July 11, 2014, - 5:43 pm

Fact-Checking Rush Limbaugh on Immigration, the Border Crisis, Bush & Obama

By Debbie Schlussel

Rush Limbaugh is spreading disinformation on who is responsible for the BUSH immigration law that made it illegal for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and Border Patrol to deport children who come into the border from non-border nations. And it must be corrected, lest the many ignorami on the right (who apparently exist in numbers mirroring their counterparts on the left) repeat him.



I was incredibly annoyed when, on Tuesday, I heard Rush, on his nationally-syndicated radio show, make shameless excuses for and just flat-out misinform about the law Bush heavily lobbied for and signed at the midnight of his Presidency–THE law which made it illegal to deport alien kids from non-contiguous states. Rush blamed it on Bill Clinton, who has NOTHING to do with it. Nothing. And then he blamed it on Joe Biden. And then he claimed falsely that two Republican Senators voted against it, which is funny ‘cuz the Senate voted for it by UNANIMOUS CONSENT, which last time I checked means they ALL voted for it, thus the words “unanimous” and “consent.” And, by the way, the House voted for it in a voice vote, and not a single Republican demanded a record roll call vote. Gee, I wonder why not.

Then, Rush said, “I guarantee you nobody knew this was in the bill,” which is also funny because as I told you over two weeks ago, the Bush Administration lobbied heavily for the passage of this bill and for the “protections” BUSH (not Clinton) created to prevent the quick deportation of illegal alien kids. I showed you the press release put out by the Bush Administration quoting his press secretary saying so. Also, I think it’s funny that we are now, according to Limbaugh, supposed to excuse Republicans for not reading bills they unanimously pass, while we blame Dems who don’t read the bills, such as the ObamaCare bill.

I detest Obama and the Obama administration and Bill and Hillary and the Clinton Administration as much as anyone. But stop lying. Clinton and Obama have enough crappy things they’ve actually done. We don’t need to make stuff up. Bush pushed for and signed this law and bragged about it, and he deserves all the credit for that “achievement” along with all Members of Congress and all Senators who passed this and didn’t ask for recorded votes. The excuses are laughable. And, by the way, this is another stark example of why you simply cannot believe what you hear on conservative talk radio any more than you can believe what you hear in the liberal media, although the liberal media has its facts right on this, and Rush created new “facts” that simply aren’t true. Not even close.

Here’s a fact check:

Rush Limbaugh said the bill passed in 2008 by both houses of Congress was not a Bush bill (gee, who was President that year? George Washington?), but a Bill Clinton bill. How does he come to that conclusion? Because, he claimed, it’s a renewal of a bill first passed and signed under Bill Clinton. The bill was renewed by Congress and signed by Bush three times, as I told you over a week ago. However, the part about preventing the instant deportation of children from non-contiguous countries was never part of the legislation until 2008 because, as the Bush administration itself bragged, Bush wanted to provide “extra protection” to women and children and keep them from being trafficked and then quickly sent back to their home countries. This was a big push in Bush’s ICE under Julie Myers a/k/a “The ICE Princess,” as I told you when I discussed this in-depth on the site nearly three weeks ago.

Um, is it really not predictable to anyone with a brain that making it near impossible to quickly deport illegal alien children is going to mean exactly that: making it near impossible to quickly deport illegal alien children? Yet, Limbaugh says, “I guarantee you nobody knows this was in the bill.” Uh, I guarantee you they knew exactly what was in the bill. They bragged about that in their press release. As I noted earlier on this site, Bush

signed the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (full name: “the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking”), which mandated that illegal alien kids (particularly the OTMs) be transferred to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement within 24 hours of setting foot on U.S. soil or as soon as reasonably possible. Yes, Bush signed this law. And your Congressman and/or Senators probably voted for it, after Angelina Jolie lobbied them on it. But you won’t be able to find out for sure because the House passed the measure by a voice vote, not a roll call vote, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent (so all of you in America can blame your Senators for the current crisis). Here’s an ICE press release heralding the Bush sneak expansion of child illegal alien rights:

On December 23, President Bush signed into law a bill that enhances measures to combat human trafficking. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Assistant Secretary John Torres were among 16 federal agency and private organizational leaders in the Oval Office who witnessed the signing of H.R. 7311, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. Elyse Smith, daughter of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), also attended the signing event. The bill, which was passed by voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate on December 10, authorizes appropriations for FY 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

The legislation enacted today is in keeping with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (which amended the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to direct the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense to incorporate anti-trafficking and protection measures for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, into their post-conflict and humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities.

