All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
January 27, 2017, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Buck Sexton here today in for Rush on the EIB.
Thank you so much for joining.
It is open line Friday, which means we've been taking a lot of calls throughout the course of the show today.
Sure, many of you know it by heart already.
Fun to say nonetheless.
Also to give you a little preview of what we're going to be hitting today, I I figure I can just set the table a bit so you'll know if you want to stay for the whole meal what the various courses will be.
Uh the appetizers, entrees, desserts.
Very very fancy meal planned here today on the EIB.
We're going to be talking about immigration, sanctuary cities, the new definition of a criminal when it comes to immigration issues that President Trump, I think that's the first time I've been able to say President Trump here on the EIB.
Before that it's always been President elect Trump or the Trump campaign or the would-be Trump administration.
Now it is the Trump administration.
Just got to get used to saying it.
Like saying 2017.
I still am switching from 2016 to 2017.
I'm writing on checks 2016.
Need to get that straight.
Also, President Trump has changed via the executive order the enforcement priority of illegal uh illegal aliens, how he'll deal with illegal aliens by changing the definition of what constitutes criminality that deserves heightened attention.
You can say special scrutiny when it comes to illegal immigrants.
We'll also talk about the dust up with Mexico.
Of course, this huge feud that's broken out over Trump's numbers when it when we're talking about illegal voting.
So we'll go from immigration sanctuary cities, Mexico, definition of a criminal under immigration law.
Oh, also the publishing of numbers to show how many crimes are committed by illegals in said sanctuary cities.
The left loves data.
So Trump says, let's give him some more data.
How about that?
Why don't we provide them with numbers?
Numbers that will show the scope and scale of criminality that is in addition to the criminality of illegal status that illegal aliens commit in a variety of locales, locales that are thwarting, actively thwarting federal immigration law by being sanctuary cities.
We'll talk about the voter fraud issue.
I know I diverted there for a second, but back on the tracks.
Voter fraud millions, Trump has said, may have voted illegally in the last election.
I think the number he gave was three to five, right?
It was three to five.
That seems a bit high, but if it's a million, that's a lot.
And we'll have some people joining to talk about what that number may be, how it could be, that there's not necessarily a conspiracy when it comes to illegal voting, although that's possible too in some precincts and places, to be sure.
But just the way our voting system is set up lends itself to people voting who are not supposed to be voting.
Then we'll get into regulations, a follow-up on the State Department, employees who resigned on principle.
Or they were fired.
Pack your stuff, pal.
We can we can handle that next demarch.
We can handle that next meeting ourselves.
Thanks a lot.
You're out.
But I love how the media was covering that one.
So we've got a lot to cover today on the show, and it's open line Friday, so we'll be taking your calls too.
But there's one very important item that I left off, and that's because I wanted to get to it right away.
There was that women's march you saw in DC.
And one of the questions that I was asked, even by friends of mine here in New York City.
I live in the belly of the progressive beast here in New York.
A lot of people I know are well intentioned but wrong in their politics.
And they were asking me, well, what is the women's march you cover you cover this stuff, meaning I just read the news all day long.
What is the women's march all about?
And I said, Well, it's about a lot of things, but it's really about abortion.
There are other things that they add on to this.
And there's a lot of ideological dissonance that comes to bear with this, well that came to bear, I should say, with that women's march.
Uh there were problems with pro-life women attending and being open About that, but there were not issues, as I understand it about uh transgender individuals who wanted to march as part of the women's march.
So to a leftist feminist today, you are more female if you are anatomically male, i.e., your gender is male, but you think of yourself as female than if you are a woman who does not think that abortion is a moral choice.
How the left is able to square this stuff, I do not know, and it's interesting to try to get into it, but we all know that ultimately it falls apart when you apply just a bit of logic and reason to it.
And then there was all the stuff too with Madonna and I dream about blow, or I think she said I dream or think about blowing up the White House, and look, I don't think she's actually a security threat.
