Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection

Washington Post ^ | January 4, 2004 | Mike Allen

[Ian McGreggor]

CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan. 3 -- President Bush will propose protections for the Social Security taxes paid by the workers who would come into the country under massive changes to immigration laws he plans to announce on Wednesday, Republican officials said Saturday.

Bush's plan would make it possible for such workers from Mexico and perhaps other countries to collect retirement benefits without being penalized by their home countries for the years they spent working in the United States, the officials said.

Officials began releasing details of Bush's plan shortly before Christmas and provided new details over the weekend. The officials said Bush's plan will contain a new system to help workers who want to enter from Mexico or other countries if they have jobs waiting for them. It also includes a mechanism for some undocumented residents to continue working in the United States and get on a path to legal status.

[Mamzelle]

Someone please tell me why he is doing this. This makes no sense, and is a betrayal of the American citizen and taxpayer.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

The cost of health, education and welfare for illegals far outweighs the money they pay into Social Security.
In many areas where illegals live, emergency clinics have completely closed, unable to continue; leaving American citizens w/o that service.
The stats are there, even government stats on illegals. That head of lettuce or your car wash costs a lot more than you think it does. And, the American culture and standard of living is being diminished at the same time; overcrowded schools, etc.

[dagnabbit]

There is no justification, only an explanation - namely that George Bush lost the hispanic vote by a large margin in 2000, and hopes to lose it by a smaller margin in 2004.

[txdoda]

Yes, but those are separate issues from immigration violations. >>>>>>

So, you believe most illegal invaders are NOT violating any federal laws ???

[Mamzelle]

I'd vote for anyone who'd convince me that he'd enforce our laws.

With the public polling against this, is he daring his core constituents to stay home next November?

It's beginning to look as if the only conservative thing about him, domestically, is cutting taxes. He's spending faster than Clinton, and even Clinton didn't want to turn over SSecurity to Vicente Fox.

Refusing to enforce our laws is one thing, passing new giveaways from American taxpayers to the lawbreakers is simply enraging...

[Cultural Jihad]

... passing new giveaways from American taxpayers to the lawbreakers is simply enraging...

What 'new giveaways from American taxpayers' are you referring to?

[Sabertooth]

*Guess you forgot to mention the NUMEROUS FEDERAL laws that illegals then go on to violate, some, for many years. Such as, working in the US, income tax invasion, possession of fraudulent/phony federal I.D's, just to name a few. Then there's driving without licenses, no insurance, welfare fraud, all state LAWS that many violate DAILY.

**Yes, but those are separate issues from immigration violations. The majority who commit those crimes are probably citizens.

Do you have evidence that there are many citizens working in this country Illegally, and committing document fraud to do so?

Probably not.

As for the other crimes mentioned, the question whether or not citizens constitute a majority of violators is irrelevant. Citizens also commit more murders and rapes than Illegals.

None of this changes the fact that Illegals are deportable, and citizens aren't.

Ancillary crimes committed by Illegals can be prevented by the diligent enforcement of our immigration laws. This is not true of crimes committed by citizens. Therefore your conclusion, that "those are separate issues from immigration violations," is false.

[dagnabbit]

Since you bring up Clinton, it's worth noting that Clinton cut off certain welfare benefits, like SSI, to some legal immigrants.

Bush restored those benefits. I guess there wasn't enough poverty here and Bush felt we needed to import more.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Illegals"?? Are you referring to jaywalkers? Freeway speeders? Seat belt law shirkers? Parking violators? Undocumented immigrants?

[Ian McGreggor]

Someone please tell me why he is doing this. This makes no sense, and is a betrayal of the American citizen and taxpayer.

I don't know, Mamzelle. But I do know that it's a big issue for him. Had 9/11 not occurred, I'm sure he would have tried pushing something similar though at that time.

Another thing that concerns me are the borders. The US had/has every right in the world to protect its borders - especially after being hit 9/11, but Bush hasn't tightened down on them. A hundred terrorists a day could come across the border, and we would just think they were illegals... And personally I think that's the reason Bush hasn't tightened down on the borders -- He doesn't want to impede the flow of illegals into the US... Which to me means he is compromising the security of the U.S. in order to allow illegals into the country.

[Mamzelle]

I wonder if it's occurred to any of the Dems to float the immigration issue--it might sell well to the union membership (if not the union leadership).

Teachers are a constituency that is being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants--though the teacher's union leadership might him a different tune.

Huh--Gephardt ought to try this in front of an audience and listen for applause...

This Bush move just baffles and infuriates me. American citizens and legal immigrants are the ones coming home in body bags from Iraq--how did Vicente help us there? Why should the returning soldiers have to compete for jobs with illegals?

The Bush admin has had a theme of political loyalty--I guess it only goes one way.

[Cultural Jihad]

... but Bush hasn't tightened down on [the borders].

