Bush Administration Erases U.S. Borders With Mexico and Canada

HumanEventsOnline ^ | 06/28/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[hedgetrimmer]

If Congress is not staying on top of this or even not aware of the SPP program, that is indeed Dereliction of Duty

The SPP isn't part of a Constitutional government. Under the Constitution, they have NO authority to do what they are doing,so why should the Congress care?

Well, the SPP are not the government, but they sure as he** are acting like it, aren't they?In the meantime Congress becomes more and more irrelevant while they vote themselves pay raises.

Anyone who doesn't see a recipe for disaster here, is blind or traitors like the rest.

[hedgetrimmer]

PING.

[Blake#1]

If in fact you are correct, that the President is erasing our borders, better him than the United Nations. That is your only choice, NAFTA, CAFTA, or the United Nations. I don't like it, but that is the future!

[dennisw]

24th Mexico & China Conference



El Paso, Texas • July 26-28, 2006



Special Section on India

Offshore Manufacturing • Country Analysis


MEXICONOW offers a 15% discount to those people who mention MexiData.info at the time of their registration for the conference.
http://www.mexidata.info/id912.html

[ZULU]

This borders on treason and both parties are up their necks in it - at least most of them.

This country can ONLY be saved by either:

a) a total restructuring of the Republican Party, or,

b) a third party.

[MikefromOhio]

let me guess...

The President is committing Treason....

OR Congress doesn't know about it...


OR Fox duped the President into a trade agreement

OR it a protectionist pity party of a HUMONGOUS scale on this thread....

I'll pick all of the above. You people are SO predictable it isn't funny. And yes, being the foreman of the NAU, I still have jobs available. Get them while they're HOT!!!

[Dixie Yooper]

I knew all about this grand plan back in 1971 when I read Fletcher Kneeble's "Night of Camp David". It all made perfect sense to me back then and I was only 14 at the time.

[hedgetrimmer]

You left out the people who want to preserve America's Independence! Since Independence Day is fast approaching, you shouldn't forget to insult us as well!

[Kenny Bunk]

If Corsi is offering this as an example of the merging of Canada/US/Mexico then frankly he's full of crap

As a popular author, rather than a scientific or peer reviewed writer, Corsi is a not all that full of crap, just a little on the hysterical side. It sells books, I guess.

However, like the humble sparrow, it would not be a bad idea for Freepers to peck through the hossheet to look for useful nuggets, in this case not of oats, but of info. If you can get through Corsi's conspiratorial prose, the info is there.

Clearly, what SPP does is mix the good, the bad, and the ugly in what looks to me like a concerted attempt to fly under the public radar. Sure the trade and transportation aspects of SPP are pretty much already a done deal ... amplifications of NAFTA ... as worrisome as NAFTA is to some people ... the real problem is where does the trade deal end and the political deal begin? Why don't we know more about that? Might be nothing to worry about. At this point the paranoiacs and the pollyannas are both wrong. Nobody knows enough to say.

I lived through most of the EU machinations in Europe and lemme tellya, they were a model of transparency compared to SPP! And don't forget, there was a nation-by-nation referendum at the end ... and not every country signed on to everything ... the Brits for example, held on to their currency and have more border controls (nowhere near enough) than some of their continental partners.

[Kenny Bunk]

Ping-o

[stephenjohnbanker]

B T T T

[MikefromOhio]

You left out the people who want to preserve America's Independence! Since Independence Day is fast approaching, you shouldn't forget to insult us as well!

If there was something of substance, then I'd be worried. But there isn't. It's just Internet people like yourself making a mountain out of an anthill. It IS hilarious and I figured you'd go as low as to use Independence Day as a way to prop up your silly delusions.

[hedgetrimmer]

Clearly, what SPP does is mix the good, the bad, and the ugly

I can't see anything good about the usurpation of the US Constitution, can you?

[MikefromOhio]

Hey, I have an idea, lets just erase all of the borders and be one big happy family. We sheeple can then look to our UNELECTED leaders for support and guidance. While I am at it I will go ahead and give up my National Parks, highways and waterways to sustainable development. I am all for a world tax, courts without juries while supporting individuals that have neither earned nor appreciate the free hand outs the receive. Forget my ancestors that spilled their blood on this soil to ensure their descendants where free to pursue happiness and would not have to live under tyrants nor dictatorships. Silly them....(SARC OFF)

Was your tinfoil too tight when you woke up this morning? LOL.....Do you want a job with the NAU? Get them while they are hot!!! LOL

[Paul Ross]

Gee, hardly ANY of those roads go to Mexico.

But guess what soon will be...your Social Security Fund monies will be going South of the Border by the mega billions. And the Administration is either delusional or knowingly lying about the numbers.

GAO report: Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges (NOTE: The GAO report was published before enactment of the Grassley provision outlined on this page)

Social Security “Totalization” Agreements,
Committee on Ways and Means Fact Sheet

Mexico Totalization Agreement,
Committee on Ways and Means Fact Sheet

Should there be a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico?
— Hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims (9/11/03)

Should there be a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico? House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

Understanding ALL the Facts About a Potential U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement: Dear Colleague letter from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) (rebuttal to the Shaw/Matsui letter below)

Understanding the Facts About a Potential U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement: Dear Colleague letter from Reps. Robert Matsui (D-CA) and Clay Shaw (R-FL)

U.S. Social Security Ties with Mexico is Bad for America, by James R. Edwards

Social Security 'Totalization'
Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico, by Marti Dinerstein

Vicente Fox on the Transition, NAFTA, Corruption, Drugs, the Economy...

