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."

[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.