Uh I think that it's time for her to perhaps more gracefully exit from the public eye sometimes, but she's gonna get a visit if she didn't already, I would think, from the Secret Service, and then there was Ashley Judd, an actress who aspires to be a politician and said horrifically gross things at that women's march.
It was a lot of really unfriendly, vile, nasty, pejorative-filled shouting and screaming.
People I know attended, all right, so there were people that were there who thought they were doing something for the good.
I want to talk to you about the march that's happening today.
And I would like you to contrast both the media coverage and the underlying ethos of the march that is happening today with that women's march that occurred was it last weekend or whatever it was.
I think it was last weekend.
Today is the March for Life.
The March for Life where Vice President Pence will be speaking.
Uh you also have Kellyanne Conway attending to speak about pro-life issues.
This has been going on year in and year out ever since the Supreme Court decision wrongly decided if you're just somebody who pays attention to law irrespective of your thoughts on the morality or immorality of abortion.
The Roe decision was just garbage.
And I even know some leftist law professors who, in quieter moments, will admit that.
But they like the outcome.
And that was the beginning of a much longer trend of activism from the bench where leftist judges, progressives, would decide they want a certain outcome and they just interpret the law that way.
Okay.
So ever since that happened with Roe, there has been this March for Life Day in and March for Life on an annual basis.
And today, if you watch, you can see it on a live stream too.
What a difference this what a difference this march has in the way that the people coming together are all very clear on why they're there.
They're all quite clear what the purpose of this is.
I think you'll see a lot less in the way of, and by less I mean zero, obscene costumes, obscene posters, obscene placards.
I think you'll see a lot less profanity and rage and people being mean and spitting on individuals that they don't like that come that happen to walk through the protest or get too close to it.
You won't see any of that in the March for Life.
You'll see a lot of people that believe very strongly that abortion is wrong and that Roe was wrongly decided, and they want the American people to know that there is a movement, a very robust and growing movement to push for life in this country.
The way the mainstream press covers this is just yet another instance of why people don't trust them.
You can't trust them.
Read the New York Times front page today.
Opponents of abortion see long held goals in reach.
I do not see the term pro-life anywhere here on the front page.
I suppose they have to call it the March for Life because that's the name of the March.
But these are abortion opponents, opponents of abortion, and the insinuation from the Times is always that women who oppose abortion oppose women's rights.
How that gets jumbled up in the verbiage that they pick, uh, the different ways that they try to undermine the movement, that can change, but the underlying thesis remains.
The Times and other outlets of the elite media view these individuals, view these women as self-defeating and honestly worthy of scorn.
And that we could be in a place in this country where oh, and by the way I should also note the one of the big issues here they see is the defunding of planned parenthood.
Uh so you have the defunding of planned parenthood and also Trump naming a Supreme Court nominee who, based on the picks that we've seen him say he would go with, is most likely going to be a staunchly pro-life justice.
My conservative friends who have had their doubts about Trump, I'm not saying those doubts should all disappear, but I am saying let's put some up on the conservative scoreboard this week for the Trump administration.
Let's see what happens with the Supreme Court nominee, but let's just call it let's call balls and strikes on Trump.
Wherever you are on the right, wherever you are anywhere as an American, I would hope you would just call it like you see it with each and every action, instead of running around thinking that we're in the midst of some Hitlerian nightmare, that fascism is descended upon us, that Trump is going to be rounding us up and putting us into camp somewhere.
This is the stupidity you see, not just in the fever, the digital fever swamps of social media and bloggers and people who are pundits with small followings, but from the largest newspapers in the country.
You have individuals writing about on the editorial pages, and then of course the front pages, the news pages, also supporting it with stories about fascism and the rise of authoritarian and populist rhetoric in Trump and doing comparisons of strong men in the past.
They hate Trump and they're going to hate him even more because I think there was a part of the left that always assumed that he would sell out the base.
Better way to put it, that he would sell out the movement because Trump's base isn't just the conservative base, it's part of that, but it's more than that.
