Savage: Impeach Bush over immigration plan

WND ^ | 1-12-04 | N/A

[JustPiper]

Conservative talk-radio star, author says amnesty is betrayal of country

In the latest indication President Bush is having problems with his conservative core political constituency, Michael Savage, one of talk radio's biggest stars, tonight called for the impeachment of President Bush over his plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens.

"This is the worst betrayal of our country in my lifetime," said Savage, whose program is heard on more than 350 stations with an audience reaching some 6 million. His book, "The Savage Nation," last year was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller's list for five weeks. His follow-up, "The Enemy Within," out just one week, is already No. 8 on the list. Both were published by WND Books.

President Bush

Tonight Savage called Bush a liberal and described him as part of the "enemy within" that is destroying the nation.

Savage created the phrase "compassionate conservative" in 1994, a term picked up by Bush during his presidential campaign – a campaign supported by Savage.

"This is much more serious than dropping your pants for an intern," said Savage. "This is a policy that represents a danger to national security."

Savage is hardly alone in his strong feelings of opposition to Bush's proposal to offer legal status to illegal immigrants. A new ABC News poll finds 52 percent of the nation opposes an amnesty program for illegal immigrants from Mexico, while 57 percent oppose one for illegal immigrants from other countries. Both results are roughly the same as when the administration floated the idea two-and-a-half years ago.

But today in Monterrey, Mexico, Bush reaffirmed his support of the proposal, despite its unpopularity at home. He said it could help illegal immigrants "leave the shadows and have an identity."

At a joint press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox, Bush warned that his government will not allow the existence in the United States of an underclass of illegal immigrants, but claimed again his proposal is not an amnesty. Amnesty, he said, would only promote the violation of the law and perpetuate illegal immigration.

Bush said his immigration proposal would benefit both the United States and Mexico as it recognizes the contribution of thousands of honest Mexicans who work in the United States.

For his part, Fox embraced Bush's proposal.

"What else can we wish?" Fox said at the news conference with the president.

In the U.S., the latest poll on the controversy shows at least twice as many Americans "strongly" oppose the proposal as strongly support it.

Opposition peaks in Bush's own party: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans oppose his immigration proposal for Mexicans, compared with 50 percent of Democrats. For illegal immigrants other than Mexicans, 63 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Bush reportedly will disclose more details of the plan in his State of the Union address Jan. 20.

Meanwhile, the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 9,000 of the Border Patrol's non-supervisory agents, has told its members to challenge President Bush´s proposed guest-worker program, calling it a "slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States," the Washington Times reported today.

The agents were told in a letter from Vice President John Frecker that the proposal offered last week during a White House press conference "implies that the country really wasn't serious about" immigration enforcement in the first place.

"Hey, you know all those illegal aliens you risked 'life and limb' to apprehend? FAH-GED-ABOWD-IT," said Frecker, a veteran Border Patrol agent. "President Bush has solved the problem. Don't be confused and call this an 'amnesty,' even though those who are here illegally will suddenly become legal and will be allowed to stay here. The president assures us that it's not an amnesty," he said.

Last week Bush proposed the sweeping immigration changes that would allow the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens thought to be in the United States to remain in the country if they have a job and apply for a guest-worker card. The immigrants could stay for renewable three-year periods, after which they could apply for permanent legal residence.

Savage cited a new report published in the City Journal by the Manhattan Institute suggesting there is a major crime wave in the U.S. caused by illegal immigration.

"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," the report charges. "Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gang-banger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law."

The situation is similar, the report says in New York, Chicago, San Diego, Austin and Houston. These "sanctuary policies" generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities, says the report.

"These people are destroying America," said Savage. "That's all I have to say on the subject. But you can talk about it. Talk about it while you can – while America is still a free country, because it's not going to last."

[evad]

I always considered him a part of the far right.

So now you're far right if you think America's borders should be defended.

Maybe extreme would have been better.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"You are obviously not a listener to either one, but yet you comment on them anyway."

Please!
I listen to them everyday and they are cheerleaders plain and simple.

Whenever a Democrat makes a mistake or a dumb comment they both pile on them unrelentlessly. Whenever a Republicrat makes the same mistake ir dumb comment they try to find the good in it. they may sya it is bad yes but there is a HUGE difference in how they present it. To say otherwise you would be fooling yourself.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Thank you for your service AJ!"

Why thank you very much and thank you for your troop support!

[steve50]

May I disagree? Clinton and his deal with Jiang Zemin was the worst. That's the deal that traded Loral's technology to the PLA

You might be surprised if you looked into the lobbyist outfit that Loral used.

[PGalt]

The 8-10 million illegal number almost rivals Mitch Snyder's homeless hype from years ago.

[FITZ]

If they don't bring the money to pay --- that should be a crime.

[FITZ]

There has NEVER been a business in history that could survive as a profit making enterprise that cared more about its workers than its profit.

In the days when you could find a smart CEO such as Henry Ford, there was more of that --- he went against the grain, paid his workers what was considered to be very excellent pay for those days --- so they could afford to buy the product they made. Henry Ford invented the assembly line in order to bring about efficiency. Most companies today fail because the CEO's are not especially wise or brilliant men. They don't know how to run a company, they don't know how to make for efficiency, they believe adding a thousand inefficient but cheap workers is the key --- and the prices today are very high.

[exmarine]

Well you are not much of a Marine since there is no such thing as an Ex-Marine.

You don't even know me Tex, yet you have the temerity and unmitigated gaul to question my qualifications as a Marine? What does that say about you? heh?

