Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel
Caregie Endowment for International Peace/Global Policy Program website ^ | February 15, 2001 | Caregie Endowment for International Peace / Kerry Boyd

Posted on 05/12/2005 5:55:18 PM PDT by JesseJane

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Global Policy Program

International Migration Policy Program /event

On February 15, 2001, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Migration Policy Program hosted a breakfast briefing featuring three members of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel, which released a report on February 14 to U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox including proposals to change and improve the relationship of the U.S. and Mexico regarding migration. Speakers included Demetri Papademetriou, Co-Director of the International Migration Policy Program and the U.S. Convenor of the panel; Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum; and B. Lindsay Lowell, Director of Research at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration. Deborah W. Meyers, Associate at the International Migration Policy Program, was the moderator.

Demetri Papademetriou commented on the general themes and goals of the panel. The panel avoided making detailed proposals which would only suffer the "death of a thousand cuts," like many proposals do in Washington. It is detailed enough to provide the main principles for discussion and policy and offers several broad ideas. The panel is trying to take advantage of the meeting on February 16 between Presidents Bush and Fox. Papademetriou emphasized that the panel's work is a truly bilateral effort. The report gives an image of how the panel visualizes a different relationship with Mexico and emphasizes the need for a package of integrated proposals and cooperative efforts between the two countries, rather than unilateral single-issue policies. It considers the confluence of economics, demographics, and politics on the issue of migration. In the area of politics, the two new presidents are both former governors and businessmen who understand that their economies are highly integrated and interdependent. Since 1994, two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico has tripled; Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest trading partner. Labor markets are also integrated. Policy-makers must think regionally, starting with NAFTA. Papademetriou stated that if there is not a commitment to most of the ideas in the report, the policy cannot be successful in changing the terms of the debate over the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The panel has a firm conviction that the status quo has created a black market which undermines law enforcement and causes too many deaths. Frank Sharry spoke next. He said that the panel has been working on the report for six months and included a variety of perspectives. The panel's members wanted to ask if there was a way to refashion the debate about migration between the U.S. and Mexico. They also wanted their proposals to respond to reality. The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time. The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." Sharry listed the four main principles suggested by the panel to guide future discussions:

1. Improve the treatment of Mexican migrants by making legal visas and legal status more widely available and making legality the norm. The panel tried not to be very detailed and wanted to state premises to guide policy-making rather than promote specific policies. One way to make legality the norm is to institute legalizing mechanisms; some examples might be expanding and expediting family visas, expanding work visas, and implementing temporary worker programs. Temporary migration programs should be in response to measurable market needs and should meet certain criteria: equitable labor rights that can be meaningfully enforced, social and health protections, and reasonable options for temporary migrants who qualify to apply for permanent residency. The panel feels that only legalizing migrants in the U.S. or only providing more legal means for those who wish to come to the U.S. will perpetuate the unacceptable status quo; both must be addressed.

2. Call on Mexico to collaborate with the U.S. to reduce illegal migration. There should be cooperative efforts to crack down on smuggling organizations and work together to protect human rights in the border area.

3. Governments should work together to build a viable border region.

4. The long-term solution is the growth of the Mexican economy. Mexico has acknowledged that it must take primary responsibility for its development; however, the NAFTA partners and certain financial institutions should help. Remittance-based development programs are among options to reach this goal.

Sharry emphasized that picking and choosing the elements in the report is likely to undermine the overall effort's effectiveness. Lindsay Lowell said that it is an appropriate time for these issues to be addressed due in part to current and likely future demographics. The Mexican economy is growing rapidly and generating more jobs. Lowell said he sees three particularly important points in the report. The first is that it is a bilateral, grand bargain; the Mexican government is willing to make a change from its past non-involvement in the issue. Second, the report is a whole package whose elements must be taken together. Third, the report suggests incremental action; it is not recommending that the two governments open the border now.

