Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kimberly GG
Never would have happened if Bush had stayed on the RIGHT side of the isle instead of joining hands with the like of lefty Kennedy on this issue.

Not a flame, just a correction.

Bush has never been on the right side of this issue.

In February 2001, he began talks with Vicente Fox that ultimately resulted with the two signing the Partnership for Prosperity agreement (signed September 6, 2001). That agreement empowered the FDIC to form the New Alliance Task Force, which relaxed the banking rules to allow Mexican illegal aliens to use Mexican Matricular Consular cards as valid ID to open US bank accounts and obtain auto and home loans. Prior to 2001, this was impossible because a valid SSN was needed to open a bank account or obtain a loan.

IMO, this action caused massive increases in illegal border crossings and the current sub-prime lending debacle currently unfolding.

While your attention was diverted by the events surrounding 9/11, George W. Bush was working behind your back to give sell out America.

In June 2004, Bush's appointed SSA commissioner signed the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. This agreement, if allowed to proceed, would allow the Mexican illegal alien to apply for, and receive US Social Security benefits after having worked (illegally) in the US for only 6 quarters (18 months). US citizens (read: you and I) have to work 40 quarters (10 years) before we're eligible to apply. Not only that, but the agreement would allow the Mexican illegal alien to apply for, and receive US Social Security benefits for their Mexican (national) wife and children, even if they've never stepped foot in the USA.

So, not only does George W. Bush want to US citizens to pay US Social Security benefits to the Mexican illegal aliens already here, but he wants us to pay for their family back home in Mexico, too!

219 posted on 07/27/2007 11:42:51 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]


To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Thanks ODT, you’re right on all counts. Bush had it in for us all along.

I’ve been outraged about the Trilateral agreement since I first learned of the details of it via a FOIA. I became permanently disabled almost 4 years ago after a 25 year career in a Corporate office in Cleveland. I collect SSD and would not have been eligible for it had I not worked 10 years full time, not a mere 18 months. I must tell you, it irks me to no end to have to press 1 for English whenever I call the SSA. I am also convinced that illegals applying for benefits is the reason for the 3 1/2 year delay it took from date of application to get a hearing date before a judge (lasted 1 hr and I was given a favorable bench decision due to the seriousness of my condition) and another almost 6 months for receipt of backpay. In 2003, Ohio had a backlog of over 10,000 applications and I hear it is like this all over the country. Other assistance in Ohio is very limited and I believe it is due to the number of illegal aliens collecting benefits. Any single person who is elderly or disabled and meets the income/asset guidelines qualifies for only $115 a month living expenses and medicaid, because the majority of the funds are being distributed to others that include illegal alien families (who are probably double-dipping and paying no taxes). Applications state that proof of citizenship is needed.... only by citizens!

There are many reasons for my active involvement in the defeat of CIR, but the destruction of SS is one that will have an immediate life/death affect on me personally.

I heard today how difficult it is going to be for those with even pretty good credit to secure a mortgage. Yet I’d be willing to bet that illegal aliens will still be given them and at better interest rates than American citizens.

I’ve also just heard that Bush will probably veto the bill that was passed Thursday, almost unanimously, for funding of the border security. I’ve been suspicious about the bill since I saw the voting results. Clearly, those who were never in favor of “security first”, knowingly used it as an no-risk opportunity to vote in favor of it.


229 posted on 07/27/2007 3:45:04 PM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson