Posted on 06/02/2007 11:34:16 PM PDT by L.A.Justice
Some of the positions taken by radio hosts on Senate "amnesty" bill:
Laura Ingraham: against
Bill Bennett: What's his position?
Bill O'Reilly: I don't know what his position is.
Rush Limbaugh: against
Mike Reagan: against
Sean Hannity: against
Michael Medved: For the bill. Refuses to call the bill "amnesty" because, he claims, illegal aliens have to do certain things before they get "legal status". I have not stopped listening to him yet...I would rather take advices on movies from him than from Roger Ebert.
He does support building the wall. Last Friday, he made a remark about Limbaugh. He said that Limbaugh is one of "elites". After all, Limbaugh comes from a very prominent family. He also commented that Limbaugh makes several million dollars. Medved was responding to some criticism stating that only "elites" support the Senate bill. I first listened to Medved in 1997 when he subbed for Limbaugh...
Michael Savage: against
Larry Elder: For the bill. He concedes that it is an amnesty bill. Elder believes that amnesty is necessary. But, he is as not as enthusiastic as THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. He does not believe that illegal aliens would "self-deport" if the crackdown was serious. He doesn't think that automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in US is a good idea. I would not call him "100% open border" guy. When a caller mentioned that the federal government failed to enforce laws after the 1986 amnesty and that she didn't trust the government this time, Elder conceded that the caller had a point,
Mike Gallegher: What's his position?
Hugh Hewitt: Against...In the past, he said that he was a "regularization" guy. A few days ago, he wished that Sen. Mitch McConnell would propose certain amendments.
Like building the wall completely. Like denying "amnesty" to illegal aliens from Middle East countries. Like denying "amnesty" to males from age 18 to 35, to deal with the gang problem.
I think Hewitt would like to support an amnesty bill, but not this "compromise". He seems to be really worried about illegal aliens coming from Middle East. But, not too much about illegal aliens from the south of border...
Bennett is against.
Neal Boortz—Against
1) FENCE (build it)
2) ENFORCE (the law)
3) DEPORT (as many as you possibly can, many more will follow)
4) SANCTION (as many employers as you can. If businessmen perceive that there is a "level playing field," they will attempt to obey the law. It's when they think "everyone else is doing it, and I have to compete" that they break the law).
FEDS
Easy to remember, right to the point.
I know, right? It’s not that difficult to figure out. This is why I can’t wait for this term to be over. I can’t believe how far he’s drifted. Infuriating.
But I actually think that’s only part of it- the North American Union is really the goal, and our next candidates views need to be crystal clear on that.
I forgot...What is Dennis Prager’s position on this bill?
Mike Gallegher: Against
Medved is fine with the present interpretation of the 14th amendment. He believes that U.S.-born children of illegals should be US citizens.
I think Pat Toomey ran against Spector in the primary.
I am not sure that Toomey is better than Spector on illegal immigration.
One morning Laura Ingraham expressed her disappointment about Toomey’s comments on some TV show. Toomey apparently praised illegal aliens for having “courage” to cross into US.
John and Ken (L.A.’s KFI640.com) are the scrappiest fighters against the bill. They have listeners on freeways all over SoCal calling every phone number of Sen. Feinstein (and others they will spotlight) on this bill every afternoon. They get a lot of credit for walking the walk and not just talking. Great listening. I had no idea their timeslot competitor, the handsome Larry Elder, was for the bill. I don’t feel guilty not tuning him in, then.
Larry Elder is not as hopeless as Michael Medved on the issue though.
Elder refuses to deny that this “compromise” is an amnesty.
Elder did make a fun of so-called the guest worker program before. He just didn’t believe that “guest workers” would really return to their home countries after a few years.
Expect a push for the ‘fairness doctrine’ or some other censorship effort after this! There will be many bruised egos in Washington seeking vengence after this fraud is taken down.
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.