Prior to the signing, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto, said that the bill “has been a priority issue for the administration in preventing the trafficking of persons around the world. So this is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign.”

The trafficking bill signed today was named after English abolitionist William Wilberforce, who led the Parliamentary movement against the British slave trade in the early 19th century.

Rush Limbaugh then claimed on his show that Joe Biden rammed this bill through Congress. Really? How does all Republican Senators UNANIMOUSLY voting for it constitute Joe Biden “ramming it through”? And how does the House of Representatives voting for it and not demanding a record roll call vote constitute Joe Biden “ramming it through”? And where was a single Republican in the House or the Senate speaking out against it or demanding a recorded vote? Nowhere to be found. And by the way, in the House, the bill was sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, a conservative Republican who sees himself as the liberation theology shelterer of illegal aliens of the Right. So why does Rush Limbaugh not mention him and instead credit Joe Biden for “ramming it through,” a statement which has zero basis in fact?

Rush Limbaugh says that because this happened at the very end of Bush’s Presidency this somehow relieves Bush of the blame for signing (and quickly sneaking it in at the end when he knew he wouldn’t be held responsible for it or the consequences)–rather than vetoing–the bill he and his administration heavily lobbied for and bragged about in a press release. Huh? Did somebody put a gun to his head? Bush proudly and eagerly signed it. Had Bush vetoed the bill, it would have died because Congress wouldn’t have been able to take a vote overriding his veto, since they were already on vacation. But, in the world according to Rush, this somehow means that it is all Bill Clinton’s fault. Interesting, since Republicans and conservatives are constantly whining about Dems and Obama blaming Bush for what goes on in the Obama Administration (and Obama deserves credit, as I noted for the DACA–Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals a/k/a DREAM Act executive order which is attracting the illegal alien kids). But, here, Rush Limbaugh goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration to find someone to blame for a horrible bill Bush signed and both Democrats AND Republicans mostly voted for.

In the future, you should question any “facts” that conservative talk show hosts present you with (if you aren’t questioning them already). They have enough facts on their side with which to excoriate liberals. They don’t need to make up new “facts” that are simply false to make their cases.

Although in the case of Bush creating, pushing, and signing this horrible law, maybe they do need to lie.

Because the truth is pretty embarrassing for those on the right who say Obama isn’t enforcing the law by not instantly deporting the youthful illegal aliens. Sadly, he is enforcing that law because it says he can’t deport them.

And that law was signed by Bush. Not Clinton, not Obama, not anybody else.

If you care about this country, you will focus on principles rather than parties and personalities. Unfortunately, with his embarrassing set of excuses and non-facts about the Bush immigration law, Rush Limbaugh has shown he’s only about the latter two.

That, or he’s terrible at doing research.


One other thing: don’t forget that Rush was a big proponent of turning over our ports to Dubai because Bush was for it and he wanted to oppose Democrats and unions, who were on the right side of that issue. This is more of the same.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

29 Responses

Limbaugh is a bloated a$$hole. WIsh he’d have ODed and died on his Vicodin.

DS_ROCKS! on July 11, 2014 at 6:08 pm

Thanks, George Bush. I see the “Miss Me Yet?” photos and I think it must be a joke.

Rush Limbaugh brags that he’s been audited to be 99% correct. I don’t see how that is possible.

Barry Popik on July 11, 2014 at 6:31 pm

There is a person I work with who approves of millions and millions of illegals crossing the border and getting amnesty, but yet reported to his HOA the ice cream man when he tried to sell ice cream in his exclusive neighborhood. When I pointed out the irony of this I just got a blank stare in return. He should be working for the feds.

john on July 11, 2014 at 7:19 pm

Can’t one of the brilliant conservative lawyers sue the law as unconstitutional for not having a recoded record of who voted for the law?
Or are all crafty lawyers only on the left?

