Posted on 12/03/2004 10:10:21 AM PST by gubamyster
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
When House Republicans blocked the intelligence overhaul bill two weeks ago, some congressional Republicans say they were showing President Bush he will split the party if he goes ahead with his broader immigration-reform plan.
"It would cause a break in the party that would be extremely unhealthy for the party," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. "I can tell you right now, the feelings are deep. This is not a superficial argument with the president.
"We were all willing to shut up during the campaign. We were not going to attack the president. But the campaign is over with and the gloves are off on this issue," Mr. Tancredo said.
He echoed the sentiments of several Republicans who emerged from a House Republican Conference discussion Nov. 20 on the intelligence bill, which they insist include strict national standards to ensure illegal aliens don't acquire driver's licenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I am an immigrant and a PROUD NATIONALIST AMERICAN.
If Rep. TANCREDO decides to run in 2008, we will cruise through to a landslide victory something like 65%plus popular vote and 400 plus electoral votes.
You can either make it hard to get across the borders, OR you can make American life much less attractive to those who do cross the borders.
For those who are not here legally: no free schools, lunches, health care, or ANYthing. If they're here to work, let the rotten employers have them, but the employers need to take care of their housing and care. So, they might get the Mexicans for $3 per hour, but they have to pay more than that for food, clothing, and shelter.
'Course, the Arabs disguising themselves as Mexicans should just be shot on sight.
I'm not sure this isn't all well thought out. Maybe Bush doesn't care if his proposal loses. He'll still get credit from Hispanics for trying it. Helps the party in the long run.
Legal hispanic residents and citizens are just as opposed to open-door immigration policies as non-Hispanics.
What split? All Repubs I know want severe immigration reforms, except the elected Repubs.
"I'm not sure this isn't all well thought out. Maybe Bush doesn't care if his proposal loses. "
He's certainly fighting many in his own party, if he doesn't care. Take a look below for congressional response to the plan to give illegals Social Security benefits.
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
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c1084uPlbV::
COSPONSORS(29), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 7/22/2004 Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 10/6/2004
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 7/22/2004 Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 7/15/2004
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/22/2004 Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 7/15/2004
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 7/15/2004 Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 7/15/2004
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 7/15/2004 Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 7/22/2004
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 11/17/2004
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 7/15/2004
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 7/15/2004 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 7/15/2004
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 9/15/2004
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/15/2004 Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 10/6/2004
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 7/15/2004 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 7/15/2004
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 7/22/2004 Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 7/15/2004
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 9/15/2004 Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 7/15/2004
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/15/2004 Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 7/15/2004
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 7/22/2004
Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico. (Introduced in House)
HRES 720 IH
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 720
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2004
Mr. COLLINS (for himself, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. GOODE, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. ROYCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
I don't think they'll get it until they discover they have to move out of their houses and into expensive gated communities--because the immigrant gangs have taken over their neighborhoods.
It amazed me how many people said, "He just needs the Hispanic vote. Just wait until after the election... then he'll get hopping on the borders!" Considering Bush's unchanging OBL stance, I feel kind of smug having told everyone, "Don't count on it."
Class....repeat after me very slowly F-T-A-A....ok you can get up from bended knee....the illegal immigration conditioning program to grease the skids for the new paradigm is almost complete.
Tancredo is right. Enough is enough.
I'm asking for it, fine. But can someone please explain to me why this is so terrible?: "Mr. Bush already has made it clear he is moving forward with his guest-worker proposal to increase the number of legal permanent residents the nation allows and to create a renewable three-year guest-worker visa that would match foreign workers with employers who couldn't find employees."
# 1-5 sure looks like the Rules for Communist Revolution to me. Also, I think there was a Cong. Skousen that publicized similar Communist plans a few decades ago and had it put into the Cong. Record.
If you don't mind my asking, where are you from? Just curious. Always good to have committed American citizens on board.
If Rep. TANCREDO decides to run in 2008, we will cruise through to a landslide victory something like 65%plus popular vote and 400 plus electoral votes.
That's assuming he can win the primary. The liberal GOP establishment will hit him with everything they've got to keep him from getting to the top--but if he does, I think (unlike many here) that he'd have at least a fair chance, namely because the Democrats are running out of attractive candidates to field. If it's Tancredo vs. Clinton, he'd have a good shot at slaughtering her AND her party.
I shut up and voted for Bush.
Now it's time to make him behave!
35 posted on 12/03/2004 10:39:12 AM PST by mikeus_maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Bingo! Yep, that is exactly the motive behind our governments' support of this ever-continuing massive Invasion of our country. Things like this do not happen by accident. At this late date it has come down to an either/or proposition. Either we remove the Open Border Traitors in both parties from power Or it's hello to MexiAmerica and all the misery and corruption that that encompasses.
Guess I would be willing to compromise on this issue. If W wants to allow all the illegals to go to Texas then perhaps I could be persuaded to go along with his proposals. I don't want him sending them to Colorado. We just plain can't afford em. Cheap labor is never cheap for the tax-payer or the man that buys medical insurance.
Where are they going to go - to the Democratic Party? LOL Seriously, we aren't all going to hold the same opinion on everything, but 'splitting the party' isn't going to do anyone any good (except maybe the Dems).
I am AMERICAN(SIKH) born in PUNJAB(INDIA)
I've had similar encounters with many of my republican friends that thought the same thing. They just could not come to grips with George Bush's own words and actions advocating for open borders. The denial was an impenetrable wall where no reason could enter.
Now saying "I told you so" as George Bush eagerly spends his political capital to advance the cause of Mexico and the Open Borders Lobby, as many a republican wince, is about my only satisfaction in the matter. And here I used to think that the Democrats were the only ones that had the market cornered on Gullibility...
There is one comfort I have in all this: an open-borders free-trade agreement like the European Union would bode extremely ill in the Western Hemisphere, almost overnight. At least the European countries could pretend that their system was working for a while; most of them, after all, had similar levels of affluency. Not so with the Americas. The FTAA, if implemented, will collapse on its own way almost overnight, and will quite possibly give way to violent ethnic conflicts.
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.