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...

[canadianally]

Actually, as a Canadian (pro-bush/pro-America), I am getting a little peeved that you are letting your legals out of your country and into mine. Can't you guys hold onto you illegals? Sheesh, the Mexicans are driving the Indo-Canadians (all..well, 90%...legal BTW) out of our bountiful crops throughout B.C. They work here (depriving our citizens of work) and then they slip back into your country. Tell me again, why do I now need a passport to visit the U.S.?

/vent mode off

[buccaneer81]

an immigration thug

Respectfully, could you define this?

[capt. norm]

Thanks for the Brokaw link.

A fascinating read.

I'm wondering how long it's going to take for the MSM to catch on to the fact that they are trying to row their propaganda boat up Niagara Falls.

[texastoo]

Since we know Jo Anne Barnhart, the Bush appointee Social Security administrator, is defending her position that you just posted why don't you be honest and read the pro and cons of this agreement.

I suggest you read paragraph 2 to start with then scroll down to page 16 of 35 and read this. Then scroll down to the chart about the underestimated and overestimated countries. This is a non partrisan by the ss administration and the government accountability office.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03993.pdf

By the way, I have read the agreement. Have you?

[BW2221]

Don't you know, that's what the super highway is about - giving illegals the option of passing through the U.S. and opting for Canada.

[Xenophon450]

Anyone who deems the border worthy of enforcement.

[BW2221]

"Bluntly put, without 9-11 Bush would have been a one termer."

Without 9-11, no one would be considering Rudy for anything.

[rottndog]

Seriously...is there some prohibition on FR about impeachment references to Bush?

I'm asking because I am genuinely curious.

[eleni121]

Bush is the only President who has ever seriously attempted to reform SS by privatizing it-------and even the tiniest bit of privatization was knocked off the table by the poseurs of both parties.

As for Mexico far less of their population receives pension benefits...and theirs is not progressive as it is here with those earning the least getting back the most!

As for this agreement: I'll wait before I jump on the dump Bush bandwagon.

[BW2221]

You're right about Bush's unpopularity costing the GOP dearly (although Iraq seems to be the major issue. According to a Pew Research Center exit poll:

"As expected, the election turned out in large measure to be a referendum on President Bush and the war in Iraq -- bad news for Republicans. About six-in-ten voters (59%) said they were either dissatisfied (30%) or angry (29%) with the president. By more than two-to-one, those dissatisfied with Bush supported the Democratic candidate in their district (69%-29%); among those angry with the president the margin was more than fifteen-to-one (92%-6%).

Bush was much more of a drag on his party's candidates than was former President Clinton in 1994, the year that Republicans won control of Congress. More than a third (36%) of the electorate said they voted to oppose Bush; that compares with 27% who voted to oppose Clinton in 1994, and 21% in 1998, the year Congress impeached the president."

[BARLF]

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_091103.html

I'll put this up but not sure many on this thread will read it. Seems they are more interested in bashing President Bush than reading what was explained before congress in 2003.

Make no mistake congress will be involved in this process.

[RGSpincich]

But, but...how can it be George Bush's fault if he never signed the agreement with Mexico? Not to mention the other agreements since 1970.

A perfectly good Bush Bashing gone awry because the facts don't support the whiners.

[Last Laugh]

ANY illegal that gets tax dollars does not deserve it.

And the dump Bush bandwagon? He'll be gone in two years, I aint on that wagon (I voted for him, twice as pres, twice for gov).

That is not the point. Bush is selling out this country.

During Clinton Trial, a lot of us could not understand the dems standing up for him, we felt it was ego, that kept dems from condemning clinton

Well, I'm not letting ego get in the way of my criticism of Bush, He is WRONG on Border Issues.

[BW2221]

Mexico is the only country where the agreement is a one-way street. i live in the Detroit area. You have Canadians, who live in Canada, that work in the U.S. You also have Americans, who live in the U.S., that work in Canada.

There are not 12 -20 million "undocumented" Canadians, Irish or Japanese in the U.S.

[BARLF]

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

[NavVet]

You seem to be suggesting that these agreements with other countries apply to illegal aliens as well, what a crock. Do you know what happens when they catch an illegal alien working in Mexico. If he is lucky, all he gets is a felony conviction, before he is beat senseless and dumped across the border.

[rottndog]

A perfectly good Bush Bashing gone awry because the facts don't support the whiners.

How is it Bush Bashing to criticize the latest aspects of Bush's complete refusal to deal with ILLEGAL immigration?

[BARLF]

Did you read the link posted # 92?