Liberals Misread Rubio Interview (Long article)

RUSH: So what do you think the big immigration news is today? Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is. That's exactly right. In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday. And you know why? You know why that's the only immigration news out there? It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it. I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles. He had the guts to take on President Obama. Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage. Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this. Time will tell. But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview. "Why are we doing this? Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time? How come we're always reactionary and defensive? Why do we have to do this now?" You know, folks, I mentioned yesterday that we're being whipsawed. Yesterday it was immigration. Five minutes before that it was guns. Today it's back to guns. Now it's all about the guns. We had another first-ever hearing on what happened in Newtown. We had Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabby Giffords, who is a good guy. He's an astronaut, shuttle commander, and it's obvious he's gotta be a good guy, and I admire him. I admire both of them, actually, what they've been through and, you know, she's amazing in what she is able to accomplish after what happened to her.

She's not able to speak well, but she gives it her best. She's not able to see well, but she gives it her best. She doesn't complain. I ignore the substance of what she's saying in a circumstance like this. Well, I don't ignore it, but you can't avoid being really profoundly impressed by Gabby Giffords and her husband as well. But that doesn't mean that I agree with the proponents of getting rid of the Second Amendment in any way, shape, manner, or form. The point is that every day, every five minutes, every half hour we are moving on to some other crisis, something else that has to be done, something that's tearing the country apart, something that's ripping us to shreds. Meanwhile, the things that really are ripping the country to shreds are ignored, not talked about.

RUSH: Here's Albert in San Francisco. Hey, Albert maybe you can inject some sanity on this program today. Hello, sir.

CALLER: I'm doing well. Thank you, Rush. I had a question with regard to your interview yesterday with Marco Rubio. The very first question you asked was a great question, "Why are you doing it?" And he went on to say, well, it's because of the media and the Democrats. So my question to you is -- hopefully you can answer this, and I know you can -- is why is the GOP capitulating on the media and the Democrats, and why isn't the GOP coming out with their own message? And the second part of that is, why aren't the GOP talking about things that actually are important, like the economy? You know, especially from what you spoke about today and what's out in the news, is the economy's so bad, so why are they -- the two questions are, why is the GOP letting the media and the Democrats set their agenda?

RUSH: They always do. This really isn't new. And I know how frustrating it is for you. That's why my first question for Rubio was, "Why are we doing this? Whose idea is this?" What I was really getting at with that question is, I'll tell you why we're doing it, it's because the election, we got our clocks cleaned supposedly, and guess what the Democrats said and the media said afterwards? We lost because Hispanics don't like us. We lost because of our position on immigration. We lost because of our position on amnesty. We lost because Hispanics don't like us. And so you Republicans, you're gonna have to change your ways. You're gonna have to do outreach. You're gonna have to reach out. You have to make the Hispanics love you.

And the Republicans, "Yeah, yeah." And within the Republican Party, don't forget now, Albert, you have a bunch of RINOs, Republicans-in-name-only, establishment, moderate, liberal Republicans who agree with Democrats on this stuff. What really is going on, I believe, at the Democrat Party level clearly is a desire to eliminate all effective opposition. Now, for them that means conservatives. Conservative Republicans. The Republican establishment wants to do the same thing.

The Republican establishment looks at conservatives as a thorn in their side, and they think that conservatives are the reason Republicans are losing elections, because if it weren't for conservatives, Hispanics would like us, and if it weren't for conservatives, women would like us, and if it weren't for conservatives, we wouldn't have any social issue problems.

So they happen to agree with the Democrats on this. Which is a fool's game, and it's folly, because do you really think the Democrats are trying to help us when they tell us why we lost the election? You think they're really trying to help us win the next election by telling us what we have to do regarding Hispanics? They know full well that if they can get the Republican Party to fall in on full-fledged amnesty, the Republican Party's finished because its base will abandon it.

Now, the Republicans have been reactionary like this for a long time, it's not just immigration, it's whatever. That's my point about how we're being whipsawed. The Democrats, global warming, okay, Republicans have to get in on the game. The budget, doesn't matter, well, we can do it better, we can do it smarter. The abandonment of conservative principles in exchange for Washington-speak and whatever the ruling class Inside the Beltway wants to do so is what's taking place. It's one of the reasons I was a little thrilled with Rubio yesterday, because he was knocking out conservative principles one after another. He was articulating them passionately. Obviously he didn't need a cue card to do it; it's in his heart. He was on his game in that regard.

