Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection

Washington Post ^ | January 4, 2004 | Mike Allen

[Ian McGreggor]

CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan. 3 -- President Bush will propose protections for the Social Security taxes paid by the workers who would come into the country under massive changes to immigration laws he plans to announce on Wednesday, Republican officials said Saturday.

Bush's plan would make it possible for such workers from Mexico and perhaps other countries to collect retirement benefits without being penalized by their home countries for the years they spent working in the United States, the officials said.

Officials began releasing details of Bush's plan shortly before Christmas and provided new details over the weekend. The officials said Bush's plan will contain a new system to help workers who want to enter from Mexico or other countries if they have jobs waiting for them. It also includes a mechanism for some undocumented residents to continue working in the United States and get on a path to legal status.

[janetgreen]

You are the miror image of Democrats who held that Clinton comitted no crime.

Yep, same thing. I was thinking that if Clinton had proposed this insanity, people would be screaming. Bush does it, and it's OK?

[Sabertooth]

I saw and heard what Tom Ridge said, but I am still waiting for that ever illusive White house proposal, we can speculate all day long, but I'll wait until I see the actual proposal before I condemn it

This is like waitiing until it snows to put on a jacket, when it's below freezing and the storm clouds are in the sky.

I was one that thought the signing of CFR was a rational decision, mainly because it had sever-ability. My mistake was that I believed the SCOTUS understood the Constitution. So YES you were correct, Bush should not have signed CFR.

Then, were those of us who were correctly criticizing his decion at the time thereby engaging in "Bush-bashing?"

As far as claiming that I, or anyone else who doesn't switch to the Libertarian Party the first time GWB does something I disagree with is a Bushbot, I think that's as childish as it gets.

I don't believe that I used the term "Bushbot." I said "Bush-loyalist."

This is a deflection.

I think I agree with about 75% of what this President has done so far, That's a number I can very much live with and I will continue to send my letters of complaint when he does things I don't. If that makes me a Bushbot in your world, So be it. But one thing is for sure, I will never go off the deep end over something that hasn't even been proposed yet. That's like selling your farm because the weather man says we might not get any rain next year.

I think we've dealt with the "Bushbot" thing.

For weather analogies, see mine above.

However, to take yours to its logical conclusion, to ignore the Bush Administration's clear signals of a desire to legalize Illegal Aliens is to ignore the weather forecast altogether by failing to take any preparations for drought.

[Cultural Jihad]

But that's kinda like waving an American flag made in China, eh? Regarding rabid, xenophobic Americanism which seeks to dehumanize undocumented immigrants, I guess it's the thought that counts.

[Ian McGreggor]

reply 253

Thanks for the chuckle.. That was cute :-)

[Ian McGreggor]

Glad you and I are on the same side of this. :)

You put up some great arguments.

[MJY1288]

"However, to take yours to its logical conclusion, to ignore the Bush Administration's clear signals of a desire to legalize Illegal Aliens is to ignore the weather forecast altogether by failing to take any preparations for drought."

OK, That's a fair statement, but what else besides sending all the faxes and letters I have, expressing my objections to any kind of amnesty to the White House and my elected represenatives, can I do? Or should I condemn him now here on FR, before the proposal is released and go vote for a third party sure loser and watch a repeat of 1992? NO THANKS. No matter what he proposes, it has to go through Congress, and there might be some politics being played here on this issue, but is it unreasonable of me to speculate on the possibility that nothing will be passed that grants amnesty, just like nothing has been proposed or passed for the last three years?

[Klickitat]

"I think I characterized most of these threads quite accurately, 90% of them turn into flame wars"

Yes, and why do they turn into flame wars? Because some group think totalitarians get on them and start with the racist, xenophobe, nazi type name calling. I don't include you in that group. I haven't read every post you've made, but the ones you do make appear reasoned. However, there are some alleged conservatives on this site who put the lefties to shame with their emotional hate spewing diatribes that totally ignore all facts.

"I saw and heard what Tom Ridge said, but I am still waiting for that ever illusive White house proposal, we can speculate all day long, but I'll wait until I see the actual proposal before I condemn it"

When you look at the number of amnesty proposals in congress right now, in combination with the coordinated media campaign to show the suffering of the undocumented workers, I believe it is better to take preemptive action than sit back and see what happens. If you are right, no biggie, a bunch of people have contacted the politicians to say they don't support an amnesty. Where's the harm in that? If OTOH, they are trying to gauge public reaction, then the more people contacting them the better.