Lowell said that the U.S. must deal with the Mexican migrant population already living in the U.S. There are many ways to address that issue; expanding family visas and work visas is something to discuss and may be among the ways to help solve the issue. The panel also calls for pilot temporary worker programs. The key is Mexico's greater cooperation; the report does not call for elimination of border controls but for an increase in cooperation of many types along the border. Human rights at the border are also important; there must be an effort to stop deaths at the border. The U.S. should facilitate the flow of legal migration. Also, Mexican economic development is important; remittances alone cannot accomplish it, and certain banks and microcredit organizations should be involved.

Meyers said that the U.S. has two neighbors and must consider how these policies affect Canada, as well. The report proposes equal treatment for Mexico and Canada and special treatment for both countries; perhaps Mexico and Canada should be exempt from the normal immigration formula

Summary by Kerry Boyd


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: agenda21; aliens; border; borderxxi; carnegie; cfr; davos; fordfoundation; globalists; grandbargain; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; leftwingfoundation; ngo; shadowparty; soros; un; worldgovernment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last
I know this is an older article. After reading it, it explains the Bush Policy on immigration. Having, for the life of me, been not able to understand what the heck has been going on, this explains it IMO. Especially the last 3 paragraphs.

I know it's long, however, after bumping into it one time today, and thinking about whether to post it or not, I decided I would...but it had been moved way down in ranking. So, rather than having this disappear like so many other things on the net, here it is. I bumped into it after readint the post today titled "Leftist Foundations Under Fire", and spotted the Carnegie name.

Without futher ado, and apologies for length, here it is.

1 posted on 05/12/2005 5:55:19 PM PDT by JesseJane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

If Mexico had a remotely honest government it would be cheaper to send aid to help them develop their country. A healthy Mexican economy would be good for everybody. However, Mexico is corrupt from top to bottom and finds it easier to behave as a big ole bloodsucker.


2 posted on 05/12/2005 6:03:49 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Anyone who thinks we believe Hillary on any issue is truly a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Agreed. Guess who pays for the 'grand bargain'?

The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time.

3 posted on 05/12/2005 6:05:11 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

Interesting. The Report makes several funndamental errors in thinking, the main one being that Mexico will have any interest in halting the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigration acts both as a safety valve for a poverty-stricken Mexican society and as a nice infusion of cash, to the tune on tens of billions of dollars sent in by Mexican expats.
Mexico is hardly likey to give up either of these.


4 posted on 05/12/2005 6:05:17 PM PDT by Sterrins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sterrins

The more I read at the site, and related links, Mexico is also acting as a funnel country for aliens from other countries. So, Mexican illegals, though they constitute the bulk, is only one aspect of the scam Mexico is thrusting upon America.


5 posted on 05/12/2005 6:07:23 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sterrins

PS, you are right, the infusion of cash is also coming from those they funnel on through to the US.


6 posted on 05/12/2005 6:08:05 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
social and health protections

Here it is;open your checkbooks.

Mexico has acknowledged that it must take primary responsibility for its development; however, the NAFTA partners and certain financial institutions should help.

Mexico; "Sure, we'll see what we can do about the illegal immigration thing, but only after you dump a bunch of money into our country to help us with our own development, which we cannot possibly do on our own, and should not be expected to do so.

there must be an effort to stop deaths at the border

By us, of course.

The U.S. should facilitate the flow of legal migration

See? It's our fault. Always is.

it is not recommending that the two governments open the border now

No, no, that comes later, after there is nothing we can do to stop it.

This is why I generally stay away from illegal immigration threads. I do not have one positive thing to offer.

Just damn.

7 posted on 05/12/2005 6:09:37 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
I have a better idea...

Give the USA until December 25, 2005 to gather enough bright ribbon to wrap around the country, north to south and east to west, with a giant bow in the center. We will then attach a "Merry Christmas Mexico" card and call it a done deal.

Coupled with the $10 million SoS Rice hand delivered a couple of months ago, should make this a suitable grand bargain...whata ya say mexico??? Deal?

8 posted on 05/12/2005 6:20:30 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
Teeney, I know what you mean. I only posted this because it explains what we've been seeing as it relates to the Bush policy and actions on illegals and immigration. I don't agree with a word of the damn thing, but I am drawing some conclusions about this 'globalist' policy.

Just FYI, when they speak of the BORDER REGION, if you go to the EPA website you find in the archives, the Border XXI REGION: Border XXI Program

The border between the U.S. and Mexico has been replaced by a shaded zone running between the two countries.

That 5 year program ended and now we are here:

U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Framework (read on down to the La Paz Agreement...

interesting......... Just damn is right.

9 posted on 05/12/2005 6:24:14 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

Dear Just,

Thank you for the gift, esta mucho gusto. Not enough, give me more. / s

Signed,
V. Faux


10 posted on 05/12/2005 6:27:15 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

Holy crap. The whole thing makes my stomach turn. And I simply cannot believe the Republican party is allowing this to happen.


11 posted on 05/12/2005 6:27:19 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
I find it astounding that we have somehow entered in an de facto agreement to allow a massive segment of that country to become part of ours, with all public debate - where it's been discussed at all - trending massively against it.
12 posted on 05/12/2005 6:28:48 PM PDT by thoughtomator ("One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is a law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

Me neither. They have been trying to reshape the argument and see what the American people will swallow. 2006 may be our last chance to have a predominate 'citizen only' voice at the ballot box (in states with the monster electoral vote count). Who knows what rights the politicians and judges will bestow upon illegals by the 2008 Presidential election.


13 posted on 05/12/2005 6:34:48 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
"I simply cannot believe the Republican party is allowing this to happen."

Look no further than El Presidente Boosh.

The man is a stealth socialist bent on obliterating U.S. sovereignty.

He's doing a fine job thus far, isn't he?

14 posted on 05/12/2005 6:42:16 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
It apparently was borne out of NAFTA. I was a subscriber to NewsMax.com mag for a while, and this article was in the November 15, 2001 issue vol 3 number 12.

EPA Website: No U.S. Border

Quoting from the article:

Sometime before the 2000 election I received an email about groups in Southern California calling for an end to the U.S.-Mexican border and the creation of a 'border zone"- an area 50 miles on either side of the U.S.-Mexican border that would become independent of either country.

I dismissed this as, well, wacky.

I don't anymore.

This past summer the respected magazine The Economist devoted several pages to this concept, suggesting that the idea of a 'third country' between Mexico and the United States has merit.

The magazine reported that 'thinking of the border as a separate country makes some kind of sense" because a "third nation" straddling the U.S.-Mexican border already has developed between Dan Diego/Tijuana on the west to Brownsville, Texas on the east.

Of course, the border is an imaginary political line. bust some would expand this line into a 'zone' or 'region' or 'area' that would become a separate country.

[snip]

The Economist says the genesis for the border zone 'country' germinated from NAFTA. As the U.S. and Mexican economies integrate, the need for a fixed border evaporates -- so the thinking goes. [snipped to end]

15 posted on 05/12/2005 6:46:36 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker

no comment.


16 posted on 05/12/2005 6:49:56 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
Say it.

If John Kerry or Clinton were pulling this crap, you and the rest of Freepdom would be pounding them into submission -- and rightfully so.

There is nothing more insidious than a traitor from within hiding behind the (R).

17 posted on 05/12/2005 6:53:52 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
esta mucho gusto

Da nada. (dripping with sarcasm) BTW - I was off reading the links in your #9 post. All I can say is that I am now sick, muchas gracias.

18 posted on 05/12/2005 6:55:28 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
"The Economist says the genesis for the border zone 'country' germinated from NAFTA. As the U.S. and Mexican economies integrate, the need for a fixed border evaporates -- so the thinking goes."

We've been set up by One Worlders like George H. Bush and Junior, and the rest of the Rockefeller RINO elitists who see the world NOT as sovereign countries, but as Trade Zones.

D@mn them. They are traitors to the Founders and to the Republic.

19 posted on 05/12/2005 6:58:04 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker
Hey Newbie -

READ THE ARTICLE, CHECK THE LINKS IN POST #9, DO THE MATH.........