The left, though, even with all of their hysterics, all of the freakouts, could at least cling to the hope that Donald Trump would betray those who pulled off one of the most astounding political turnabouts, certainly in my lifetime, and I I don't know how far back you'd have to go for something comparable, but you gotta go pretty far back.
And now we see the Trump administration on the issue of life sending the vice president, sending really his chief spokeswoman with Kellyanne Conway to speak at this march, to speak at this rally, the possibility of a conservative justice being appointed by the Trump administration,
the reinstituting of the Mexico City rule to prevent uh federal funds from going to a war abortion providers abroad.
Conservatives should look at all this and say to themselves, this is what we were hoping for, and we should applaud it.
We should applaud it because I think there's also going to be more.
And for all of those women uh marching today, who I know can probably feel the scorn in the eyes of many passers-by in DC.
I used to live in DC.
It is a wonderful little communist communist enclave in terms of its politics.
It's just left of left.
And I'm sure they know that the media is looking at them as somehow just ignorant, uh backwards in their thinking, anti-feminist.
I just want to say to all of the women at the March for Life today, and to anyone around the country who supports them or has none in the past, thank you.
I offer you uh a hug, a high five, a thumbs up.
Whatever I can give, thank you for what you're doing.
It matters.
And I think everybody who considers himself pro-life and a conservative should see some of the indicators, early indicators from the Trump administration, and also stop for a minute and say, so far, so good.
Buck Sexton infrarus Limbaugh will be back in just a few.
I should come back in here.
Um 800 282-2882 on the uh phone lines if you want to call in on this open line Friday.
Uh I thought I thought we were breaking, but actually we're going to extend this one a little bit.
Um, it's a perfect time to switch into another march.
Well, this is a little a little bit lighter fair.
Uh and that march is the March for Science.
Oh, yeah.
Hello, I'm here for the March for Science.
I'm very excited.
I have the packet protector, my glasses.
What's funny, of course, is that the March for Science is not going to be I'd have respect.
I props and all due respect to the March for Science if it was going to be actual scientists.
And I'm sure there'll be a few there, of course, for winter for window dressing, but what it will really turn into, and I don't even know if you've heard about this yet, is a bunch of hipsters getting together who probably never went beyond either freshman year biology in high school or sophomore year chemistry, who love to talk about how they're the party of science and they believe in science and they are all about the data.
Now the the law also tell you that gender is fluid, a spectrum, you can change gender.
Uh they will fascinating data, by the way, on some of the um some of the way that the the climate change movement, as we see this more and more, they don't want this they don't want the information to get out there.
They don't believe.
I I saw this piece before on the Federalist, which is a great website that all of you should definitely check out at some point.
That somehow there's this massive uh massive panic when the climate change data is pulled off of a website for the White House.
This happens all the time.
Every new administration Oh, we can?
We go?
Oh, all right.
Now we actually are going to go into a break.
Buck Sexton and for Rush, and we will be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB 800-282-2882.
We are here on Open Line Friday.
We want to take your calls, love a chat.
So light up those lines.
In the meantime, I just want to finish up on this March for Science.
This is Oh, this is good stuff.
So this comes from, according to a piece I see here on the Blaze dot com, a Reddit thread, because everyone's so scared that Donald Trump is going to be opposed to six he's anti-science.
So they want to have a big march where they're gonna have people, I don't know, probably dressed as the planet Pluto and you know I mean, of course they're all gonna be rolling up in their Priuses and riding around on tricycles, because you know, carbon emissions, obviously, and they're gonna be dancing around talking about science.
It'll be fascinating.
I I might have to just go to this one and interview people.
Say, so you're here for the March for Science.
Uh what exactly do you do you know of anything in particular about science?
Or is this just you have certain policy issues that you're psychologically uh psychologically attached to, and you think it makes you sophisticated and a better person than other people, like climate change, and you get to march around and be like, look at me, I'm so sophisticated, I'm amazing.
And it's all about science, bruh.
You got some numbers for me?
Can you tell me what part of science?
What is your scientific background?
