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."
The Declaration of independence - the precursor to the constitution - says that life, liberty and property are GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS. The govt. has no power to take away or aware these rights. One of the stated purposes of the Constitution was to 'SECURE THESE RIGHTS'. Privacy (a right invented in Roe v. Wade) does not trump the right to life. Period. Irrefutable.
With all due respect, this statement is simply ignorant. You need some study of the history of our Republic. For your information, there are many differences between a Constitutional republic and a democracy. Our founders were very well read - much more educated than politicans of today who were educated in the revisionist, dumbed down, morally relativistic law schools, etc. - and they were very familiar with all phases of history of government, philosophy, and read all the classics. They saw what democracy led to in Greece and hated democracy. The constitutional republic of the United States is unique in the history of the world.
Furthermore, this nation was settled by religious people, many of whom were fleeing tyranny in England and elsewhere. Do you have any inkling of the principles behind the revolution? Your statements are facile on this topic. Please stop - I don't have the time or space to even list all of the errors in your posts. If you think government was founded on economics alone, you are sadly ignorant of history.
The Declaration of Independence has a legal value equal to a song written by Francis Scott Key. Nothing in it's text can be used to construe law in the United States. It's a historic document, nothing more.
I have... And the best economists in America come to the same conclusion that any trained economist must come to:
At best, allowing so many illegals to stay is (at best) a wash, for the economy. More realistically, it will hurt the economy of the USA in the long term... Force down the standard of living, force down labor rates...
You seem to forget that 85% of the US economy is based on internal consumption. You drive down the wages, then the consumer-base can no longer buy the goods available. The producers must lower prices to sell what they have. As prices falls to a level where the prices equal the costs, it becomes critical. When prices drop below costs to produce, the producer goes out of business.
Since most companies are only making a net profit of 5-10% (equilibrium market, where profitability equals the cost of market capital), if wages fall more than 10%, you will see many companies go under.
And, just so you understand, that's bad for the economy.
A few people don't make the artificially propped-up wages that they used to, due to free competition. Everyone else makes more money though due to their real income being increased.
Your handle is hilariously ironic.
We are already in a war of sorts. A war for the soul and future of America. For the lives of the unborn, for your freedom of speech and property - they are being taken away day by day. Go ahead and live in denial...I won't. I will speak out against these evils until the day I die, even if that means I go to jail or die for for my right to speak out against evil. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Not really. It's just that whatever school you went to defined democracy as "mob-rule." It's a common failing of Bob Jones-type schools. But I digress.
Please stop - I don't have the time or space to even list all of the errors in your posts.
Nor the ability. But again, I digress.
If you think government was founded on economics alone, you are sadly ignorant of history.
Not what I said nor implied. Our governmental style was founded by people who came from a trading/merchant background. The horse-trading nature of our government is a direct extension of that. Everything else is just window-dressing to deal-making.
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.