seasonal worker problem can be worked out, the agricultural problem can be worked out.
I don't see a problem with guest workers coming and going.
But guest workers who stay and bring their families, and then you know, everybody goes into social services.
That's the problem.
So I'm with you, and I wish we could do something for the good employers along the border who've been caught in between and caught in the crossfire on this thing, many of them farmers and others who are just trying to get a crop out and find themselves uh caught again in the crossfire of these political situations that Congress doesn't just seem to be able to reach out and solve in any common sense way.
So that's my program.
We'll see see if that flies with Congress.
I'm Roger Hitchcock back with more of the Rush Show after this.
See if I can squeeze in another call here.
Alex in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, you're on the Rush show.
Go ahead.
Roger, how are you?
My comment is this, Roger, uh the backbone of our economy is uh business and especially small business.
And with all the uh all the burdens and risks that employers take, um, if our government was doing their job securing our borders, securing our perimeter so that the there could be a free flow of goods and services and people within our borders.
Employers should even have to have the burden of uh verifying um, you know, uh where people come from.
Uh it's there's enough of risk being in business without risking committing a crime by making it.
Well, the but the reality is I'm gonna run out of time, but the reality is, Alex, and I don't want you to have any more risk or any more burden either.
But when you're doing the paperwork for people that have social security numbers, there ought to be a way instantly, just like there is to check your credit when you go and buy with a credit card.
There ought to be a way to check instantly that this number matches this person.
If we had that in place today, nine and a half million illegals would not have a job in this country, and they'd be available for Americans and legal immigrants.
That's what I'm talking about.
It's not putting burden, it's not all this other scare talk that employers are being fed by the Bush administration and by advocates for this amnesty bill is just that scare talk.
So, ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all thank Rush for the opportunity to uh to be with you in these couple of days.
I hope they've been as fun for you as they have been for me.
I look forward to doing it uh again in the near future whenever uh Rush takes one of these breaks.
Coming up tomorrow, uh Tom Sullivan is uh gonna be with you, and uh coming up on Monday, of course, Rush will be back.
In the meantime, all of this and more will be available to you at Rushlinbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection