The Totalization Agreement made with Mexico is NOT the same as it is for the other 20 countries. For Mexico, they have made special, extra, credits for work years. The Hayworth Amendment was to try to remove the extra special status that now exists with Mexico. I believe it either went nowhere or was defeated.
so....."this was a good thing", how?
NAFTA Highway . . .this does not affect sovereignty
You obviously don't understand how the government is incrementally apportioning and preparing to confiscate private lands to set up the corridor via eminent domains, recently strengthened by KELO will and is effecting private landholders in all the sectors/areas mentioned.
BTW, I didn't use the word "sovereignty" in any post related to the corridor and property confiscation. That's your fabrication of what I said as related thereto. Feeble attempt, at best.
Hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes: Ummmm...I bet you are one of the ones screaming about a border fence.
You betcha! Why aren't YOU wanting a fence put up to keep illegals out?
This study is for the purposes of the two countries unifying electric usage. Why would two sovereign countries be unifying electric production and usage? We should not be attempting to find ways to become DEPENDENT upon another country for scarce and critical resources. That is already proven to be a failure in the Middle East, why would we want to ingratiate our country's electrical needs with a proven corrupt government?
tax incentives and job training grants for communities affected by the migration of businesses and jobs to Canada or Mexico I could have sworn you were complaining about job losses due to outsourcing...now you don't want to help those workers?
We are already sending to Mexico BILLIONS of dollars. Why should U.S. taxpayer dollars being funneled into a corrupt government be INCREASED? Mexico is obviously already NOT spending the monies it's been receiving properly. Why should the US taxpayers be burdened with paying for building up Mexico at all? Mexico is a sovereign country and makes BILLIONS every year from its own revenues, this is not accounting for monies being sent to Mexico by illegals here. Why hasn't and isn't Mexico being held to account for the monies it's already been sent? What has it done with that money? Why is it STILL SUCH A MESS? Because IT'S CORRUPT. I don't want another DIME being sent to Mexico, which is doing nothing but teaching its citizens how to come here illegally and injecting itself into US courts of law so that Border Patrol agents are prosecuted, i.e., Campean and Ramos, for one.
To extend certain consumer protections to international remittance transfers of fundsnot a big deal...
Of course you'd think that; this is to reduce the cost of wire transfers from illegals in the US to Mexico. You would think it's okay to make it easier for illegals to stay here and send US monies out of this country.
To improve the security clearance process along the United States-Mexico border, to increase the number of detention beds, and for other purposes What is your problem with that? This is a good thing.
Much of this is going to private facilities, apparently some are friends of the Bush regime. It's big money now to start up prisons by private companies and get paid by the government. As more illegals are arrested, prisons are becoming overcrowded. Private prisons, for profit, are now being shifted to house U.S. citizens, FOR PROFIT. It's never been a better time to make money in private prisons. If there were less illegals in our prisons, the strain would not be as severe. Allowing illegals to stay in this country is helping the private prisons make money. I have a problem with that.
To direct the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for other purposes:. . . what is the problem with this?
I have a problem funding a nefarious military agency that is not accountable to the U.S. I have a problem using taxpayer dollars to pay for a beefed up military presence along the perimeter of the entity called the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, i.e., Canada, the US, and Mexico, when we supposedly CAN'T even enforce our southern border. Somehow you believe it can do a better security job at another country's border? FOFLOL!
I have a problem with some nefarious military group defending Mexico's southern border and claiming that is 'security for American citizens'. What nefarious military group will have ANY loyalty to American citizens, much less American protection? IT WILL NOT. If you think a Mexican citizen cares very much about the protection of an American citizen, you're an idyot. If you think a Mexican official can't be bribed to let people in through their southern border, you're a moron.
North American Investment Fund Act.
(2) promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training; and (3) reduce the wealth gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States.
This is actually a provision to buffer the NAFTA impact and improving Mexico's economy would result in less illegal immigration.
And you're crazy. This is to help "equalize", READ: SOCIALIZE, the three countries. Various documents state that for the NAU to occur, first what must happen is to EQUALIZE the three countries economically.
If you think U.S. taxpayer dollars should be creating a North American Bank, as it has already, and that US taxpayer dollars should be funding the salaries and programs of same.....if you honestly think that lowering the standard of living for Americans as it must, as it is, and is it will continue, so that ALL THREE COUNTRIES ARE MORE EQUAL economically speaking....you are nothing more than a socialist yourself.
Reread the above paragraphs as to the rest of your obviously ignorant comments.
NAFTA Highway: The jury is still out on whether this is myth or fact. In reference to KELO, the Govt. has been using eminent domain since the early 1900's...they are just getting more aggressive now since KELO, so many states have now passed their own eminent domain laws to protect citizens against abuse, as they should. The veto by Rick Perry on the Texas bill is one reason I consider him a traitor, the other is his toll road crap. As to the word "soveriegnty" I NEVER said you used that word, you apparently have taken something out of context, I merely said it doesn't affect soveriegnty, which is a measure I use when making my decisions about such matters.
About the studies...where do you get that it is for unifying electrical usage? I read the whole text of the bill and it is talking about impact studies on auquifers. As far as the fence goes {Sigh}, as usual, some people just love to put words in other people's mouths when it comes to that issue. I NEVER said I was not for a fence, I am just not as delusional as some on here are about it, I realize that it is the Dems that are holding this up:
June 15, 2007 - WASHINGTON – House Democrats voted down legislation offered by Congressman Jerry Lewis Friday to require full funding for 854 miles of double fencing and other security measures that were mandated in the Secure Fence Act passed by Congress last year. Lewis criticized the vote as undermining efforts to provide real security to the nation’s Southern border. Congressman Jerry Lewis
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has provided an early indication that the new Democratic congressional leadership is prepared to abandon all pretense of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and our borders, warns the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). In a statement Tuesday, Hoyer declared that construction of the 700-mile security fence approved by Congress last fall is unlikely to receive the funding necessary to move forward. Instead, Hoyer vaguely referred to "other ways" that Congress would look into dealing with illegal immigration and securing the nation against terrorist infiltration. Past statements by the Democratic leadership indicate that their approach to dealing with illegal immigration would include another massive illegal alien amnesty program and another set of vague promises to enforce immigration laws in the future. Democrats, who have repeatedly excoriated the Bush administration for its failure to bring America's borders under control and for failing to take necessary steps to secure the nation against future terrorist attacks, now appear prepared to scuttle the one real initiative that has been put forth to end the dangerous and chaotic situation that exists along the southern border.On tax incentives...do you even bother to read the text of these bills...the incentives are for US citizens, no money is going to Mexico under that bill.Democrats Indicate That They Are Ready to Backtrack on Border Fence, Warns FAIR
On consumer protection, it just keeps banks from gouging legal aliens and residents with high fees for sending money out of the country. Do you favor gouging legal aliens and residents? I hope not. Maybe they could have put a stipulation in there about illegals, but if they did, it probably wouldn't have passed.
On detention beds, you can't have it both ways. If you want these people detaineed and deported, that means more beds are needed. Otherwise, we are back to catch and release. As to private prisons, I don't see a problem with that if they can be run more efficiently. So what if someone makes money off of it...it is one less bureacracy the FedGov has hands in.
As for the Mexican border patrol, they will be assisting by guarding THEIR side of the border so that illegals won't make it to OUR side of the border. They aren't going to be on US property, so I don't understand where you are coming from on this.
On the North American Investment Fund Act, you can "read" it any way you want, but I don't have to agree with your assessment, especially in light of the fact that you consistently "read" nefarious intent into many issues, intent that is just not there.