Posted on 11/28/2004 1:16:50 PM PST by AuntB
Thanks for the ping. I am totally disgusted that there is not more coverage in the MSM. The only ones who are pushing for more illegal immigration are our Congress members, big business, and special interest groups.
I think more people would be concerned if they only read this excerpt:
"In California, for example, immigrant households account for 50 percent of all households using at least one major welfare program; in New York it’s a third; and in Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Arizona immigrant households account for between half and a third of those receiving welfare."
Everyone screams about our out of control spending and how we should be controlling it....the first step is to quit spending money on welfare for those who enter illegally or refuse to work for a living (IMPO). Taxpayers should start standing up and demanding that Congress and Pres. Bush enforce the immigration laws on the books and not to allow any more "amnesty" for illegals.
Enough is enough.
bttt
The open borders side isn't concerned about the best interests of the USA nor of Mexico. As long as the borders are open --- we're a safety valve so that corruption can continue on in Mexico --- life for the average guy over there will not improve. In fact Mexico is deteriorating quite fast because the reforms aren't being put into place --- not as long as massive migration of it's people is seen as the entire solution.
Enough is enough? I keep asking the pro illegal group, HOW many is enough? They won't answer.
This is from FoxNews a while back:
~snip~
But a poll released this week from the Center of Immigration Studies/Zogby International may complicate matters for President Bush, who has said he supports some form of amnesty.
According to the poll, 55 percent of U.S. citizens — including 51 percent of Hispanics —believe it’s a "very bad idea" to grant amnesty. And 33 percent of Hispanics said they would be less likely to vote for Bush if he continued to pursue amnesty.
"The payoff (for supporting amnesty) is supposed to be greater support from Hispanics, but there seem to be no indication of that," said Steve Camarata, director of research for the Center of Immigration Studies.
Bush has made courting the Hispanic vote a cornerstone of his political agenda, and his support for amnesty was widely believed to be in keeping with that strategy.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33752,00.html
Bush is overlooking an easier solution. Mexicans should just get a passport and a visa, and get them stamped off between the countries. I got one when I was roaming around Europe. I didn't need to, but I wanted all those little stamps to talk about.
Well 3rd parties will never be a force in the future as long as people vote for the perceived lesser of two evils. It's the old 2 party Beltway Shell Game played over and over again every 4 years.
The next presidential election in 2008 will be no different. The GOP will, whether fair or not, cast as the democratic candidate as the Devil Incarnate. The democrats will do the same with the republican candidate. Bottom Line: Nothing changes, globalism and the dissolution of America as a sovereign nation marches on.
Truth is neither of the Beltway Parties want 3rd parties to horn in on their lucrative duopoly on power and will fight tooth and nail “together” to make sure it does not happen. When you write the laws, you determine your future.
"And we don't give a rat's maracas what LULAC or MECHA or any of those bozos think. They are a shrill minority who do not represent us."
Good to hear! Thanks, we need more first hand opinions.
This has become inordinately clear in the past decade or so.
"Bush is overlooking an easier solution. Mexicans should just get a passport and a visa, and get them stamped off between the countries"
I agree. But for some reason, he prefers to set up yet another bureaucracy for "temporary" workers and give them Social Security. The SSA pays out over a billion dollars a year to people in the US not qualified for disability, according to a recent GAO report. And yet, we expect this dysfunctional agency to weed through illegals??? See the story below:
Totalization: Sellout of American Workers
by Phyllis Schlafly
Nov. 17, 2004
The Democrats are trying to make a campaign issue out of George W. Bush's alleged plan to "privatize" Social Security, scaring seniors into thinking their checks will be cut off. That is a phony issue; all Bush suggests is to offer younger workers the option (not the compulsion) of transferring a very small part of their Social Security benefit into private investments.
The real threat to Social Security doesn't come from giving young people this opportunity. The threat comes from the Bush Administration's plan to load illegal aliens into the Social Security system, an idea that would skyrocket costs and bankrupt the system at the same time that baby boomers flood into their benefit years.
The code word for this racket is "totalization." The United States has totalization agreements with 20 other countries, which have been reasonable and non-controversial, but totalization with Mexico is TOTALLY different.
The idea behind totalization with other countries is to assure a pension to those few individuals who work legally in two countries by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with developed nations whose retirement benefits are on a parity with U.S. benefits, and the affected employees work for companies that have been paying taxes into the other countries' retirement systems.
Workers from the other 20 countries come with documents from their employer verifying that they are authorized to work in the United States. Only a minuscule fraction of Mexicans enter with such documents.
The legitimate goal of totalization with other countries is to avoid double taxation for retirement when employers assign their employees to work temporarily in another country. Reciprocity works because there is rough parity between the number of U.S. workers in the 20 other countries and the foreigners from those countries who work in the United States.
