Posted on 01/13/2004 5:54:13 AM PST by 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."
It's not at all. It was a simple statement that most of the anti-immigrant crowd at FR are not Christian.
Such a projection is too premature.
The natives are restless, their jobs, homes, careers, educations, property, culture, and future come into play here.
A wrong decision in January can make a very big bite in November.
Continued enforcement avoidance of our immigration laws will not promote the kind of America I swore to protect when I enlisted in the US Navy.
You can call me a Bush hater because I will not vote for him again unless he corrects this situation BEFORE the next election. Well, you and I know he doesn't time, buts that's because he wasted too much alreadly. Not my fault, is it?
He can take his compassionate conservatism back to Texas. I want a President who will promote law enforcement by everyone on our soil.
"According to a RoperASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation."
I'm one of the 83%.
If the President Bush or Tom Ridge would announce that in six months they will be paying a $50 per head bounty for each illegal alien on American soil there would be a mad rush for the borders.
A policeman in a car costs the average city about $200 an hour. Helicopters cost at least $2000 an hour with the ground crews. What is the full cost of a teacher per hour? $140.00 or there about.
If we could get illegal aliens to turn each other in, just the ones trying to slip through the net, (I know thousands would attempt it) we would save billions in law enforcement, welfare programs, unemployment, medical care, job training and schools the first year.
Do all this under Executive Order and tell the Courts to back off. This is national security!
Any employer who has employed an illegal alien more than five months from the announcement date will be fined $5000 per employee. One month later enforcement begins. This will give employers 5 months to shed the illegals and hire legally papered actual American citizens.
Then on the announced date, start in a state such as Oklahoma. Well centered, not overly populated and clean the state out. This would give Homeland, INS and Border Patrol time to install their co-agents in various court houses around the country to verify a persons paperwork, i.e.. birth certificates, hospital records, etc.
Go state to state from the epicenter sweeping out the criminals who have successfully avoided suspicion. They already had 5 months to get out, hanging around to test the system carries a SEVERE penalty. They won't be able to say they weren't warned.
Divide a state into quadrants depending on population per square mile., First arrest those whose names were turn in for the bounty. Then others suspected by local law agencies. When arrests slow down, open an adjoining quadrant.
Get caught after the selected dated and the result would be every foreign national who is not in America legally would forfeit all their belongings (houses, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and be deported within 24 hours. These forfeited belongings would then be given to local churches for distribution to the needy in that community. Another cost saver!
This enforcement would apply to illegals from every country in the world, not just Mexico.
Imagine the number of Chinese who would be taking the ship home with everything in the house, new cars, you name it would be on those ships. The thousands of Canadians who decided the USA was better than Canada would be again headed North.
How many schools could be closed? How many hospitals and state paid housing tracts? How many welfare offices? How many planned jail enlargements could be stopped for lack of need?
How many state and federal employees would find out that they have the time to actually give good service to their American customers?
Oh yes, it would be an economic shocker in the amount of taxes that could be reduced or used to actually improve something needed for American citizens, instead of illegal foreigners.
Want an approximate number of the population drop? Try 50 million+ with the majority over 30 years of age, having been illegal residents of America for over ten years.
Just imagine the frantic squealing from our politicians thinking of the lost votes and contributions. That would be a sideshow worth watching!
Scan the whole page for good reading!
Conservative Debate Handbook
Interesting point. Would it be so bad if, two generations from now, the only real difference in America is that the average American is naturally more tan and burritos are the national dish?
I have been hearing this from you and others at FR for almost a year now. And Bush's approval numbers are about as high as they've ever been since the 9/11 bounce wore off. But yours is also the crowd that predicted NAFTA would take every American job and that Japan was going to conquer America in the late 80s/early 90s. Are you ever right about anything?
President Kennedy called for a mission to send man to the moon during a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961. Would you say he lost his mind? It's a bold idea but many support it. Maybe NASA appropriations should be a check box on the ballot like the campiagn finance monies.
Uh, how many of them came right back?
That was 50 years ago.
Ever hear of the word "Lawyer?"
What happens when these "Criminal Aliens" start shooting back?
How many soldiers(as opposed to Marines)/policemen/Vigilantes per Alien do you think it will take to "Deport" them?
Exactly which part of the Federal/State/Local Government will be expanded to provide the few hundred thousand or so folks needed to "round up" these criminals? Who's paying for it? And don't say we'll save the money from reduced Social Services, we tried that in CA.
What's to keep them from coming right back?
I have a friend in SF who along with his parents came from Hong Kong in the 60's. First thing they did was to change their first names to something they thought was Americanized. (William Wong, e.g.) The next thing they did was get a job, in fact several jobs. Right after that, they took the money they hid during the "passage" and bought a house. They now own several houses. They have since this time brought over several more relatives, and their sons and daughters are married and have children.
Now what's funny about this is that the Parents never bothered to learn English and the sons and daughters never bothered to worry about their "Legal" status, because they were too busy making and spending money and raising families.
My final question to you is: What are we going to do with these people? Do we deport just the Grand-Parents and Parents or the whole lot (as in a WHOLE lot)? Of course you'll seize their property, too, right? Or does the fact that they have been hardworking, semi-law-abiding, assult weapon owning (oh yes, let's see the hands of the CA Freepers that Registered their "Assult Weapons" as required by law), anti-abortion, pro-family, economy expanding, property owning, Conservative (but non-voting, or so you'd think) residents for the last few decades count for nothing?
All this brouhaha over my President making a suggestion to solve a "problem"...
That was my arguement to begin with.
Question ...
After hearing President Bush's speech, do you approve of his immigration reform plan?
Yes
543 votes - 21%
No
1,627 votes - 65%
Undecided
299 votes - 12%
In 2000, the American electorate was evenly divided. Now, as we enter another voting season, the Gallup Organization has released a study, based on 40,000 interviews, that shows that 45.5 percent of voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party and 45.2 percent identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
So is that it? After Sept. 11, the Iraq war and the Madonna-Britney kiss, could it really be that we are back to where we started? Since 2000, tens of millions of people have moved, divorced and converted; can it really be that everything in America changes except politics?
Yes and no. Yes, the political divides today do look a lot like the ones that split the nation in 2000. But no. When you look beneath the headline data, you see at least one important change. The events of the past three years have brought to the foreground issues that divide Democrats, and pushed to the background issues that divide Republicans.
The first result is that the Republican Party is more unified than ever before. Ninety-one percent of Republicans approve of the job President Bush is doing. In 1992, Bush's father didn't have anything like that level of support, and even the Reagan administration was split between so-called pragmatists and ideologues.
Today's Republicans not only like Bush personally, they also overwhelmingly support his policies. According to a Pew Center study, 85 percent of Republicans support the war in Iraq, 82 percent believe that pre-emptive war is justified, and 72 percent believe the U.S. is justified in holding terror suspects without trial.
From this thread: The Bush Democrats
Thanks for the honesty. I've been burned as well.
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.