HOT TOPIC: Totalization - Social Security for
Illegal Aliens

The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement

The U.S. Commissioner of Social Security signed a totalization agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004. Now that the agreement has been signed, it must be reviewed first by the State Department, and then by the White House, which will submit it to Congress. Congress will have then have 60 "legislative" days to review the agreement. During this period, current law authorizes either Chamber to pass a Resolution of Disapproval of the agreement, or it will take effect automatically at the end of the 60-day period. In addition, the Mexican Senate must affirmatively approve the totalization agreement.

"Totalization" agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and another country to coordinate their social security programs. These agreements eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries when companies in one country send workers to the other country, and they protect benefit eligibility for workers who divide their careers between the two countries. The United States currently has totalization agreements with 20 countries, including Canada, Chile, South Korea, Australia and most of Western Europe.

For additional details, see the NumbersUSA Proposed Immigration Bills in the current Congress page, which contains links to H. Res 20 and H.Con.Res 50 and other relevant information.

Social Security Benefits for Illegal Aliens

U.S. law bars aliens living here illegally from receiving social security benefits. However, until 2004, the law permitted aliens to claim credit for work performed while here illegally if the aliens either left the United States or obtained legal status in the United States. If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and dependents) would receive full benefits.

In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

This law applies to aliens of all nationalities, regardless of the existence of totalization agreements. The agreements compound the problem, however, by increasing the pool of foreign workers who can qualify for U.S. social security benefits on the basis of work performed while here illegally. Under totalization agreements:

• Foreign workers can qualify with as few as 6 quarters of work, rather than 40 quarters (benefits would be prorated to reflect only credits earned in the United States); and

• More family members of workers are entitled to benefits, because the agreement waives rules that restrict certain payments to non-citizen dependents living outside the United States. Under current law, non-citizen spouses and children must have lived in the United States for at least five years (lawfully or unlawfully), and the family relationship to the worker must have existed during that time in order for them to receive benefits while outside the United States. A totalization agreement overrides this requirement.

What Makes the Mexico Agreement Different from the Others?

While the text of the agreement with Mexico has not yet been made publicly available, it is likely to be virtually identical to the 20 other agreements. The impact of the Mexico agreement is likely to be significantly different, however, because there are critical differences between Mexico and the other countries with which the United States has totalization agreements, including:

1. The economic disparity between the United States and Mexico, combined with the fact that our countries share a land border, has generated migration from Mexico to the United States at levels not comparable to any of the other 20 countries; and
2. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that Mexicans represent almost 70 percent of the 10 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Among the other 20 countries, South Koreans and Canadians comprise the next largest shares - 0.07 percent each -- of the illegal population

The Costs of the Mexico Agreement

The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that a totalization agreement with Mexico would:

• Result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for social security benefits during the first five years;
• Cost the U.S. social security system $525 million over the first five years;
• Cost $650 million per year by 2050;
• Have a "negligible long-range effect" on the Social Security Trust Fund; and
• Save 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first five years of the agreement

In a review requested by Congress, the GAO found that:

• SSA's cost estimate does not account for any of the millions of Mexicans living and working here illegally who may become eligible for benefits;
• SSA "assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States;"
• The agreement with Mexico involves "highly uncertain" costs and would affect the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund if SSA has underestimated the number of beneficiaries by more than 25 percent (or 16,000 additional beneficiaries).

DHS statistics show that more than 28,000 Mexicans who had entered the United States illegally at some point were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002. Another 121,000 Mexicans who were already living here were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002, despite the fact that DHS had no record of them being lawfully admitted to the country. Under current law, these immigrants can claim credit for any work they performed while here illegally, in addition to work the perform after obtaining legal status. And these numbers reflect only one year.

Can the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement Be Stopped?

Once the President submits the agreement to Congress, which was expected to happen after the elections in November (but has not yet happened), it goes into effect automatically unless the House of Representatives or the Senate adopts a resolution of disapproval within 60 legislative days. According to the Congressional Research Service, however, the resolution of disapproval mechanism currently in the Social Security Act is an unconstitutional legislative veto, based on the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha (462 U.S. 919 (1983)), in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Since Congress has never rejected a totalization agreement, the fact that the mechanism for disapproval is unconstitutional has not been an issue. Unless the law is changed, though, it is likely that passage of a resolution of disapproval would give rise to a judicial challenge, potentially resulting in a determination that the agreement is effective.

However, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) has taken the lead in the fight to stop the U.S.-Mexico totalization agreement from taking effect. He has introduced H. Res. 20, a resolution of disapproval in the House.

[Paul Ross]

I see the Black Helicopter devotee has flown in.

Enjoy the destruction of the Social Security Fund.

Man you are so 'Big Government is OK' delusional. Your attitude: "We are the F'n TITANNIC USA We are INVINCIBLE. Squandry? Never heard of it."

Your hubris will avail not against reality.

Numbers Matter.

[Paul Ross]

If there was something of substance, then I'd be worried.

Well, Slick, meet some subtance then, read the GAO report.

[MikefromOhio]

LOL!!!

Find me some quotes where I said ANY of that crap.

You won't. They aren't there. Instead I've been watching (and laughing) as the absolute dregs of the internet congregate on these threads because people laugh at them in public.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet I'm more conservative than any of you PUNDITS. Because, while on the internet, I ACTUALLY ACT LIKE A CONSERVATIVE, meaning I use logic and actually understand how our government works, instead of believing each and every internet kook theory to come down the pike like some damn naive moron from the woods.