Shouldn't know.
I always love this.
Bill Nye, the science guy, people say, Oh, Bill Nye dropping knowledge on people.
I think he's an engineer.
So if if I wanted Bill Nye to explain to me, for example, I don't know how an internal combustion engine works, I might get a really good answer.
But if he's supposed to tell me how it is that we have climate change that's going to destroy the world, and we need to take drastic and immediate action to stave that off.
Nah, not so much.
Not not not getting into that.
Oh yes, Mr. Snerdley points out that scientists now, speaking of of hashtag science, because that means you're smart.
If you put hashtag science on your tweet or if you're on your Facebook page, you're at hashtag science, means you're into the science.
Um there's a piece here on the Washington Post.
Scientists have created a part human part pig embryo, raising the possibility of interspecies organ transplants.
Whoa.
So this is the kind of thing.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing that you would usually see in some sort of a sci-fi movie, and we all know this could go very bad.
And bioethicists are they must be an interesting bunch, have a dinner with a bunch of bioethicists.
Uh they're already raising alarms about this, understandably so.
So they're scientists have created a part human part pig embryo.
Oh that's so that that that is science, but that's a whole other discussion about the ethics of these kinds of things.
Uh I wanted to share with you what the uh the March for Science thinks of as as their important stuff.
And uh it's basically just climate change.
We got more coming.
Be right back.
Buck Sexton here on the EIB having great time on this lovely Friday.
Thank you very much for joining me.
800 28288 to open line Friday, which means there are lines, and they are open, right?
You know you know what I'm saying?
You're feeling no, nope.
That's that's what it means, though, technically.
Fine.
Fine, be that way.
Engineers here giving me a look.
Uh so I want to take some calls.
Oh, we are keeping a close eye on I don't know, executive order count the final countdown to executive orders.
We might have a an executive order on refugees finally signed.
Trump administration has been saying last few days there is an executive order that's forthcoming that will take a temporary pause with regard to refugees from I believe it is seven countries, Syria plus six, and they're gonna take a hundred and twenty days.
This is what's been reported.
It's not signed yet, and I haven't seen the draft, although there's a draft that's been floating around.
It'll take a pause until we can implement extreme vetting to improve the security procedures used to vet those coming into this country who are refugees.
And they've already stopped doing some refugee interviews because of this.
Our our government has stopped some of those processes in preparation for this.
I think they also did that because it's a way to see in the news cycle, it's a way to tell lots of very sad stories about refugees and not focus on the security aspect of this, but I digress and I want to take calls.
Tom, in North Wales uh North Wales, Pennsylvania, you're speaking to Buck Sexton on the EIB.
What's up?
Well, uh at the opening of the show, you said, and I don't want to get you wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, I will.
You said that you spoke to some liberal uh jurists, I think it was, uh, who in their private moments admitted that that Grove versus Wade is junk, but they like the outcome.
Law professors, I was actually referring to, but yes.
Law professors.
Okay.
So you were implying that for them the end justifies the means.
I'm not implying I was saying it, but yes.
Right.
Okay.
So what uh my problem is as somebody who's kind of moderate, uh, when I look at the extreme left and I look at the extreme right, I find a great deal of end justifying the means on both uh uh polar um extreme, and I find that very disturbing.
I'm gonna need you to drill down beyond a two quo quay argument here.
I need I need something more than you know a pox on both houses.
What what are you referring to specifically?
Well, let's take President Trump.
President Trump said, yes, I uh had businesses that's declared bankruptcy because the bankruptcy laws exist.
Use them.
I take the um exemption that's only available to real estate developers uh in order to reduce my taxes.
But that's not the ends justifying the means.
That's just following tax law.
What's so or following f financial statutes that are that exists.
So what's what's the problem?
But but it is and justifying the means when it's something where it's you have a choice.
He had a choice whether to go bankrupt or whether to work out with um smaller.
Okay, but that that's a strategic decision made within the within the confines of the private sector for somebody who's working or runs a corporation.