But the reason that we're doing this is because the Republicans have been convinced that they lost the election because Hispanics hate them, and the reason Hispanics hate them is because Hispanics think the Republicans want to deport them all. Well, none of that's true. But that's what the media and the Democrats have convinced the Hispanic population of believing. The Republicans are going about fighting that all the wrong way. If Democrats own an issue, like pro-choice, the Republicans are not gonna get any pro-choice voters by moderating their position on pro-life. It just isn't gonna happen. But they think they can. It's a pure defensive, reactionary posture. It is one that lacks confidence. It's one that lacks trust.

I think the confidence thing is really the big one. I don't think the Republicans are confident of what they believe. I don't think they're confident of what they believe in, and I don't know that they do have a core. I'm talking about establishment Republicans, the RINOs, not conservatives. I really do think it comes down to confidence and trust. If you're not confident in who you are, if you're not confident in what you're doing, as an individual in anything, then you're beating yourself up, you're defeatist, you're negative, you're pessimistic, and you're willing to accept lies as explanations for your predicament and so forth. I don't think it's really any more complicated than that, just in a human nature way.

RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites. As I said, the interview yesterday that Marco Rubio had on this program, there were a few reactions to it which are interesting, puzzling, funny. Some people said, "You know, Limbaugh started out, he was really skeptical. He wasn't on board at all, but Rubio charmed Limbaugh, and by the end of the interview, Limbaugh was on board for amnesty." That not only is a total misreading, that is a wish list. That is what those people hoped happened. They misinterpreted my compliments and my attaboys and my praise for Senator Rubio, and I was doing that simply because I thought he was impressive. I thought he stuck to his guns and if he was telling us the truth, it would be great.

If he meant it, he said if they don't get border security in this bill, the president doesn't follow through on that, then he's gonna vote against it. That's fine. But he was articulating conservative principles very well, leadership and so forth, and I thought in that sense that he was very impressive. But others are looking at it in a little bit different way. It's fun to listen to. Let's start out with Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer was on The Politico Playbook Breakfast Forum, whatever that is. And the White House correspondent, Mike Allen, interviewed Senator Schumer. Also had Senator McCain on there. And during a discussion about Rubio and immigration reform, Mike Allen said, "How hazardous is it --" he's talking to Schumer, now "-- how hazardous is it for Senator Rubio, a young senator, possibly running in '16, to be your talking point on this?"

SCHUMER: It's sort of he's been Daniel in the lion's den. After we came out with our principles he signed up to go on all of the talk shows of the very conservative radio and TV hosts, and it was amazing. He started out with the Rush Limbaugh show. When the show started, Limbaugh was far more hostile than at the end, and that's gonna be a real service.

RUSH: Yeah. I was hostile. You heard that. I was hostile the beginning of that interview. Hostile means, I asked Rubio, "Why are we doing this?" That was hostility. Disagreement. Skepticism is hostility. Next up, Senator McCain. He wanted to weigh in.

MCCAIN: What we're trying to do is make the, our talk show friends and people on the right at Fox and others, that the status quo is unacceptable. The status quo is unacceptable to have 11 million people in the shadows forever in this country. We have to get a secure border. Look, it's a fact. In 1986 we gave amnesty to three million people, said we'd secure the border, it would never happen again. Now we have 11 million people in this country illegally. I don't want to hand down a situation where we have another large group of people who have come to this country illegally. Chuck understands that. And that goes a long way in assuaging the concerns of a lot of my friends on the right.

RUSH: Senator, you just articulated the problem. You did this in '86 with the same promises that are being made today. You were gonna secure the border. That's how Reagan's support was obtained. You said you're gonna secure the border. Ted Kennedy and all the others said that if you sign that amnesty bill, Simpson-Mazzoli, we're never, ever, ever gonna have anymore illegals in the country, great numbers, ever, ever, ever have to deal with this again. And here we are, the number always changes, now they're using 11 million. It used to be 12, it's been as high as 20. Nobody really knows. But it's millions, and we're having to do it all over again, and we're hearing the same promises and the same claims, and you still have to convince the same people, "our talk show friends."

