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.

[Mamzelle]

Now you're writing foolish repartee, which I've seen you do many times in this thread, which is why I was slow to address your post in the first place. Looks like you'll get what you want, anyhow, untrammelled immigration and an unmangeable stress on our services. Because we Republicans don't have anywhere else to go...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There needs to be a Rallying Point to which all Americans can come to a consensus and agree on. A National Referendum would do this and then the Congress would have proof of what the vast majority of Conservative Americans support and want!"

We always fail to consider that the other side of an issue has equal representation.

[sweetliberty]

"I know GW needs some hispanic votes..but this kind of pandering is not acceptable."

The only votes he's gonna get out of it are going to be for whatever joker is running against him. This is by far the most outrageous stance this president has taken. H*ll, while he's at it, why not invite the whole d**n poor population of Mexico to move in and expedite the process of making us a third world nation. The more the merrier and freebes for everybody....well, except for Americans of course.

[Mamzelle]

There isn't another side to the representation. All the sides are your sides. Why aren't you happy?

[Cultural Jihad]

As if the beefed-up security at the San Diego border was the result of some devious Washingtonian plan to rob citizens in the Sonora desert of their votes (sheesh).

[Ian McGreggor]

"Are you claiming that our borders are not protected Ian?"

They're obviously not protected enough! I don't know how you can even remotely think they are 'protected' when we have as many illegals coming across them as we do.

As far as your comment about my comments being "blatantly propagandized," perhaps you'd care to explain that? Or are you just blowing smoke out you butt?

[JackelopeBreeder]

A bit of mis-reading on your part, perhaps?

They moved the problem away from the big urban areas where it was enraging a lot of voters and moved it to an area where there were less voters to enrage.

[Cultural Jihad]

The effort was all an issue of offending the least number of voters rather than effecting the largest blockage of law-breaking, eh? Interesting concept. Supposedly you'd be happier if they were to block the desert and open up the cities.

[Ian McGreggor]

"That John Birch magazine is making more sense to me all the time."

Well, I've never considered myself a Bircher, but if Bush wants to push this proposal of his I may take a serious look at the JB Society.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I think we can find enough money to protect our borders."

"They're obviously not protected enough!"

So then, which is it?

Are they protected or not?

We stopped close to one million people from entering the US illegally last year, but you don't think we are protecting our borders?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"All the sides are your sides."

Are you able to expound on that?

[Luis Gonzalez]

BY the way, we do this Social Security program with many other countries already, but you only have a problem with Mexico?

And, if the people come here legally. work here legally, and pay their Social Security taxes legally. what legal reason would you have to stop them from collecting them?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Looks to me like Bush is going to create new *law* to bankrupt SSec once and for all."

Inform yourself.

These treaties exist with many other nations already.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Well, I'm not a Bircher either, but it is an interesting magazine, worth checking out. (The New American)

[Mamzelle]

The GOP leadership cares nothing for the majority of lawabiding, taxpaying citizens and legal resident aliens who want our immigration laws enforced.

I don't even know why you'd choose to debate the subject; it is clear you've already won. The rest of us, the losers, are just expressing our bitterness. Rove just smirks and shrugs. All the sides are on your side.

[Ian McGreggor]

"I think we can find enough money to protect our borders."

"They're obviously not protected enough!"

So then, which is it?

Are they protected or not?!

Huh?

What did I just say? - "They're obviously not protected enough", Right? That shouldn't be too hard to understand. And I don't care how many we stopped... I care about how many we didn't stop.

How many terrorists (or illegal aliens) we stop at the border shouldn't be nearly as important to you, me or anybody else as how many we didn't stop.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The U.S. has been entering into these treaties since the 1970's.

The most bankrupt thing in this nation is its poorly informed citizenry.

"The United States has been negotiating Social Security "totalization" agreements with other governments since the late 1970s. They allow workers to "totalize" the number of years they have worked in both countries to meet the minimum years required to qualify for benefits in one of the systems." -- Source

[sweetliberty]

Can't you just fell the loooove on this thread?

[Mamzelle]

What do you want, anyway, I keep asking? Everyone to make happy that their laws go unenforced and their pockets are going to be picked even more deeply than before?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You said that after I pointed out the misrepresentation of the truth in your original post, then I pointed out the inconsistency between your two posts.

Af far as the infamous red herring "terorists crossing the border" argument, it's just that...a red herring.

It makes absolutely no sense for terrorists to try the most perilous way into the country, when they have the money and ability to enter the country legally, giving them far more chances to gain entry.