We're talking about policy and presidents and and government here.
So do you have an example on that?
The further you get from the middle, the more the hypocrisy.
Take, for instance, executive order.
No, I don't know.
The middle bores me a lot of the time, so you're gonna have to sell me you're gonna sell me a lot harder than this.
the the um executive orders.
The the the right went absolutely nuts on President Obama's executive orders.
And he did use an excessive amount of executive orders to get around Congress.
But, Tom, it wasn't the amount.
The mass number of executive orders isn't what mattered.
It was what the orders were and how they conflicted either with existing federal statute or with the Constitution.
Two executive orders.
One executive order could be disastrous.
The argument was that he was using executive orders excessively.
Not that he was that he's a bigger one.
With the ex but with the extent of the order.
They're executive orders about how, you know, the the the mess hall at the White House is g is gonna be closed three hours early.
I mean th that executive orders have a huge span as to what they cover.
The ones that Obama Obama going around and he would say this.
I'm gonna go around Congress.
There I we're not gonna wait for them to act.
He was usurping the legislative prerogative using his pen and his phone.
Got a pen on a phone.
And that's what he was doing.
So that's not the same thing as signing an executive order on immigration, for example, that says and it's in the order, by the way.
I would I would commend you to go read it on White House.gov to the extent permitted by law.
By the way, some of the executive orders or some aspects of the executive order he signed on immigration is just saying we're gonna enforce the law.
That's all it is.
It's it's a statement of priorities of of existing law.
Obama was making laws up with a pen.
That's w a wildly different situation.
And I hope you can see that, Tom.
Well, I can see on the one example of of the um immigration.
But there he signed several executive orders that are creating uh you know issues with respect to law that are supposed to be.
Okay, you gotta give me one.
You gotta give me one.
If you're gonna be the moderate guy, I need you to be the moderate guy that has examples.
All right.
Well Okay, well uh Tom, it's it's been real, my friend.
Thank you for calling in.
I appreciate it.
Uh let's take uh who's up next.
We have uh uh John in Michigan.
John, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show, you're speaking to Buck.
Yeah, how are you doing today?
I'm very well, thank you.
I'm on the EIB, so it's life is beautiful.
Yeah, I I can see that.
Uh I think that the support and carry are keeping your jobs in the United States, uh keeping our money here and uh working, uh wouldn't couldn't that be considered a uh wee bit of a down payment on the wall.
Uh well what I'm sorry, just give me that again.
What's a down payment on the wall?
Just keeping the money and the jobs in the United States and not going to Mexico.
Uh well, there's a lot of ways the wall could be paid for.
And I know that this has become a big fight in the last couple of uh well, really the last twenty-four hours because Trump mentioned or somebody I think might have been Spicer mentioned a twenty percent import tax on goods coming across the border with with Mexico.
I should also note by the way, that uh El Chapo, who is the notorious uh drug lord, sort of modern day Pablo Escobar, they think that he has sixteen billion dollars in assets.
Mexico wants all those assets back.
That pays for a very nice wall.
I'm just putting that out there.
Uh but there's a lot of ways.
Uh there's a lot of ways, John, that this wall could be paid for.
So uh are you saying that just by improving the economy there's a way to there's a way to get that done?
Yeah, the the money's not being spent in Mexico, it's being spent in uh Ohio and Michigan.
Uh yeah, but in the Mexican economy, it's staying here in ours.
I I think if I I I think people are willing to pay for the wall.
I Trump, look, uh who am I to lecture the Trump administration on their public messaging when they've managed to beat the odds and the consensus and the conventional wisdom so many times.
But Mexico paying for the wall for me, I can I can only speak for myself, is much less important, John just the wall getting built.
Than us having a barrier that prevents the continuous uh state of a porous border, and that is that's going to affect illegal immigration, drug cartels, criminality, violence.
Uh you can't have a country without borders.
And so I think that we need to get that wall built and we'll see how it gets paid for.
Thank you for calling in John from Michigan.