The reason there are skeptics is that we happen to know why this issue is attractive to Democrats. They're looking at these people as future voters that are gonna do a number of things. They're gonna replace the Democrats who are being aborted. I mean, let's face it, most abortions taking place are among Democrats. That's a shrinking Democrat voter base. It just is. I don't care if that sounds insensitive to you, it is what it is. There are fewer Democrats being born than otherwise. And theoretically during economic growth -- there isn't any, obviously, but during normal economic growth cycles, people grow out of the middle class. They become upwardly mobile. And the more financially independent they become, the less inclined to support big government they are. And as such they become less inclined to vote Democrat.

So you need an influx of low-income, low-information people to replace people that are growing out of the middle class. That has been the tradition and history of the country. Now, it's a new ball game now, because we've got an administration which is doing its level best with policy to make sure there is no growth out of the middle class. And I don't say that lightly either. But, A, the economy isn't growing. B, wages aren't going up. But taxes and the cost-of-living is. And so the opportunity for people to accrue wealth is declining. The progressive income tax is the greatest tool to prevent wealth that there's ever been in a free market society, other than putting people in jail, in dungeons.

The progressive income tax, which takes ever more of what people earn as they earn more and become successful, what does that keep them from doing? Accruing wealth. If the more they earn, the higher their tax rate, the less they keep, the less wealthy they become. So that's where we are now. Now, prior to the Obama administration, the purpose, the promise of America was, the American dream was roll up your sleeves, work hard, devote yourself to it. It may take a long time, may take a longer time than others spend on it, but you can score. You can become prosperous. You can tap into the prosperity this country offers.

Well, the policies in place now are making it increasingly harder for the middle class to experience that. But in the old days, before Obama, you needed a constant replenishing of the lower levels of the middle class. You need a replenishing of low-skilled and low-wage labor. The economy has a need for that, has a requirement for that. But those people, as they work, learn more. They gain experience and they cease being low-information and they cease being low wage, and they get better jobs, and their income goes up. That's always been the cycle. Well, when that cycle was in full fledge, the Democrats, they need to replace the people who are upwardly mobile. So these millions of immigrants, illegals, represent the future of the Democrat Party in terms of just voter numbers. And they represent the demographic profile the Democrats want.

They want relatively poor people that depend on government for their prosperity. That's what the Democrat is, that's what Obama is, that's their business model, if you will. Now they still want those voters, they still want those people as voters because that's how they win elections, and winning elections and holding onto their power so that they continue to grow government, shrink the middle class, shrink the private sector, that's the objective. That's why this is a must-do. But for Senator McCain to say, "We can't have 11 million people in the shadows forever." Granted, but in a pure political sense, why should we just sit by and do nothing and let the Democrats have their way and write the policy that's gonna secure them more voters? That's our opposition to this, in one part. Then the reality is, on the other side, the Republicans, some of them want the same thing. The Democrats are looking at this 11 million, 12 million, 20 million, whatever, as also a pool of potential voters.

The way the Republicans are looking at it, is that they think that Hispanic immigrants are made-to-order conservatives. For some reason, culturally, they think that they're invested in hard work and using the Cuban exile model, they're exactly right. But the Hispanic demographic, if you will, or population, has shifted. And the Cuban exile model is no longer the dominant model. The Mexican immigrant model is. They arrive with an entirely different view of America. I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's true. And I'm not just asserting it. The scholarly research from academia is out there. A full 75% of voting Hispanics believe that prosperity is the job of government. And so they'll vote for the party that espouses those beliefs. Happens to be the Democrats.

So we sit here and we think it's a lost cause to favor amnesty, illegal immigration, simply to get voters. We want to secure the border. We want to shut down the rampant illegal immigration for a whole host of reasons. A, the rule of law being number one. Number two, after that then we want to assimilate. See, there is a distinct American culture, or was, and in the old days of immigration people came to this country seeking a better life for themselves. They were fleeing tyranny, fleeing oppression, fleeing economic poverty. They wanted to come here and they wanted to be Americans, they wanted to become part of that great American culture.