I believe there is more to being a good citizen than voting every few years. That is the absolute bare minimum of citizenship. It is our duty, our responsibilty, to know what the politicians are doing, and to inform them of what we want them to do.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I'm not part of whatever fights you guys are involved. I was simply addressing what concerns to me, thanks.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

BTTT (Another enjoyable thread)

[Sabertooth]

Regarding rabid, xenophobic Americanism which seeks to dehumanize undocumented immigrants, I guess it's the thought that counts.

Guess again...

A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 3, the Argument Ad Hominem)
			Posted by general_re On 12/21/2003 5:59:01 AM PST with 24 comments Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen Argument Ad Hominem The phrase ad hominem translates into "against the person." It names a fallacious attack in which the thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it. This fallacy has two major forms, because there are two major ways in which the attack can be personalized. Argument Ad Hominem, Abusive Participants in strenuous argument sometimes disparage the character of their opponents, deny their intelligence or reasonableness, question their integrity, and so on. But the character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says,...

Thought counts when constructing a non-fallacious argument. Try it.

[MJY1288]

See post #287

[lonewacko_dot_com]

Ridge doesn't want to reward them. He just wants to "afford them some kind of legal status some way."

If I double-think a bit, I can double-understand his double-speak.

There are comments from Tancredo and Dan Stein here: http://washtimes.com/national/20031211-120505-1795r.htm

[Sabertooth]

OK, That's a fair statement, but what else besides sending all the faxes and letters I have, expressing my objections to any kind of amnesty to the White House and my elected represenatives, can I do?

You can be less dismissive of the accumlating evidence that this President intends to legalize millions of Illegals, and of those who bring forth this evidence.

Your view of CFR proved to be subjective and incorrect, and should serve as a cautionary note against wishful thinking in this matter.

For example...

No matter what he proposes, it has to go through Congress, and there might be some politics being played here on this issue,

Relying on Congress to solve the problems the President is making for himself with regard to Illegal Aliens is rather reminiscent of the hope that the Supreme Court would save him from his CFR blunder

but is it unreasonable of me to speculate on the possibility that nothing will be passed that grants amnesty, just like nothing has been proposed or passed for the last three years?

False premise.

In the Spring of 2002, President Bush attempted to ram through a last minute extenion of Bill Clinton's Section 245(i) Amnesty. You know this.

[Klickitat]

Thanks. I guess I should have made it a new year resolution to stay out of other peoples discussions on fr (too late now).

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Beef up border security."

Ever figure out the cost of "beefing up" the border security?

Don't forget to include the coastlines.

[Mears]

bump

[janetgreen]

Ever figure out the cost of "beefing up" the border security?

Ever figure out the cost to American taxpayers to support millions of illegal aliens? BILLIONS. I'd rather pay for increased security to keep them out, plus deportation costs, than supply them with free medical care, schooling, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. Pandering to them only encourages millions more to come. We can't afford it.

[Mamzelle]

re: Illegal aliens now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers.)))

If the illegals (and their wink-wink employers) are committing fraud, why should we bankrupt SSec even further in order to reward them for doing so? This is a mind-boggling bonanza we're talking about--

I can't for the life of me see the possible political advantage is, or what the moral sense is, in what Bush is doing.

If your interest is to open the borders to the unlawful--you are well-named, Jihad.

[Sabertooth]

Wow, someone sure can't take a joke. My #283 was deleted?

Dishing, but not taking CJ?

Your every post on this thread has been fallacious, with routine ad hominems to impugn other posters being one of your preferred fallacies.

Here's your latest:

"Regarding rabid, xenophobic Americanism which seeks to dehumanize undocumented immigrants,"

I'm flagging you Mods for grins and edification; I prefer that every one of Cultural Jihad's posts on this thread to remain in tact and in full public view, please.

However, if you remove humor as a tool by which one may respond to the smears of another, you're inviting bellicosity in thinner-skinned posters who aren't aware of the motivations of those doing the baiting.