Let's take Rich in Albany, New York.
Rich, you're on the E. IB.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey Buck, how are you doing today?
I'm great, sir.
How are you?
Awesome, awesome.
Hey, I'm a long time listener to uh Rush Limbaugh and always love when uh when you come in to fill in.
Uh, you always bring in fresh pre uh perspective to everything.
Thanks a lot.
I appreciate that, Rich.
Definitely.
I And uh hey guy, I just wanted to let you know uh uh definitely a Trump supporter since the beginning, and uh tell you what, I cannot get the smile off my face every day, it's just plastered on everything that that's coming out is awesome.
Um by trade and uh uh Obamacare is killing me, man.
Um premiums are really high, the deductibles are really high.
It's it's just that uh to even try to use um Obama yeah, I'm sorry, use my health insurance.
You know, I've got to have a few hundred dollars extra just to go to the doctors, you know.
And did you did you see by any chance, Rich, there was a great interaction, a great interaction between Tucker Carlson on his show, Tucker Carlson tonight, and Jonathan Gruber, who is the MIT professor who's known as the architect of of Obamacare, where Gruber more or less came out and said,
you know, it's because they don't understand and they don't know how good it is, and if you want to complain about how generous the benefits are, it was just all these propaganda words, all this nonsense when every single person that I know, and I know a number of people that have had to uh go through the exchanges and get their and and get an Obamacare approved plan, says that it is terrible.
So if everyone that I know says it's terrible, and anybody who's not getting it on the exchange is part of the Medicaid expansion, and Medicaid, we know from the most comprehensive studies on it is a very ineffective system for delivering health care to people.
The the health care outcomes are terrible.
What is there to celebrate with Obamacare?
And keep in mind they've they've stalled the employer men, they keep stalling parts of it because if we find out too quickly, you know, this is the the boiling frog and all pundits love the boiling frog analogy, but if we if it got too hot too quickly, we'd be ribbit ribbon right out of there.
We'd be hopping out right away.
So uh I'm sorry that you're dealing with Obamacare.
It's it is terrible, and uh I'm with you on Trump having a really good week, irrespective of the stuff about the uh the numbers of ill illegal voters and the fights over that and the and people were doing all these leaks.
Thanks, Rich, for calling in from Albany.
Uh all the leaks from this administration.
I'm so curious.
Are they really coming from senior reaches of the I don't think so.
And you start to get to this point where you wonder when do we stop believing the sources close to the administration say that the administration is terrible and in disarray.
I've been seeing those pieces for weeks.
Meanwhile, Trump is putting on a clinic this week, getting it done with these executive orders.
Uh I'm gonna hit a break here.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton here, in for Rush Limbaugh, Open Line Friday continues.
Don't go anywhere.
We back.
Buck Sexton here in for rush today.
Open line Friday continues.
800-282-2882.
Executive order, border security and immigration enforcement improvements.
That is what President Trump signed but a couple of days ago.
It is the executive order that deals with the wall, which Congress has already said, let's build a wall.
No wall really got billed.
There's some parts of it here and there.
But one aspect of this, um I mean, there were two executive orders on immigration, so this is one of them.
But one aspect of what Trump has done here that didn't get much attention, and I think should get a whole lot more, is that Trump expands the definition used by law enforcement for what constitutes a criminal, in addition to criminal legal alien, right?
So you're here illegally, that is a you're in a criminal or a an illegal status.
But then on top of that, some illegal aliens.
And the number is something we're gonna talk about as well, according to the migration policy.
This is from the New York Times, according to the Migration Policy Institute, which is a nonpartisan think tank, by the way, nonpartisan think tanks, kind of kind of not most of them are partisan.
They pretend not they have to say they're nonpartisan because it makes it seem like it's all about the facts and and hashtag science.
But most think tanks I know have a have a bent one way or the other.
But the uh I don't know about the migration policy institute, though.
Maybe they're totally straight shooters.
Okay, fine.
Roughly eight hundred and twenty thousand undocumented immigrants currently have a criminal record.