Well, now that isn't happening. Our culture's being Balkanized. New arrivals are not assimilating. They're setting up their own cultures and there isn't a distinct American culture anymore. Well, there is, but people are not assimilating to it. What we want as conservative Republicans is that assimilation to take place. They're gonna learn English, because that's the best thing for them. Learning English is the fastest way they're gonna be able to get a good job and have a good career. Learning English and learning American history, becoming Americans, is the greatest thing in the world for people. We're actually interested in them as human beings, not as people who show up at the polls every two or four years.

But the Democrats, that's their primary objective. They need their permanent underclass. They need to replace demographics that they're losing because of various policies. And you add to that, they have convinced the Republicans that their problems at the polls are because Hispanics don't like them. Now, why would Hispanics not like Republicans? You think it might have to do with what is said about Republicans by Democrats and by the media day in and day out? I think that's a large part of it. So we're told, "Well, we need to reach out. We need to do trips into the Hispanic community." The Hispanic leadership and the activist base, they're committed liberals. We're not gonna change their minds on anything, not the political leadership, not the La Razas and groups like that. But new arrivals, sure, we would love for them to assimilate.

It also troubles us that we're talking about this because it's something the Democrats want. Okay, so the Democrats want this. Okay, so we gotta join. They set the agenda, then they set the format, then they define the terms of discussion, and we go right along with it. And our position gets constructed on the basis, "Well, we don't really agree with these guys. We can do it smarter and better," or whatever. Rather than saying, "No, we're not gonna do amnesty. We're gonna secure the border. The only discussion, securing the border, nothing else. We're not gonna discuss anything else." This should be the Republican position. We're not gonna talk to you about your path to citizenship. We're not gonna talk to you about your green card, about what you want to do with the employer verification, none of that until we secure the border. Once we stop the flow, then we begin the assimilation. That's our position, or should be.

That's what I heard Rubio saying. He was insistent that border security was first and foremost, and that without that, he wasn't voting for any of this. Well, good. That's the way it ought to be. It really isn't complicated. But the Democrats' objective is, they don't care about the border. In fact, I heard a Democrat say on Monday, I forget which one -- I wish I could remember -- about this Gang of Eight. "Yeah, we're throwing in this border security as a talking point for the Republicans." Meaning, there's four Republicans in this Gang of Eight, and one of these senators, "Yeah, yeah, we kind of threw that border security stuff in so that the Republicans would go out and talk to their base and promise." But they don't really mean it. They need the influx.

Obama's speech yesterday was demagogic as it could be. He was mixing and matching immigrants in completely erroneous ways, like citing the Instagram CEO or the Intel CEO and trying to make the claim that they were originally illegals from Mexico. They weren't. They came in with the H-1B visa. They followed the route. It was apples and oranges, but he was mixing them yesterday.

RUSH: You know, I didn't see this. I was just told the opening sentence from TIME Magazine, and I guarantee you this is not gonna make the president happy, already singling me out. Listen to how TIME Magazine wrote up the Rubio thing yesterday. Listen to this. "Two big things happened Tuesday with regards to immigration reform: President Barack Obama announced his plans at a Las Vegas high school, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called into Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. The second event mattered more."

Oh, no. There goes... well, I lost my low-profile desire a long time, I guess. You just know that's gonna tick Obama off of if somebody shows him that. But you know what's happening? These people think I've changed on amnesty, and they're showing me some respect now. Some of these people, that was their takeaway from yesterday. I find that very interesting, very curious.

RUSH: Let's continue here with the audio sound bites, Bill Nelson, the Democrat senator from Florida. He was on Starting Point on CNN today, and the infobabe is Soledad O'Brien. She said, "Here's what Senator Rubio said yesterday. He said, quote, 'I'm concerned by the president's unwillingness to accept enforcement triggers before undocumented immigrants can apply for a green card.' That sounds like he has some problems already."

NELSON: No, give him a break. He's got to cover. Just wait until you get to the details. They'll hammer it out. Remember, he had to go on Rush Limbaugh and start convincing Rush Limbaugh, who as recent as last Monday, said, "No way, Jose." And as a result, Marco was successful. And by the way, I complimented him as the two of us stood on the floor of the Senate yesterday. He is going to give a lot of cover to the Republicans who otherwise would choke on this.

RUSH: All right, let me translate this for you. You probably don't need the translation, but what Soledad O'Brien was saying, "You know, Rubio, he said he's not gonna accept any of this immigration bill until there are enforcement triggers on border security." And when she said it sounds like he's got some problems already, she's talking about Obama. And Bill Nelson, "Oh, no, give him a break. He didn't really mean that. He just had to say that to Rush Limbaugh to fool Rush Limbaugh. He's gotta cover. Just wait 'til you get to the details. They'll hammer all that out. Remember, he had to go on Rush Limbaugh and convince Rush Limbaugh." Meaning, he's gotta say things he doesn't mean.

Is that what Bill Nelson meant by that? What do you think, Dawn? He had to go on Rush Limbaugh, he had to convince Rush Limbaugh. So all of this talk about border security, don't sweat it, Soledad. When the bill gets written, it will be done the right way. Well, Rubio was emphatic. And, by the way, not just to me. He's been doing a lot of interviews and he's told everybody that if he's not satisfied on the border security mechanisms, he's not gonna vote for it. He hasn't just told me that.

So here is Gloria Borger. This is an interesting bite. You can look at this one a couple of ways. I think she means with this bite that Rubio can probably save the Republican Party from people like me. I think that's what she means, as you hear it. But if Rubio pulls off what he's trying to pull off, he could also save the GOP from the Republican establishment, because the Republican establishment is willing to give the Democrats blanket amnesty. Can we just be honest about that? You know it and I know it and that's what you're afraid of. The RINOs will have blanket amnesty. If anybody is not telling us the truth about border security, it isn't Rubio. That's not what our fear is. We think Rubio's telling us the truth on that. It's the other guys about whom we have some concerns. Here's Gloria Borger. See what you think of this.

BORGER: I don't think you can overstate it, Wolf. It's very, very important. Here's someone with undeniable conservative credentials, a bona fide member of the Tea Party, who is effectively trying to save, I would argue, save the Republican Party from itself on the question of immigration. He is somebody who can go on the Rush Limbaugh show and say, "Look, I care about enforcement. We have to secure the borders, but we have to find a way out of the immigration mess that we have." I believe he's staging his entire political career on it, and, as I said, helping the Republican Party, in his own way.

RUSH: Okay, I think what she's talking about is that Rubio can save the GOP from people like me, 'cause people like me really don't want these people here. That's what she thinks. We don't want these people here. And she couldn't be more wrong. It's all about the rule of law and assimilation and border security, as I explained in the previous half hour. But, at any rate, "save the Republican Party from itself and find a way out of the immigration mess that we have." I think this groupthink among the liberals and the media, "the immigration mess that we have," why do they care about it? What is the mess?

When you get down to brass tacks, in the human being factor, what is their real concern about this? Are they really wringing their hands over the fate of all of these 11 or 12 million people and their daily lives? Is that what they're really worried about? People like Gloria Borger, is that really what's troubling her, is the circumstances of these people, or is it something else? I think everything with these people is political. I think this is just another avenue to get rid of an effective Republican opposition. That's the value of immigration and it's an issue on which they hope to be able relegate Republicans to insignificance. This Republican immigration problem is largely one they have manufactured. Jessica Yellin, CNN, Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. This is what she said.

YELLIN: The president's critics are howling. When Senator Marco Rubio defended reform to Rush Limbaugh, he got an earful.

RUSH ARCHIVE: What you are doing is admirable and noteworthy. You are recognizing reality. My concern is the president wants people to believe something that isn't true, that you really don't want an improved life for Hispanics, that you really are still racist.

RUSH: What does she mean he got an earful from me? I said you're admirable, noteworthy, you're recognizing reality. That's an earful? Everybody else thinks I was too praiseworthy of Rubio. She thinks I was being too mean or too whatever. Folks, I don't know. Gloria Borger talks about the mess of illegal immigration. What is the mess? Where is the crisis? What's the rush? I know it's something that has to be dealt with. But in 2007 they told us the same stuff, "We gotta do this, it's a crisis." What crisis? I mean, all of this, to me, seems to be quite beneficiary to the Democrats. The status quo seems beneficiary to the Democrats as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what the mess is or what the crisis is, from their standpoint.

