Posted on 10/11/2004 10:29:04 AM PDT by EagleUSA
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger terminated the latest version of the license bill, AB2895, yesterday. It was Schwarzenegger’s twenty-second veto since entering office last year. In a simple statement that read more like a condolence than a mandate, the Republican governor said he could not sign the bill because it would make California too vulnerable.
“One of the most important duties of the Governor of a state is to protect its citizens. Determining the true identity and history of an individual is a key component of that protection,” the governor wrote. “This bill does not adequately address the security concerns that my Department of Homeland Security and I have and I cannot support it.”
A similar bill was sign by former Gov. Gray Davis before his removal from office. Schwarzenegger repealed that law, written by State Senator Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, after the October recall election. Upon rescinding the bill, however, Schwarzenegger said he would work to develop another law to serve the needs of the illegal immigrant population.
Prior to 1994, illegal immigrants driving without licenses were a low law enforcement priority in California. Laws similar to the one just vetoed by the governor exist in 10 other states.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacunion.com ...
We dumped Davis... you want us to elect Kerry ?
Bitch and moan all you want, write letters to the editors and the White House, but if you don't vote for the lesser of the evils, you get the greater of the evils.
This is why Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.
Naturally, the republican lickspittles blame Perot for 'stealing' the election, but the truth is that neither party convinced that 19% of the electorate that their man was better qualified for the job.
It's always easier to blame the other guy than to take a hard, honest look at your own shortcomings and make the changes necessary to improve the situation.
This is also why all of the party faithful here on FR are against the Totalization Agreement, but none want to hold Bush's feet to the fire over it.
It might hurt Bush's chances for reelection. (Ya think so?!)
Party over principle.
LOL! Well, duh!
Did I write that electing Kerry would solve the problem of Bush's Totalization Agreement?
I did not.
I did, however, ask an easy question that only requires a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Do you support Bush's Totalization Agreement which will give Mexican illegal aliens US Social Security benefits?
Serve the needs of illegal immigrants?
I can't believe I read that! This country is toast.
He's gonna bring back forced busing?
"Do you support Bush's Totalization Agreement which will give Mexican illegal aliens US Social Security benefits?"
If it means that illegals get some kind of credit for using a forged SSN... no.
"Naturally, the republican lickspittles blame Perot for 'stealing' the election, but the truth is that neither party convinced that 19% of the electorate that their man was better qualified for the job. "
So that 19% gave us Clinton... Aren't they just so proud of themselves...
>>The only MAJOR NEGATIVE of the Bush presidency. Is the Mexican vote that critical?<<
President Bush is cutting off one hand and giving you arthritis in the other.
Kerry just wants to cut one off and give you a terminal disease.
It is time to find someone for our White House who understands that Americans need both hands to defend the world and our country against attackers.
Getting rid of the UN would be one helluva antibiotic shot in the arm for us.
A broken clock is right twice a day...Arnold is not a conservative....
He is the Panderminator
< tin foil hat>
Perhaps there's really something to all those groping allegations... and President Bush has promised to put the kibosh on investigation and/or prosecution so long as the Governator agrees not to bring up the issue in an election year.
< /tin foil hat>
The real question you should be asking at this stage in the game is, why have you not made Mexico compensate you for the acquisition of the land?
That's about the only way they could get it --- by committing felony document fraud, obtaining stolen Identitification -- dealing with organized crime rings who deal in this kind of thing. It's pretty doubtful that a single illegal actually contributed toward the Social Security tax from the cash they made without committing felony fraud otherwise.
A-men. NEVER back down when it comes to left-leaning politicians. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Unless of course it's Hillary Clinton, who took the parsec she was given and completely destroyed the star across from her (thankfully, or we'd be having exactly the same health care problems the French are having right now).
You tell me.
Judiciary Committee Letter to Barnhart
Committee on Ways and Means: Fact Sheet Mexican Totalization Agreement
Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges
Bravo. The W wears no clothes but he sports a snazzy sombrero. It's a continuing mystery why the supposed most-powerful-man-on-the-planet plays prison punk for a sleazy former Coca Cola executive in charge of a country that only survives through it's parisitism on us. Evil stuff no matter how you look at it. We rail about the illegal aliens and their effects on our society but should keep in mind that they're given no other recourse (and actually encouraged and trained) by their government to invade us. Mexico has, in my little opinion, engaged in an act of war against us. Our own government's window-dressing toward security enhancement while allowing real terrorists to sneak in with the yard-help is going to literally blow up in our faces.
I've been trying to lie low until after the election because the Bushbots disgust me with their misplaced hero-worship. Hey, people; he's just a man and has been protecting some interests that are plainly bad for America. I'm voting for him because no outright traitor should ever hold that office, but I fear what George may do in four more years without the cloud of reelection hanging over him. We deserve better and you Republican die-hards out there who remember Reagan know it.
Flame away; it's good therapy. Not that I'll read them...
Hats off to Arnold for his 23 vetoes!
If Pres. Bush had shown some of this courage and vetoed some of the pork-laden bills he signed, the Dems couldn't be beating up on him for running up the huge deficit. And the libs certainly couldn't hate him more than they do now.
