U.S.- Mexico Pact Revealed: Billions to Non-Citizens.

NewsMax.Com ^ | Jan.5 '06 | Dave Eberhart

[T.L.Sink]

The U.S.- Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement ...an agreement signed between the Bush administration and the Mexican government in 2004 that would funnel billions of U.S. Social Security funds to Mexican citizens. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has already warned that as a result of this agreement, the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social benefits will likely increase. The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy - yet they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise...

[cva66snipe]

The RATS have been talking about impeachment since the War in Iraq began, cva

Of course they have. And they will continue to do so. They will talk. They may out of sheer boredom after Bush gives them most of what they want even impeach him. But they will not remove him from office. Look right now GW Bush has the GOP split in half. Half love him the other half does not. That means GOP congressional votes are split. That means the GOP is in effect stopped dead in it's tracks in opposing the DEMs because the DEMs actually want much of what Bush proposes.

Example? Why just before the last election key DEMs were saying we're pulling out of Iraq. Bologna! They don't want out they are getting too filthy rich off of contracts as are some GOP. Now there is growing support to actually increase the number of ground troops in Iraq.

Things like gathering data on private citizens. The DEM's did it and more remember the FBI files? No the DEMs are fighting the GOP over who gets to keep the files that's all.

The only people who would say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans are those who do not value the life of the unborn, the moral fabric of this country, our national security, or Constitutionalist judges. Is that what you really mean to say, snipe?

There are many pro-abort GOP have you forgotten that? It cost Bob Dole an election. Weren't they just so adorable? Chrissie and Sussie as keynote speakers. Many seem to let that slide when it comes election time. I don't do you? I will not vote for a pro-abort canidate DEM, GOP, or any other party.

National Security? What National Security? Unarmed National Guards at the Mexican border getting shot at? That is a National Disgrace and there is no excuse for it period. Giving more and more hi-tech and production capabilities to China? Ignoring our plane being forced down in International Waters while Unkie has a dinner engagement? Foreign M.E. nations doing our shipyard work and carriers moored at their piers? NAFTA? Want more? How about invites to China to take over running our ports?

I would rather see gridlock where neither party for at least the next two years gets nothing done except the necessities than a continuation of our national decline and world standing that has taken place since 1989 and is growing worse at an ever increasing rate. As for Judges? Give me a break. LOL The words Orin Hatch for USSC Justice were never typed by me and what was Bush thinking the day he nominated Harriet Meyers {SP}

The man is in way over his head. Even tha65t could be overcame if he for once in his terms brought in outside of Poppy's Inner Circle advisors. The nation can not handle Hillary for POTUS at this point nor can it handle 4-8 years of another like Bush or his dad. They are a whole lot closer in political policy than anyone in the GOP wants to ever admit they are. That's a lot of what is wrong right now is the fact the GOP and the DEMs are too close together in agenda. Much of it was caused by the fact many DEMs changed parties between 1980 and 1995. They brought their liberalism with them.

The number of RINO's now in congress added to the number of DEMs in congress equals we need gridlock until Constitutional order is once again restored to congress. That may take an election cycle or two but it's definately going to take booting out some long time congress crtitters in the GOP to accomplish it.

[rottndog]

(btw, if I'm 'running' from this debate, how do you explain that I'm still on this thread,...

Considering that you refuse to address the crux of this whole debate, Bush's refusal to enforce border sovereignty and immigration laws, you are running from the debate. It is you that is going after me personally, rather than address the issue. That IS a leftist tactic.

And let me tell you this..........you're amusing other (real) freepers too, not just me. I've been congratulated for 'kicking your butt.'

By Dane? LOL!

Illegal immigration isn't fun,...

Then why don't you address Bush's refusal to control it?

[ohioWfan]

There are many pro-abort GOP have you forgotten that?

Of course not, but I know the party platform position, and I know which way the decisions go regarding the sanctity of life when the Republicans are in control instead of the RATS. NO one who values life says it doesn't matter who's in charge.

As for national security, I'm talking about support for the military, defense against terrorists, prosecuting terrorists, and protecting us against another attack since 9/11. You may slough those things off as meaningless because of border issues, but I don't. It's possible to disagree on one aspect of this administration's policy without throwing the whole lot of them into the garbage like you do.

And President Bush is anything but 'in over his head.' Maybe you should start to pray for him rather than bash his head into the ground, snipe. You might find that you have a different attitude toward this man of impeccable character, integrity, and courage.