EVERYONE can stop right here....as usual ANNIE GETS IT RIGHT....here's the last word on this subject...end of discussion.....:

ANN'S LATEST COLUMN...

http://www.anncoulter.com/

RUBIO'S AMNESTY: A PATH TO OBLIVION FOR THE GOP January 30, 2013

Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services16

Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term. In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It's like watching MSNBC, with the word "Democrats" replaced with "Republicans." Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate -- a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush. Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had "lost five of the past seven presidential elections." But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There's no reason Republicans can't do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016. Unless Marco Rubio has his way. The Democrats never change their ideas; they change the voters. For decades, Democrats have been working feverishly to create more Democrats by encouraging divorce (another Democratic voter!), illegitimacy (another Democratic voter!) and Third World immigration (another Democratic voter!). Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio's amnesty plan. IT'S NOT AMNESTY! Rubio's proponents cry. They seem to think they can bully Republicans the way the Democrats do, by controlling the language. Rubio's bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn't even "amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement." This is a wolf in wolf's clothing. Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands "Enforcement First!" the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal. (Don't call them "illegal aliens"!) The ability to live and work legally in America is the most valuable commodity in the world; it's the Hope Diamond of the universe. I know young, well-educated Canadians who waited a decade for that privilege. Step One of Marco Rubio's plan is: Grant illegal aliens the right to live and work in America legally. (Rubio's first move in poker: Fold.) People who have broken our laws will thus leap ahead of millions of foreigners dying to immigrate here, but -- unwilling to enter illegally -- waiting patiently in their own countries. The only thing the newly legalized illegal immigrants won't get immediately is citizenship. Rubio claims that under his plan, they won't be able to vote or go on welfare. But in practice, they'll have to wait only until the ACLU finds a judge to say otherwise. Even under Rubio's scheme, all the children born to the 11 million newly legalized illegals will be instant citizens, able to collect welfare for their whole families and vote as soon as they are old enough. Which won't be long: The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That's a lot of Democratic voters coming. And look how great that's turned out! With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there's no one left to pay the bill. That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio's phony "Enforcement First!" plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election. No border can be secure when the pot of gold on the other side is an American green card. (Again playing games with language, Rubio doesn't call the right to legally live and work here a "green card," but in practical effect, that's what it is.) So when exactly does the enforcement part of Rubio's "Enforcement First!" plan kick in? Answer: Never. Or rather, enforcement becomes both impossible -- because nothing will stop them if legalization is the lure -- and irrelevant -- because there's no penalty for leaving the border wide open. Even if enforcement "fails," are the 11 million illegals already legalized by Rubio going to be asked to leave? Of course not. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a Republican who -- as a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate -- does not yearn for "strange new respect" from the elites. This week, he said of Rubio's amnesty plan: "To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both incons istent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally." If only other Republicans didn't ride the tea party to victory before realizing they really just want to be John McCain.

The problem is that Rush doesn't have a grasp on the immigration issue. And given the size and composition of his audience, his interview with Rubio was a disaster. He became a useful idiot for amnesty, read Schumer, McCain, Graham, and Menendez.

This from the transcript: All right, let me translate this for you. You probably don't need the translation, but what Soledad O'Brien was saying, "You know, Rubio, he said he's not gonna accept any of this immigration bill until there are enforcement triggers on border security."

If Rush had any knowledge of what was in the McCain-Kennedy 2007 amnesty bill, he would realize that what Rubio was spouting was just old wine in new bottles. There were security milestones in the 900 page plus McCain-Kennedy bill, which would trigger amnesty. And from day one, everyone would have their status legalized. What is going on with the Gang of Eight is a resurection of McCain-Kennedy. The legislation has already been written. We just have a new salesman--Rubio.

Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay and work here is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

And Rush fails to address legal immigration, which is actually more of a problem than illegal immigration. The legal immigrants are having far more of an impact electorally. The Dems don't need a amnesty to get more Dem voters. Every year, 1.2 million legal immigrants enter the US and the overwhelming majority of them will be voting Dem. The last decade ending in 2010 saw the largest number of legal immigrants ever to enter this country in our history--13.9 million. One in 8 in this country is foreign born compared to one in 21 in 1970. Immigration is changing our electoral demograhics ensuring that the Dems will be the permanent majority party. Amnesty just hastens a process that has been ongoing over the past 40 years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.