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."

[AbsoluteJustice]

Face it that if Tarcendo's bill is not the bill to pass be prepared to speak spanish in the next 4 years.

Hope you up on your espanol.

[Texas_Dawg]

Congrats. You made the list.

[Howlin]

Ah, I wasn't commenting on your spelling; I was commenting on the context.

[hedgetrimmer]

Governments will: (sounds like a directive to me)

Protect the rights of all migrant workers and their families, consistent with each country´s internal legal framework, by taking steps, in case they do not exist, to: 1) provide, with respect to working conditions, the same legal protection as for national workers; 2) facilitate, as appropriate, the payment of full wages owed when the worker has returned to his/her country, and allow them to arrange the transfer of their personal effects; 3) recognize the rights of citizenship and nationality of the children of all migrant workers who may be entitled to such rights, and any other rights they may have in each country; 4) encourage the negotiation of bilateral or multilateral agreements, regarding the remission of social security benefits accrued by migrant workers; 5) protect all migrant workers and their families, through law enforcement and information campaigns, from becoming victims of exploitation and abuse from alien smuggling; 6) prevent abuse and mistreatment of all migrant workers by employers or any authorities entrusted with the enforcement of migration policies and border control; and 7) encourage and promote respect for the cultural identity of all migrants.

This is a directive from the Second Summit of the Americas Santiago de Chile, Chile April 18-19, 1998

Didn't the whitehouse recently announce a plan to give social security to illegals? Guess where that idea came from.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Didn't have alot of supporters then either and I don't expect to now.

That's because granting amnesty isn't a high crime, nor is it a misdemeanor.

[jeremiah]

GW gets a lot of credit, he is defended by those who disagree with his policies, but support him anyway, by suggesting that he is a tactician. He is putting things into play to be discussed, he is trying to start a dialogue by proposing a solution to a problem, and hoping it wakes people up, and brings forth a better solution. So-oooooooo, maybe this is exactly what Savage is doing, why the man is a genius, by calling for an impeachment, he is trying to cause a swell of those opposed to the new immigration policy, so as to pressure the govt to back off.

I ask you, what is more likely, that Bush is not serious about his policy, or that Savage is trying to persuade the President that his policy is bad, and will cost him votes? I think the latter is more likely myself, but then again, I think what GW proposes is just as inflammatory as that which Savage proposes.

[RightWhale]

Savage is in need of a couple years off to collect his thoughts. At least until after the Nov elections.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Fact: Legals in this country cost this country more than they put in.

Fact: If above said is a fact then you can be sure illegals in this country cost this country more than they put in.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm certainly not faulting him for at least putting the hot button issue into public debate. Personally, I'd rather have a healthy debate. The abandoners, well, they just want to abandon.

[varon]

I thought Impeach Bush was extreme.

I agree. Denying him a second term would be more appropriate.

[Yardstick]

The key to enjoying Savage is knowing when to ignore him.

[jim35]

"...Where are you from? Don't you know the Constitution was written in very plain language so even the most lowly citizen could understand it?.."

I'll tell you where I'm from. The USA. A place which has a supreme court, which is charged with interpreting law, including the constitution. Like it or not, someone has the ultimate responsibility, and they're the ones. You don't get to make it up as you go along... only they do. Right or wrong, that particular power is theirs.

[petercooper]

Alot of what Savage says is right on though.

[riri]

The key to enjoying Savage is knowing when to ignore him

They think knocking Savage makes them look more sophisticated.

[hedgetrimmer]

within the context of the intentions of the founders.

That means anyone should be able to read the constitution, and understand what it means. The supreme court does not have the ultimate responsiblity, Congress does, because if the supremes interpret the law in a way that is contrary to the will of the people and to the constitution, congress can make a law nullifying the court decision.

And since congress is a representative government elected to serve the sovereign citizens of this country, it means that WE have the ultimate responsibility, because we can petition congress or unelect them or impeach them.

The purpose of the constitution is to give limited power to the government and all other powers, explicit or derived to the people.

[Capitalist Eric]

Reagan would have done the exact same thing today because he was a conservative and a smart businessman.

EXCREMENT.

Using "glittering generalities"- the correct marketing term for such BS statements- does nothing to prove your point.

Conservatives- true conservatives- dare not back a policy that effectively throws our laws out the window, and embraces criminal behavior.

"Smart businessmen" would never do so, either. Bad law makes for bad business.

Your comments over the last few days, demonstrate your belief that it's good to embrace criminal behavior. That it should be done...

You are delusional.

[jim35]

"...When that happens, at least I will be able to say "I voted my conscience"..."

Won't we all be so comforted to know that your precious conscience was indulged, while we're all singing Heil Hitlery. Shall we eliminate the supreme court before, or after the next democRAT is elected?

[Texas_Dawg]

EXCREMENT.

Did Reagan not pass an amnesty plan just like this one?

[AbsoluteJustice]

I am glad someone could come in here and put it in better terms than I. Are people just ignorant of economics or what?

When person "A" pays no federal income taxes because Person "A" makes less than 24,000$ a year, Person "B" must make up for that shortfall by paying twice the burden. Because person "A" pays not federal income taxes, speaks little or no English, is undereducated, and underskilled, person "B" takes cares of person "A"'s family for the rest of his existence. This is for both Person "A" the legal and Person "A" the illegal.

Is this not easy for those that are in doubt about this to understand?

[Modernman]

Some interpretations are so blatantly bad that there is no argument. For example, Roe v. Wade is not abrogates the right to life, but it violates Constiutional due process, and invents a new right out of thin air - privacy

The fact that the people of this country are so split over Roe v. Wade goes against your argument that there is "no argument" as to whether some interpretations are valid. Now, you could trot out the elitist argument that the people who support Roe v. Wade are fools, but that really doesn't get you anywhere.

So, you are basically saying that any government official is free to interpret the Constitution as he see fit.

Perhaps you are saying that the President gets the final say.

Okay, following that line of reasoning, Al Gore would be President now since Bill Clinton could have had the final say in 2000 as to the whole election mess.

Work for you?