[ilovew]

You seem to be under the impression that illegal immigration was never a problem before President Bush took office. What would your suggestion be, anyway? Shutting down the country?

[ohioWfan]

I'm only refusing to debate it with YOU, doggie. (Is this a little too complex for you?)

And no, it wasn't Dane. Not that it matters. Everyone reading this thread knows I've pummelled you, and many have enjoyed it thoroughly.

Once again..........I reserve my serious debate for serious freepers.

You just aren't one.

[sissyjane]

Woof-woof.... :>)

[ohioWfan]

Excuse me Dane. rottndog once again refused to ping the person he was insulting, so I'm pinging you to this thread to let you know about it.

Not that you want to bother with this particular troll. He's not really worth your time, but I thought I should let you know he was posting about you without pinging you.

(He has a problem with rules).

[rottndog]

You seem to be under the impression that illegal immigration was never a problem before President Bush took office.

No, and I've never said as much. However, it's 5+ years into the Bush administration, and he still refuses to secure our southern border. Even Louis Freeh, former head of the FBI, said that if we were serious about national security in the WOT, the FIRST thing would be to control our borders. It's very obvious to me and many others that Bush doesn't want to control the borders because he doesn't want to control illegal immigration. How else can you explain his refusal to enforce border sovereignty and immigration laws so far into his term of office?

What would your suggestion be, anyway? Shutting down the country?

Since you asked:

rottndog's 10 Simple solutions to the crisis of illegal immigration:
1. Immediately allocate funding for as many border patrol agents as necessary to effectively secure the borders. This would include the use of military forces, as defending the country against invasion is supposed to be the primary function of the Federal Government.

2. Immediately allocate funding for a modern and effective border fence.

3. Cut off all federal funds to any state, county, and/or city that has an expressed (or even unexpressed) sanctuary policy, including police noncooperation policies such as LAPD's special order number 40.

4. Immediately sue in federal court all aforementioned entities to overturn these patently unconstitutional policies (enforce the supremacy clause).

5. Cut off all federal funds to any state, county, and/or city that refuses to verify eligibility requirements for the dispensing of federally funded or subsidized public services.

6. Start prosecuting repeat illegal border crossers and put them in prison. It is a felony to recross the border after deportation. Give them a warning after the first offense, but after that, off to jail. Maybe have longer sentences for multiple offenses (I like Three Strikes).

7. End the "anchor baby" citizenship loophole. This can be done simply by federal statute.

8. Establish and implement a system of instant electronic checking of residency status for the purpose of employment. They have instant checking for firearms purchasing, why not for employment eligibility verification?

9. Fund random inspections of businesses by ICE officials to verify employment eligibility (legal residency). Include in this a task force to immediately respond to the use of bogus employee social security numbers.

10. Arrest and prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. After instant checks are established, there will be no excuses.

Some of these things could be done under current law--in other words, much of the problem would go away if our current laws already on the books were ENFORCED!


I came up with that 2 years ago. What are your suggestions?

[rottndog]

Once again..........I reserve my serious debate for serious freepers.

Code for: I am unwilling and/or unable to engage in this debate, so I won't.

Hard to defend the indefensible, isn't it?

[ohioWfan]

ROFLOL!

And the "Slow Learner of the Year Award" goes to.........drumroll........... rottndog!!!

You are a persistent little pup though, aren't you? More amusement.

[StarFan]

I posted a link at #92 about this totalization agreement. Barnhart testified before congress and explains how this program works.

How about reading the link in #84 (beginning with page 16)which counters much of what the SSA is forecasting. Quite an eye opener.

Thanks for the link texastoo.

[rottndog]

Your nervous laughter is only because you can't/won't defend Bush's refusal to enforce border sovereignty and immigration laws.

[ohioWfan]

Oy.......

Good night, Gracie.

[rottndog]

Good night indeed.

[Unicorn]

BTTT

[ilovew]

1. I really don't like the idea of using our military for border patrol. I have quite a few friends in the military and I assure you they did not sign up because they wanted to patrol the border. It's also not what they're trained for.