Almost a million people have committed crimes who are legal aliens in this country.
Over 800,000.
That's an estimate.
According to this is on the New York Times.
I'm not picking this out of nowhere.
But Trump is expanding the definition of what constitutes a criminal for the purposes of racking and stacking enforcement priorities here.
So, yes, people are here illegally, but as is the case for any law enforcement organization.
I worked for a short time at the NYPD intelligence division working on counterterrorism, so I actually have a little bit of experience in law enforcement, believe it or not.
But they always look at the biggest cases for obvious reasons and work their way down.
So if someone is here and they're an illegal alien and they are a rapist or a murderer or a bank robber, they are going to get more resources and be more quickly deported than somebody who is forging checks or something along those lines.
But Trump is changing.
Who could be at the top of the not at the top of the list, but who could be covered on the list in a way that they will in fact be deported.
This is from the New York Times.
Who is considered a priority for deportation?
Trump includes, according to language in the order, anyone who has, quote, committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.
Meaning anyone the authorities believe has broken any type of law, regardless of whether that person has been charged with a crime.
The order also includes anyone who has engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application for a government agency.
Oh, that means anybody who's used a false social security number to get a job.
A lot of illegal aliens do that.
I love all the word games we're supposed to play.
Illegal alien is the official term in law, but we're supposed to say undocumented.
No, they're documented.
They just don't have documents that let them stay in the country legally.
They got documents somewhere.
But social security fraud would now be covered as an enforcement priority.
It's already illegal.
And you're already not supposed to be here illegally.
But he's expanding what the enforcement priority covers.
And then also, quote, he finally allowed, or finally, he allows the targeting of anyone who, in the judgment of an immigration officer, poses a risk to either public safety or national security.
That gives immigration officers the broad authority they have been pressing for and no longer requires them to receive a review from a supervisor supervisor before targeting individuals.
So someone's in this country illegally, and it is believed they're a part of a narco trafficking gang or human smuggling gang, or they're a jihadist in the making, on the way, getting ready to strike.
This means that they can be moved up on the list of deportation priority, and they will be considered a higher need deportation candidate.
So this is a very important shift that has happened that is part of these executive orders that Trump signed.
So no longer is it just going to be limited to rapists, murderers, and narco traffickers, or people that commit very serious crimes.
Now, if you're caught and you're illegal and you're drunk driving, you're on the list.
Now, if you're caught and you're illegal and you're using fake documents all over the place, each time you do that is a crime.
Ask we're all going to be filling out our taxes here pretty soon, and I think there's a recognition that when we interact with the government, the government expects perfection.
When illegals interact with the government, well, just sweep it all under the rug of they got to do what they got to do because they're here illegally.
All right, Buck Sexton in for Rush.
We got a ton more show.
I'll be back with you in just a few minutes.
Buck Sexton here in for rush on the EIB.
Getting to hang out in the captain's chair for the day.
It's fun here.
It's fun.
Um I just want to tell you all about the Limbaugh Letter.
There's no fake news Limbaugh letter because it comes from Rush.
Each issue of the Limbaugh Letter contains a mix of humorous articles, Russia's commentaries, and interviews with top conservative thinkers.
In the upcoming February issue, Rush interviews Tommy Laren, one of my colleagues at the Blaze.
I'm just seeing this now as I'm reading this.
That's so exciting.
Congratulations, Tommy.
Yay.
That's that was did you guys know that?
I didn't know that.
That's really exciting.
Yeah, you know that.
Okay, well, I just I just saw the copy now.
Congrats to Tommy.
Big high five.
Uh, she's great.
That'll be really interesting.
Subscribe now and get an extra issue free and Russia's bonus report, keep fighting.
And uh the Limbaugh letter in digital and print editions is available at rushlimbaugh.com.
Oh man, we got to go into a hard break here.
I just want to tell you coming up next hour, we're gonna talk about Mexico, sanctuary cities, illegal voting.
Oh my, so much.
▲
Export Selection