[m1-lightning]

Whenever a Democrat makes a mistake or a dumb comment they both pile on them unrelentlessly. Whenever a Republicrat makes the same mistake ir dumb comment they try to find the good in it.

There is a BIG difference in the Republican's idea of giving select foreigners a permit to work in the US and the Democrat's idea of giving them citizenship and free welfare. To say they are the same is a misunderstanding of the intent and outcome of the two ideas. The only thing I see around here that's the same as a Democrat's is the "Hate Bush and Impeach Him" liberaltarian club. And if you aver truly listened to them every day such that you claim, you wouldn't make your comment knowing that Rush and Hannity have both criticized Bush for his immigration idea. They are not cheerleaders. They are smart voters.

[m1-lightning]

I just don't like sweatshop operators and people who deliberately hire illegals, so they can break their people on the wheel.

Knowing that sweatshops are not the same as slave work, are you a supporter of unionizing the workers so they can get better pay and benefits? Also are you a supporter of a raise in the minimum wage to prevent such breaking of people on the wheel?

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm not a Savage fan. I got tired of alot he said while on MSNBC. But the liberals would call you a right-wing whatever simply because of following Bush so blindly.|

You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I couldn't care what the liberals called me.

[F16Fighter]

"They have been decieving themselves like that for three years now, out of fear, denial, ignorance of the outcome of cause and effect, because their concentration is not on cause and effect, but reading between the lines. It's like grabbing the hot end of a candle over and over and hoping for a different outcome each time. Lacking foresight is a real bad deal."

Amen sister -- Excellent overall articulation and analysis.

[jaugust]

Savage's personality is to pile on people with a rabidness unmatched by Rush or Sean. But that's HIS personality, that's his method. Anger takes many forms, but I have heard both of the aforementioned gentlemen get extremely angry without foaming at the mouth. I would pile on Democrats, too because nothing they say is ever right, and they are incapable of intellectually engaging in a debate of ideas. Republicans, on the other hand, though more often wrong lately than they have been, are at least right on some issues, when they aren't doing their best impersonation of Dems. And this is troublesome. Just because one does not foam at the mouth like Savage, does not mean they are not as angry. It's all personality and how it's delivered to the radio masses. Michael Savage is an extremely dynamic individual, and even though I listen to him while I'm working in my shop, there I times when I can't stomach him as well and have to turn off the radio and go take my blood pressure medication. ;-)

[pawdoggie]

Savage's personality is to pile on people with a rabidness unmatched by Rush or Sean. But that's HIS personality,

So you're saying that Savage is the Howard Dean of the Right?

[moehoward]

Great article.
Sure is funny how so many are attacking the messenger.

[AbsoluteJustice]

LOL very well put and said.

I like Savage because he speaks like and everyday person and doesn't cover it up in "political correctness" BS.

He says it like it is and if you don't like it guess what? He doesn't care.

He is very impassioned and lights a fire in myself to care about what the government is doing and tells us why we should care.

Brash? Yes. Honest? Sure he is.
He is truely a good American and one I follow with passion as well.

Good conversing with you.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Also are you a supporter of a raise in the minimum wage to prevent such breaking of people on the wheel?"

Yes I am in support of the minimum wage. It is meant for those that have only a high school or no high school diploma with little or no skill to obtain work. It is not meant for a career wage. It is really IMO a deterrent to from ONLY accepting min wage and put in place for those that hate it to get up off their rears and better themselves.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"So you're saying that Savage is the Howard Dean of the Right?"

Have you ever listened to him? If so where do you ever come to the conclusion that he is the Howard Dean of the right?

Here is the difference....Howard Dean bashes and complains and never states what his resolution to the problem is.

Michael Savage may spend 30 min bashing ignorance but ALWAYS has at least an idea onto how to better the situation.

Sometimes he is wrong but it gets you thinking at least instead of listening to 3 hours of diatribe.

The same can never be said for Dean these days.

[moodyskeptic]

After reading the President's speech four times, and after reflecting that he habitually means what he says, I must admit - I'm shocked that this proposal has enraged the Right. Here's a quick reference of quotes from the speech. If you believe he is lying, that's one thing. If you believe that GWB says exactly what he means.... well....

"First, America must control its borders".

"We have significantly expanded the Border Patrol- with more than a thousand new agents on the borders, and 40 percent greater funding over the last two years".

"...our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals, to drug traders, to drug traffickers, and to terrorists".

"This program will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States".

"The legal status granted by this program will last three years and be renewable, but it will have an end. Participants who do not remain employed, who do not follow the rules of the program, or who break the law will not be eligible for continued participation and will be required to return to their home".

"Employers...must first make every reasonable effort to find an American worker for the job at hand". and... "They must report to the government the temporary workers they hire, and who leaves their employ, so that we can keep track of the people in the program, and better enforce immigration laws".

"Undocumented workers now here will be required to pay a one-time fee to register for the temp worker program".

Re: citizenship:
"They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start. I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship".

earlier in the speech:
"About 14 percent of our nation's civilian workforce is foreign-born".

and finally:
"Our homeland will be more secure when we can better account for those who enter our country, instead of the current situation in which millions of people are unknwn, unknown to the law".

Well, that's it Freepers. The rest of the speech is feel-good stuff to make soccer moms and "moderates" see this proposal as 100% compassionate. Fluff, and masterfully written fluff, too.

My question for this thread: where do you see all the evil motives, the amnesty, and the impeachable offences?

Assuming, of course, you take the President at his word.

[jaugust]

Perhaps, every time I hear Howard Dean I have to take my BP meds. LOL