G: The “brilliant” “conservative” lawyers wrote the law for Bush. DS

Gino on July 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Another thing about the Republicans that Rush & the rest of them don’t talk about is the fact that the Republicans have succumbed completely to a social welfare mentality, and are trying to out social-welfare the Dems.

We saw it in their criticism of the rollout of Obamacare. Not that the rollout shouldn’t have been criticized — it was atrocious, and caused a lot of suffering. But the main problem with it was the redistribution of income, and the conservatives [sic] said almost nothing about that.

Now, we have the illegals suffering in squalid, dangerous and unhealthy conditions. While that is deplorable, and should be criticized, it is not the main problem. The main problem is the herding into the country of tens of thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of more illegals, including gang members, terrorists, etc. And almost nothing about that, except here on this blog. Most of the criticism is about the conditions they are living under.

So the Republicans, more and more, are trying to criticize Obama from the left. While there have been a few comments about gang members coming in, I’m not aware of any comments about the whole general trend of the Republicans to criticize Obama again and again from a social welfare perspective.

Little Al on July 11, 2014 at 7:29 pm

I miss the “mere presence law”. An illegal alien simply being here was considered a felony. 8 USC 1325 way back when, was a serious offense.

#1 Vato on July 11, 2014 at 10:19 pm

I was listening to that show, Debbie, and my ears pricked up when Rush was talking about this, because I could see he was being deceptive. Extremely disappointing. I have actually been waiting for you to call him out on it, and now you have. Thank you for being the fact checker that you are, and helping to steer people to the path of unvarnished truth.

Little Al, with regard to the redistribution of wealth, it is simply not true to say that there hasn’t been talk of this in conservative circles. Rush and Mark Levin have been screaming about it, in scintillating detail about how it would be accomplished, now has been, and continues to be accomplished, since day one of this administration. On that I have to give credit where credit is due, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It can be terribly disappointing when a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin covers for something/someone because of personal loyalties, or makes mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, and that’s why we have Debbie. I continue to be a loyal listener, because I think it’s helpful to get the big picture, and all the details that these guys give out during their weekly air time. But it is wise to always do what their hero Ronald Reagan suggested, and . . .


Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 11, 2014 at 11:42 pm

Can someone explain to me what that bill means by a child from a “non-contiguous country? I’m familiar with the contiguous 48 states (which, in the 1st reference Debbie says ‘states’, but in the 2nd reference she uses ‘country’)
So when it says …”preventing the instant deportation of children from non-contiguous countries”… What children (and/or women) are included or excluded by this statement? And, if they cannot be “instantly” deported can the be deported next month?

Laura S. on July 12, 2014 at 12:28 am

    Someone from a country NOT Canada or Mexico.

    #1 VATO on July 12, 2014 at 12:21 pm

      So then, someone from Canada or Mexico CAN be instantly deported according to that statement. And anyone can be deported, just not instantly. And, it’s meant to be for someone that is being used in human trafficking. So really, it’s like saying that abortion can only be used in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape and so they all claim to be victims of rape.

      LS: Wrong. #1 VATO said no such thing. He said these people used to be instantly deportable (emphasis on the words “used to be”. No longer, because of the law Bush lobbied for and signed (and all of Congress voted for). It doesn’t matter what a law was “meant” to do. It matters what it said. And what it says is that kids from non-border countries cannot be instantly deported. And so that–coupled with Obama’s DACA–is why we have the giant problems at the border now. DS

      Laura S. on July 13, 2014 at 8:15 am

        In the old days we had Exclusion grounds.(look up Fleuti vs US). He was excluded only because he was gay. If someone made application for entry into the US and they were determined to be inadmissible, they were set-up for an exclusion hearing. A complicated pain-in-the-ass for everyone so it was generally avoided. There is also a form I-275 used when the applicant wishes to withdraw their application for entry and voluntarily return to their country of origin. Kind of like pretending it never happened. We even used to notify the consulate by fax where their visa was issued, so they wouldn’t go back and simply get another one. There is yet another tool we used for undocumented folks called RTM (return to Mexico). Laura…in the media (except for Debbie) they mush these processes interchangeably and call them all “deportation”. Formal deportation is yet another monster in itself. What I am saying is…99% of the public (and 50% of all immigration attorneys)do not understand the complexities of this issue.