2. What exactly would satisfy your definition of an effective border fence?

I won't pretend to be an expert on immigration. I mostly definitely am not. However, President Bush is not the root of all evil. Decades of indifference have forced the President between a rock and a hard place. He will never be able to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone. Odds are, nothing will get done because CONGRESS does not wish for anything to be done. Congress makes legislation, does it not? With a Republican majority in Congress, what was accomplished? Nothing. President Bush signs the legislation, he doesn't make it.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Decades of indifference have forced the President between a rock and a hard place

I disagree. There is laws on the books, if enforced, we never would have gotten to this point. All the President had to do was direct ICE, the FBI and others to enforce said laws, deport illegals they pick up and prosecute employers hiring illegals. The employers would get the hint pretty quickly and the jobs attracting them here would dry up.

[ilovew]

Why should he have to tell them to do their jobs? If they're not doing their jobs now, why would it make any difference for the President to tell them to do so?

[cva66snipe]

As for national security, I'm talking about support for the military, defense against terrorists, prosecuting terrorists, and protecting us against another attack since 9/11. You may slough those things off as meaningless because of border issues, but I don't. It's possible to disagree on one aspect of this administration's policy without throwing the whole lot of them into the garbage like you do.

Who is downsizing our military in a time of war? I'm gonna explain something to you about terrorist. Who started us down that road? One man did and two after him did the same thing but one of the three used military force against a foreign head of state who sponsored terrorism. Bush mentor Gerald R Ford signed via Executive order a prohibition against using covert deadly force against foreign heads of state. Look at the numbers and how it grows. From 1960-1975 a little over a dozen attacks of which seven involved U.S. interest. Look then at the sharp increase Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology

Reagan went after Qaddafi personally and it didn't take calling up a substantial military force to do it. Reagan's defense policy? "Peace through strength." But we lost a sizable portion of that strength within two years after Reagan left office. Even for Gulf War one a sizable portion of our reserves were called up. Then as today Saddam could have been taken out by a limited strike operation.

National Security and National Defense is very high on my list. It is the number one Constitutional function of our government to provide for our common defense. In this day and age of terrorist attacks common sense says our borders need defending. Anyone with a vile of bio agents can walk right inform Mexico and do major damage. As well just a very short ways from Norfolk Naval Base is the International Piers or terminals. Remember a few years back after 9/11 some crew-members from a commercial ship jumped ship? BTW our carrier fleet for the east coast minus one berth in Norfolk. National defense and security? Across from that base is our sole remaining carrier capable ship builder. We once had four. Two east and two west. China now operates where one was at I think on the west coast.

National Defense? With the entire U.S. military running on 1996 numbers both reserve and active duty forces? I have posted many times in here raise the numbers. Bush and the GOP congress wasted a golden chance to do so after 9/11. The damage GWH Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Aspin, and Bush/Rummy have allowed to occur will take many years to overcome at this point. Russia at this point if the M.E. oil nations paid them could out produce us in less than a decade. We would not be able to build the needed factories, mine the needed raw material, and provide for our own defense thanks to the polices of the Democratic and Republican Parties since 1989. They both sold us out. Outsourcing defense production is a loose/loose means a bad outcome for US.

I invite you to read all my military bookmarks especially those before W took office. I hold Bush to no less an expected standard than Clinton or W's dad. If Bush doesn't wake up and smell the coffee soon his legacy will be the POTUS who destroyed the military reserve program. He shorts the military budget to pay for his out of control social spending. The GOP congressional and senate majority enabled him to do so. The DEMs were more than pleased over that one. You should be angry over that. Every Republican should.

As for 9/11? That too is national security. It was not the first time someone took over a plane to try and fly it into a building. In the early to mid 1970's a lone nutjob hi-jacked a commerical airliner and had the pilot circling Oak Ridge, Tennessee where nuclear weapons were produced. His threat was to crash it into a key facility called Y-12.

[rottndog]

The use of the military would be only on an interim basis, until effective control by Border Patrol was established by adequate staffing and a fence. Here is a border fence that has been built and has virtually stopped illegal border crossings in San Diego where it was constructed:


Here is a good idea that would be just as effective:


I never said, nor have I intended to infer, that Bush is the root of all evil. He simply is an open borders corporatist. That's who he is, that's fine. I kind of got an inkling of that when he came up with the "compassionate" conservative rhetoric. The problem is that as POTUS, he is sworn to uphold the law, which he clearly is not doing. As I have previously stated, crossing the border after deportation is a felony. Social Security fraud (the use of a fake ssn) is a felony. Identity theft (using someone else's ssn) is a felony. Those are three serious violations of CURRENT federal statutes. Bush is not prosecuting those who violate them, and the primary violators of the last two are illegal aliens.

Congress can pass all the legislation it wants, but if Bush refuses to enforce it, what good is it?