"If it means that illegals get some kind of credit for using a forged SSN... no.
You tell me."
Gee, you asked for a yes or no... now you want an essay after studying 3 papers....
Have you got a link to the original document ?
"If it means that illegals get some kind of credit for using a forged SSN... no.
You tell me.
"
Looks to me like people who worked under bogus SSN don't get anything ( if they actually paid any taxes )
"Still others may have worked under false identities and may not be able to prove that they have the necessary coverage credits to be entitled to benefits."
How about you show me where your objects lie ?
There you go again. Trying to put words into my mouth.
Show me where I wrote that I wanted an essay from you.
No, your posting, ("If it means that illegals get some kind of credit for using a forged SSN") indicated to me that you were ignorant of the terms of the agreement.
In response, I gave you links to the most complete, most recent activity related to this agreement so that you could educate yourself as to what your president is doing with our tax dollars.
Not surprisingly, the actual text of the agreement is unavailable through either the SSA, Judiciary Committee or Ways and Means Committee.
Judiciary Committee Letter to Barnhart
On June 29, 2004, you and Mexican Social Security Institute Director Santiago Levy signed a Totalization Agreement in Guadalajara, Mexico. We have seen an earlier draft of this agreement that omits any mention or discussion of segregating earnings from Mexican or American wage earners working legally versus those working illegally. It is extremely important that the Totalization Agreement with Mexico be amended to incorporate language that addresses section 211's prohibition, so that there will be no misunderstanding with this important neighbor, and so that Social Security benefits, even on a pro-rata basis, are not provided in violation of federal law.
Committee on Ways and Means: Fact Sheet Mexican Totalization Agreement
...
Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges
The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social security benefits. Mexican workers who ordinarily could not receive social security retirement benefits because they lack the required 40 coverage credits for U.S. earnings could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with as few as 6 coverage credits. In addition, under the proposed agreement, more family members of covered Mexican workers would become newly entitled because the agreements usually waive rules that prevent payments to noncitizens’ dependents and survivors living outside the United States.
The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) by 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow sixfold over time. However, this proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. The estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement could create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States to work and maintain documentation to claim their earnings under a false identity.
Although the actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would not generate a measurable long-term impact on the actuarial balance of the trust funds, a subsequent sensitivity analysis performed at GAO’s request shows that a measurable impact would occur with an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent, even in cases where uncertainties about the number of unauthorized workers were less prevalent. Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed totalization agreement is even more uncertain than in prior agreements.
...
A totalization agreement with Mexico will increase the number of Mexican citizens who will be paid U.S. social security benefits in two ways. First, the agreement will make it easier for Mexican workers to qualify for benefits. Second, it will remove some nonpayment restrictions that affect benefit payments to non-U.S. citizens’ family members residing in another country, thus providing U.S. social security benefits to more survivors and dependents of entitled Mexican workers.
Under current law, a worker must earn sufficient coverage credits to qualify for benefits under the U.S. Social Security program. For example, a worker who was born in 1929 or later generally needs 40 coverage credits to be insured for retirement benefits. Credits are based on a worker’s annual earnings in social security-covered employment. At most, 4 credits can be earned per year so that it takes at least 10 years of covered earnings for a worker to accumulate the necessary 40 credits and become insured for retirement benefits.
Currently, social security credits are earned by anyone who has worked in covered employment in the United States. This is true even if the person was unauthorized to work when he/she earned coverage credits. For example, noncitizens, including Mexicans, who are at least 62 years old and lawfully present in the United States, will receive retirement benefits today as long as they meet the coverage credit threshold. Even Mexican citizens who are not lawfully present in this country can receive social security benefits earned through unauthorized employment if they later return to live in Mexico. Similarly, under current law, noncitizen dependents and survivors can also receive social security benefits under some circumstances.
Totalization agreements generally expand benefits to both authorized and unauthorized workers and create new groups of beneficiaries. This would be the case for a totalization agreement with Mexico if it follows the same pattern as all prior totalization agreements. Mexican citizens with fewer than 40 coverage credits will be permitted to combine their annual earnings under their home country’s social security program with their annual earnings under the U.S. Social Security program to meet the 40-credit requirement.3 In addition, more family members of covered workers will qualify for dependent and survivor benefits. Totalization agreements generally override Social Security Act provisions that prohibit benefit payments to noncitizens’ dependents and survivors who reside outside the United States for more than 6 months, unless they can prove that they lived in the United States for 5 years in a close family relationship with the covered worker. If a totalization agreement with Mexico is structured like others already in force, the 5-year rule for dependents and survivors will be waived.
However, it is important to understand that not all unauthorized Mexican citizens who have worked in the United States will receive totalization benefits. Some will have earned at least 40 coverage credits and can receive social security benefits without a totalization agreement. Still others may have worked under false identities and may not be able to prove that they have the necessary coverage credits to be entitled to benefits. Others still may not accumulate sufficient credits under the Mexican social security system to totalize with their U.S. social security coverage.
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.