        #1 Vato on July 13, 2014 at 6:14 pm

          @ Vato
          Ok… so, there are a lot of complexities to the term/act/issue of deportation (thx for that info) but does that piece of legislation forbid sending Mexican’s back to Mexico if they show up this side of the border?
          (I’m really just trying to understand the wording of that bill and it’s meaning. Not whether or not it’s being adhered to or “played”)

          (Funny, while they are letting just about anyone cross over the border illegally, my daughter’s friend from Chile tried to get a visa to come for a visit and was denied 2x. From a wealthy family and ran a particular industry there and was told he didn’t have enough to hold him there and he might not return. UGH)

          Laura S. on July 14, 2014 at 8:26 am

        Ok.. I understand that.. (and there should have been a question mark at the end of my last post.. that was a question..or, supposition) But.. by saying non contiguous, does that mean that any Mexicans that come across the border CAN be sent back? It seems that the bill does not apply then to Mexicans…no?

        Laura S. on July 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm

R.Limbaugh is on the radio 3hrs per day, five days a week,250+ days a year, and so is occasionally going to make mistakes, esp as conserns G.W. Bush, who treated him well and was his BFFL. His overall record though, is one of courage, insight and tirelessly calling out the Left, and now RINOs, so maybe good to give the guy a break?

waynesteapartyworld on July 12, 2014 at 3:01 am

Check out Jetblue kicked the wrong woman off the plane for terrorist threats

Oliver Grant on July 12, 2014 at 9:33 am

More facts would be nice in this debate. Instead, we’ll get smoke and mirrors, with nothing but obfuscation and insidious people hiding behind the exploitation of women and children, to get one over on the tax-paying citizens of this country. Then you can add those who carry water for thier BFFLs, whatever that is, and next thing you know, we’ll have some monstrosity of a four thousand page Bill rammed through the Congress with no one having read it and the piss-poor excuse we have for president waltzing around saying I told you so. Pathetic. There is NO REASON to pass “comprehensive immigration reform”. If anyone wants to debate this, I say we nominate el #1 Vato to school them on the intricacy of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its enforcement.

nadie on July 12, 2014 at 9:59 am

Waynesteapartyworld, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I can’t give Rush a break on this one. Of the 26 years Rush has been on the radio, I’ve listened for about 23 1/2 of them. I love Rush, and generally approve of what he says, but he doesn’t deserve a break on this one. He was being a “homer” for the Republican party, knew exactly what he was doing, “highly trained broadcast professional” that he claims to be, and is.

Debbie was right to call out his duplicity on this extremely important matter. We don’t need voluntary dishonesty to win back the country, we need journalistic accuracy, and if Rush is constantly going to give the business to journalists about their lack of honesty, as he rightfully does all the time, then he must be honest himself.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 12, 2014 at 11:24 am

Since Obama picks and chooses which laws he follows and which laws he ignores it would be simple for him with a stroke of a pen to void the current law impeding the deportation of children from non-contiguous countries. If he wanted to.

Jerry G on July 12, 2014 at 11:36 am

Debbie give him a call and set him straight. Better yet, start your own Internet talk show and we will be willing followers. $10 a month and 1000 followers then you can kick it off. Now get the other 999. Debbie on Demand.

bed bug on July 12, 2014 at 11:46 am

Rush Limbaugh always has been about vilifying liberals, no matter that conservatives often answer to the same types of behavior. Far from being “courageous,” his pugilism is boring, loud, witless and factually-challenged. In other words, it’s perfectly suited for most self-described Red State radicals. As a conservative, I am embarrassed by him.