That's not true. The southern borders have been greatly tightened around all the heavily-populated regions in recent years, and hence the increase of immigration through the desert.

[Sabertooth]

"Illegals"?? Are you referring to jaywalkers? Freeway speeders? Seat belt law shirkers? Parking violators? Undocumented immigrants?

See the following:

A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 9, Fallacies of Ambiguity and Equivocation)
			Posted by general_re On 01/02/2004 1:01:51 PM PST with 13 comments Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY The meaning of words or phrases may shift as a result of inattention, or may be deliberately manipulated within the course of an argument. A term may have one sense in a premiss, quite a different sense in the conclusion. When the inference drawn depends upon such changes it is, of course, fallacious. Mistakes of this kind are called "fallacies of ambiguity" or sometimes "sophisms." The deliberate use of such devices is usually crude and readily detected — but at times the ambiguity may be obscure, the error accidental, the fallacy subtle. Five varieties are distinguished in...

After your first non-fallacious post on this thread,
it might become easier for you to do it a second time.

[MJY1288]

"Then I suggest you pay more attention to these threads, as I think you've mischaracterized them. I also think you've misunderstood the Bush Administration's intentions regarding Illegals."

I think I characterized most of these threads quite accurately, 90% of them turn into flame wars

"How many more Tom Ridge links do you need?

How many freight-train loopholes in the President's own comments do you need to see?"

I saw and heard what Tom Ridge said, but I am still waiting for that ever illusive White house proposal, we can speculate all day long, but I'll wait until I see the actual proposal before I condemn it

"Is a criticism of this President "Bush-bashing," if it's true?

After the President signed the McCain-Feingold CFR, there were a number of contentious threads. Many of FR's Bush-loyslists put forth the proposition that this was brilliant stategery, that he'd taken the Democrats issue away, that the SCOTUS would throw it out anyway."

I was one that thought the signing of CFR was a rational decision, mainly because it had sever-ability. My mistake was that I believed the SCOTUS understood the Constitution. So YES you were correct, Bush should not have signed CFR. As far as claiming that I, or anyone else who doesn't switch to the Libertarian Party the first time GWB does something I disagree with is a Bushbot, I think that's as childish as it gets.

I think I agree with about 75% of what this President has done so far, That's a number I can very much live with and I will continue to send my letters of complaint when he does things I don't. If that makes me a Bushbot in your world, So be it. But one thing is for sure, I will never go off the deep end over something that hasn't even been proposed yet. That's like selling your farm because the weather man says we might not get any rain next year

[Cultural Jihad]

Too enraged to formulate a response?

[Sabertooth]

*... but Bush hasn't tightened down on [the borders].

**That's not true. The southern borders have been greatly tightened around all the heavily-populated regions in recent years, and hence the increase of immigration through the desert.

Incorrect, again. The diversion of Illegals to the deserts was the result of Clinton's "Operation Gatekeeper."

A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 7, False Cause and Begging the Question)
			Posted by general_re On 12/30/2003 11:34:11 AM PST with 27 comments Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen False Cause It is obvious that any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of some thing or event what is not really its cause must be seriously mistaken. But often we are tempted to suppose, or led to suppose, that we understand some specific cause-and-effect relation when in fact we do not. The nature of the connection between cause and effect, and how we determine whether such a connection is present or absent, are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method. These problems are discussed in detail in Part Four of this book. Presuming the reality of...

Fallacious argumentation from you, again.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Does your use of a foreign-hosted image from a foreign server make you an illegal, or just unAmerican?

Having a Canadian ISP doesn't make me or Sabertooth un-Americans, but since I host Saber's graphic and I've been accused of not being an American citizen by the same individual who emailed hundreds as she promised to do, I think I should address that, not that it's anybody's business where my ISP is located (one of the beauties of free trade) but the insidious unproven remarks have to stop.

By the way, you have this graphic on your profile page.

http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/jon4a/main/images/guild_navigator.jpg

Are you British?

[Ian McGreggor]

"....and hence the increase of immigration through the desert."

I doubt terrorists would mind crossing the desert. Hell, they might even prefer it.

Basically, I was talking about the 'number' of illegals. I don't see that the number of illegals coming into this country has depreciated since 9/11.

[txdoda]

"Illegals"?? Are you referring to jaywalkers? Freeway speeders? Seat belt law shirkers? Parking violators? Undocumented immigrants?>>>>>>

Not the *same* types of crimes......unless you have a link as to our FEDS are now in per-suit of *citizens* violating seatbelt, speeding, & jaywalking laws ??

Gee, even third world mexico knows the difference between these *crimes* (even tho YOU don't)....

Hopefully in mexico you pay the fine (BRIBE) for jaywalking, speeding, etc......if your in violation of mexico imm. laws you are given THREE days to leave the country.

[txdoda]

Thank-you.........;o)