But this goal has no relevance to Mexico. There is no parity whatsoever between the number of Mexicans working in the United States and the number of U.S. citizens working in Mexico, and absolutely no parity in the social security systems of the two countries.
Mexican benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits.
Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in, plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.
Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which is estimated to cover only 40 percent of the workforce. The rest of the workers are in the off-the-record economy (euphemistically called the "informal" sector).
The 10 million Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, did not pay social security taxes in Mexico, and did not work for employers who paid taxes into a retirement plan. If they were working at all, it was in the off-the-record economy.
Illegality is no issue with the countries where we have existing totalization agreements because none of them accounts for even one percent of the U.S illegal population. On the other hand, Mexico provides more than two-thirds of the illegals in the United States.
The Bush totalization plan would pay out billions in Social Security benefits to Mexicans for work they did in the U.S. using fraudulent Social Security numbers, something that Americans would go to jail for doing. It would pay Social Security Disability benefits to Mexicans who worked in the United States as little as 3 years.
The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Bush plan would even cover the Mexicans' spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.
Since few if any of the illegal aliens have built up any equity in the Mexican retirement system, what is there to totalize? Totalization is a plan for the U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden.
When George W. Bush became President in 2001, the Mexican government expected the United States to pass amnesty (disguised as a guest worker plan and "regularizing" the entry of Mexicans). After 9/11, Mexico's national policy turned to increasing the number of its nationals working in the United States and getting them to qualify for all the social benefits and privileges Americans receive, from driver's licenses to Social Security and Social Security Disability.
The Social Security commissioners of both Mexico and the Bush Administration signed a totalization agreement in June of 2004, but the text of the agreement has been kept secret. Maybe we will be permitted to see it after the President approves it and sends it to Congress.
Let your Members of Congress know you want them to stop this billion-dollar sellout of American workers and taxpayers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/nov04/04-11-17.html
You nailed it. Now the next question is, what's the connection between the Mexican corruption and DC?
Because only Vicente Fox can dictate that they believe. Vicente Fox brags about how already 1/5 of his citizens are living in the USA --- that's obviously not close to being enough. 80% of Mexicans live in poverty --- cut off from access to their country's vast wealth. Maybe when they've all been moved over here that will be when it's enough. Otherwise reforms would have to be made --- and the Mexican elites don't want those.
"Otherwise reforms would have to be made --- and the Mexican elites don't want those."
FITZ, I'm sad to say the American "Elites" don't want real reform either. I have to laugh every time I read about Social Security reform....the entire agency needs flushed, and now they're going to include illegals from Mexico. Yeah, that will help!! NOT.
.....sigh....
That's true at least here. When someone speaks perfect English not many will assume they came right from Mexico --- many hispanics in the SW never stepped foot in Mexico and don't know the mannerisms or speech or their way around there. Even the Spanish is pretty different if they do speak it.
"Now the next question is, what's the connection between the Mexican corruption and DC?"
There has to be something going on here that we don't understand...yet. I see how it benefits Mexico, but all these trade, social security, guest worker agreements just seem to be HOW much can the USA sacrifice and how much can they demand from us.
What I sometimes think it is --- they believe that the current government of Mexico --- while completely corrupt --- provides some stability so they are intent on keeping it propped up. We've been known to prop up corrupt regimes for that reason before.
But I think the very postponement of the long-needed reforms is going to make things all the worse when it does reach the breaking point. Too much suffering --- and the solution is not for them all to move here because most lack the skills and language ability to be self-reliant here --- and most really would prefer to stay home. They would stay home if that was at all possible. Some elites here might lose their dirt-cheap employees --- I guess they don't want that either.
Fixing Mexico isn't an easy matter --- not at this point. They've destroyed the rural people --- they've lost their farms and their entire way of life. They've been forced to move to the slums of the big cities or become cheap labor here in the USA. The rural and village life was where the good values were once held.
Agreed- there has to be something deeper. When it surfaces, the crap is going to fly in some pretty interesting directions, IMO.
Well --- it could be drugs. There have to be politicians and officials bought off on both sides of the border for the vast narco-networks set up throughout this whole country.
I keep thinking about Darlene Fitzgerald, the former customs agent who has been persecuted for whistle blowing. She maintains to this day that her superiors will not allow proper inspections, etc. She and her crew found 6 tankers manifested as empty that were full of something, but they were silenced.
"They've been forced to move to the slums of the big cities or become cheap labor.......... The rural and village life was where the good values were once held."
That's been true since time began. And it explains the difference between red and blue states. One of the younger of the dozen or so illegals that got moved in across the street from me explained to me (he went to school and could speak English for the rest) how they hated living in the country and much preferred the big cities where they could be with their "own" kind.
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.