Rocker on July 12, 2014 at 6:56 pm

I respect you, Debbie, and I disagree with you on this one. The law that Bush signed is specifically aimed at young people and women targeted for the porn industry. Once again, Obama twists the law and applies it unlawfully. Obviously, nearly 60,000 kids and over 200,000 adults who have streamed en mass over our border aren’t part of the porn industry, nor are they claiming to be victims of it. So, we should be pointing out how Obama is purposefully using a specifically-intended law in an unintended way so as to create mayhem and chaos.

DK: You are entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to make up facts, just like Rush Limbaugh did. RIF – Reading Is Fundamental. READ the bill. I have, and what you say is entirely FALSE. The law Bush lobbied for and signed does not “specifically aim” anything at “young people and women targeted for the porn industry.” It included ALL children from non-border countries, regardless of their circumstances, all of whom could be instantly deported prior to Bush signing that law. Facts are stubborn things. Sadly, liars and blind partisan apologists (I put you in the latter group) are more stubborn. Obama twisted nothing. BUSH and ALL of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle made bad law, and we are reaping the “rewards” of it. The more you make excuses, instead of calling those who lie and obfuscate and created this law to the mat, the more YOU are part of this problem, rather than the solution. It’s just that simple. The law was INTENDED exactly this way because this is EXACTLY how it was written. It says nothing about preventing deportation only of those in the “porn industry” as you claim. WAKE. THE HECK. UP. DS

Dina Kim on July 12, 2014 at 11:02 pm

Rush Limbaugh has been making excuses for many Republican lapses over the years. He often fails to make the connection between such lapses and the Republican Party’s failure to make much headway politically.

Worry01 on July 13, 2014 at 8:00 am

Rush’s problem is that he is always defending RINOs rather than just attacking Demoncrats. Jorge Bush was almost as bad on immigration as Obama. Worst of all though, he prepared the way for the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty by his lack of enforcement and pandering to Hispanics.

Federale (@Federale86) on July 13, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Y’know, . . .

if one, . . .

was thinking . . .

about being a troll, . . .

and wanted to . . .

put together . . .

a . . .

disjointed string . . .

of thinly veiled . . .

insults, accusations . . .

in . . .

a . . .

really long string, . . .

it . . .

could . . .

be . . .

done . . .

in one, . . .

like this.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! Oh wait, that’s been used already.


I smell peanut dust for some reason, although this topic doesn’t warrant it. AH, AHHH-, ACHOOOOOOO!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on July 13, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    Alfredo, that was Frankz (I didn’t even have to read the comments). I’m hoping Debbie bans him and deletes all of his posts.

    skzion on July 14, 2014 at 3:02 am

Limbaugh considers George Bush his friend so he is always making excuses for him. The GOP stuck President Reagan with a Bush. It was like a mill stone around his neck. The entire Bush family are progressives. They are a little bit better than Obama, but not much. We DON’T NEED ANOTHER.

burt on July 14, 2014 at 9:54 pm

Bush was a liberal Republican. This bill is a self fulfilling prophesy as we now are finding out. He started the excessive spending party before Obama blew the roof off.

By the way look at the clothes, shoes, etc. that the so called immigrants are wearing after three days of hiking through the wilderness. They look like they are off the rack at K Mart.

I wonder if the ACLU or other community organizers in Mexico are prepping these folks before they come across the border? The whole thing looks like a pre-planned ordeal instigated by the community organizer in chief.

Bye, Bye Miss American Pie.

Panhandle on July 16, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Do I understand this article correctly; if the whitehouse wants stuff in a law, that’s it, the law will have those things. It doesn’t matter what the House or Senate thinks, they are then required to accept those proposals, as is, and vote unanimously for the bill? Did I get it right? I need to go back and review my school house rock videos again because somehow I missed the executive branch being the ultimate authority over the congress.

It does kind of make me wonder about all the complaints that the congress, and the house in particular, aren’t passing bi-partisan bills. Ah… I just figured it out. The whitehouse has been providing the congress with bills (just like Bush did in 2008), but they haven’t been doing their duty (unlike the congress of 2008) and passing them unanimously and unaltered. My bad.

SkepticalQuery on July 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Experts say cockroaches can live without food for one month.
Liberals can feast on this article for years.
Thanks,Deb. You’re a treasure.

Abby Dos on October 10, 2014 at 1:14 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field