Savage: Impeach Bush over immigration plan

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

[exmarine]

"First, America must control its borders".

Yeah, he also addressed his Mexican audience as "citizens of the world" (egad!). He has a penchant for speaking out of both sides of his mouth - one sentence to appease conservatives who hang on his every word, another sentence to soften offense to liberals. Someone who means what they say usually follow thru. Where is the beef. He has been in office for 3 years. A pathetic 1000 extra border patrol is doesn't cut it - it's window dressing. Bush has done nothing to effectively control the border. Why? Why? Why? There is no excuse, so stop making them.

[m1-lightning]

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.

The problem with that is the minimum wage isn't that succesful in getting people off their rears for a better job. Everytime a Democrat raises the minimum wage, it gives comfort for those to stay at the job they are in. Ghephardt wants to raise the federal minimum wage.

[jaugust]

Have you seen this yet? I posted this last night but by the time I did the thread was dying down:

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/SAVEPRESIDENCY.html

[AbsoluteJustice]

"We have significantly expanded the Border Patrol- with more than a thousand new agents on the borders."

Not correct Bill O'reilly contacted the INS to obtain this data and ONLY 600 New Agents have been placed on the border since 9/11.

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

VERY VERY SCARY. So what he is saying is that if you evade the law long enough find work, do not pay federal income taxes, and still WILL NOT pay federal income taxes once you are legal (lower income tax bracket) That we the tax payer will support you in services via MY tax dollars to come here and be "legal". Remain illegal long enough = legal status.

"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."

The Defunt INS can't even deport illegals here now without them returning! And you expect me to believe that another Guberment programme that will expand Guberment and hire on an additional thousand employees to track this program is going to work? This is all we need another agency within the INS to employee more "federal employees"

I could continue to rip this apart thread by thread but you already get the idea.

Bigger guberment coupled with handouts to people who break the law is plain and simple NOT A CONSERVATIVE CHOICE!

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree with you 110% and it should NEVER be raised again.

[GeorgeWashington777]

I couldn't agree more! While I think Savage is sometimes a bit curt and rude, He doesn't care who he offends while speaking his mind.

Savage isn't a talking point memo or shill for the Party and that I like.

;) ;) :)

[GeorgeWashington777]

Who wrote this?

[Consort]

So far, Bush's proposals involve no legislation or Executive Orders. He is a risk taker (for better or worse) and I think he is baiting the Democrats into to either openly opposing border and immigration reforms or to compete with them on which party would better resolve the border and immigration issues. It's another dilemma for the Dems and it's too soon to determine Bush's true intentions, good or bad, IMO.

[jaugust]

It's from Savage's web site.

[jaugust]

The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that it attracts higher skilled people to traditionally lower-skilled jobs. Entire article below:
http://www.epionline.org/oped_detail.cfm?oid=8

But I've thought all along that entry level(ie, minimum wage)jobs are just that. They're meant to introduce young people to the workforce, help pay for a young person's education, or for a spouse to supplement a family income. It was never intended to be a way to make a living. If it was what incentive would there be to move onward and upward?

[hedgetrimmer]

I sure would like to know the results of your research.

I think the cornell and the gpo websites list only the current code. On the house website you can get US code for 1994 and 1988, on the cornell and gpo websites you can't.

I think the code is much bigger that the online searchable version that cornell and gpo present.

The inclusion of the Declaration was made in 1898 in the 43rd Congress(a documented fact) so if the Cornell and gpo sites only list the active code for 2000, you can see why it might not come up in their search.

You are correct that it is part of a preamble to the code, thats why its CITE is USC-THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. It is also included in a section called "the organic laws of the United States" that is separate from the US code titles, but shows up in the House US code search engine

[moodyskeptic]

I'm not expecting you to believe anything, read the words of the speech and decide for yourself if Bush is a liar or a truther.

Many here see an outrage. I see a reasonable attempt to trap illegals into a choice: sign up, expose yourself to our laws or be deported.

The exact same proposal, in a different speech written by a Pat Buchanan, would bring screams of racism, xenophobia, etc.

I don't see any evidence of the combined political will to put 500,00 troops at the border and conduct mass roundups and deportations. That is specifically what is being demanded here, nothing less. What does a smart President do?

Chess, not checkers.

[jaugust]

Hello!
We got hit with some snow today which may delay my trip to the library. There were a couple of web sites which offered the US Code book(s) for sale but a search of my local library shows that they have the pubs. Don't know if you saw my previous posts, but I believe that the Declaration of Independence is its own Title and Section and as such to say that it is not a part of the USC is to relegate it to irrelevance, even though no Title and Sec has been assigned to it. The DoI is THE MOST relevant aspect of the USC.

[Stu Cohen]

"...I agree. I actually think this amnesty program is more harmful to American Citizens than a blowjub under the desk..."

Because it was all about sex, anyway? Thank you, Peter Jennings.

Nope. It was about lying, and honesty, and integrity.

But I still think those lies were less harmful to the country as a whole than the truth's of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Oh, and FYI, i'm not Peter Jennings.

[Junior_G]

The exact same proposal, in a different speech written by a Pat Buchanan, would bring screams of racism, xenophobia, etc.

When Pat Buchanan sneezes, there are cries of racism and xenophobia. I don't think Bush's proposal is nearly as clever or calculating as some people like to believe. He's granting virtual amnesty to illegals for a flood of cheap labor and in the hopes that it will produce Latino votes as well. End of story.

[Poohbah]

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

They don't. And it costs us plenty.

But many of the usual suspects don't appear to give a damn about that problem for some reason.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"When Pat Buchanan sneezes, there are cries of racism and xenophobia. I don't think Bush's proposal is nearly as clever or calculating as some people like to believe. He's granting virtual amnesty to illegals for a flood of cheap labor and in the hopes that it will produce Latino votes as well. End of story."

You hit the nail squarely on the head!

[exmarine]

Apparently, post 830 proves that the Declaration is contained in the U.S. Code. I do not believe organic law requires a section, title no. The Northwest Ordinance is in there too. Both of these were approved by Congress - that makes them law. So, your point is reduced to a quibble.

Also, as long as you post on these forums, I am free to respond to your posts. This is FREE REPUBLIC, not COMMUNIST REPUBLIC. I am free to speak to you or anyone else who posts here in public view.

[Modernman]

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

Wow. It only took 1100 posts on this thread for somebody to actually look at what the President said, as opposed to what people think he said. I actually can't see anything in there that I'd be opposed to, but I would like to add some more provisions (better enforcement of punisment of employers who hire illegals, for one).

[Modernman]

I don't see any evidence of the combined political will to put 500,00 troops at the border and conduct mass roundups and deportations.

Some FReepers have a fantasy of calling out the National Guard and going house-to-house in Arizona, California, New Mexico etc. and rounding up illegals at gunpoint. Anyone with half a brain should realize that (a) no President would ever authorize this and (b) even if he did, once the pictures of women and children having guns pointed at them hit the airways, the public would lose it.

Bush has put forward a realistic proposal. Some people disagree with its provisions. Fine. They should come up with something better (as I believe Sabretooth, for example, has on these threads). Screaming "impeach! impeach!" just shows that they have nothing useful to contribute to this debate.