20 posted on 05/12/2005 6:59:27 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
I'm sorry. Here's the one that you must read. A must read.
21 posted on 05/12/2005 7:00:36 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
I hardly have to "do the math" to add 2+2, professor...

But thanks for the encouragement ;-)

22 posted on 05/12/2005 7:07:29 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker

DM... This didn't start with GWB. The more I read, the more I realize what has been developing since the 60's. However, *I* am of the opinion the Clinton administration kicked this into high gear in '94, '95 to ensure they retained the WH, and lock in large electoral states. I know others will disagree and find equal weight contributing to the problem around the spectrum. But, to me, the doors were swung open the caught the Repubs blindsighted...or shortsighted... or well, going to get in on it by going RINO, to straddle the fence and still manage to keep their cushy job in DC. Again, this is just my little rant. I do not blame W for this whole debacle, but I am NOT happy that he has not been forthcoming with the public about this. Both parties will have to answer in 2006. So, it's up to us to make a last ditch effort to make sure only citizens, not legal guests, are able to vote for OUR representation.

I'm not here to argue about where more fault lies, I just wanted to understand what the heck has been going on, and now, how as Americans can we change what appears to be a backroom deal selling us out.


23 posted on 05/12/2005 7:09:13 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

Thanks - and here's one for you. It went up since we have been on this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402160/posts


24 posted on 05/12/2005 7:11:47 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

It's about voting... He want's (as does the radical hispanic lobbies) his people to participate in our political process. D/L's are the *magic key* for his government to have voice in ours. GRAND BARGAIN, NO? Look at CA for proof of the influence of the radical lobbies and their freebies to illegals. It has been one of the largest 3 factors bankrupting the states. And now, we see, America is asking for more of the same for the whole country... Bahhhhhhhhhhh.

And about those 'guest workers' shoved at us through the manipulation of the visa program, shall they vote in both countries??


25 posted on 05/12/2005 7:20:55 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker
February 15, 2001 | Caregie Endowment for International Peace / Kerry Boyd

Frank Sharry spoke next. He said that the panel has been working on the report for six months and included a variety of perspectives.

February 15, 2001 minus 6 months = August 15,2000.

Who was president on August 15, 2000?

Since 1994, two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico has tripled;

Who was president in 1994?

26 posted on 05/12/2005 7:21:58 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
" I do not blame W for this whole debacle, but I am NOT happy that he has not been forthcoming with the public about this. Both parties will have to answer in 2006."

Firstly JJ, the Dems will NEVER "answer" for turning the U.S. into a Third World country. It's always been their goal to begin with -- socialism.

The responsibility for the US maintaining its greatness has always been with the GOP and conservatism to uphold.

In THIS regard, they have not only let us down but President Bush as its leader is LARGELY responsible -- especially in light of 9/11.

Conclusion?

ALL Americans who hold dear the sovereignty of our Republic have been bamboozled and sold moth-eaten bill of goods.

What would past American patriots Washington, Adams, Revere, Henry, Teddy Roosevelt, Pershing, Patton, and McArthur say about a President who actually encourages a foreign invasion?

27 posted on 05/12/2005 7:23:11 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
Question: What happened 9/11?

DO THE MATH.

28 posted on 05/12/2005 7:24:48 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
And about those 'guest workers' shoved at us through the manipulation of the visa program, shall they vote in both countries??

Oh sure, why not, it will be only one country by then anyway, dontcha know.

29 posted on 05/12/2005 7:29:13 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker
You know, I don't disagree with you really, in light of 9/11. But we HAVE to live with the priorities that GWB set forth, and that was primarily to stop terrorism abroad. We can not dismiss the effort made to bring the idiot Dems along, dick around with the UN, powder France's *ss, and then, face a war he roundly hoped to avoid. It was a huge undertaking, and honestly, the border SHOULD have been closed then.. I can't understand why that wasn't done, if not to TRY to continue domestic trade to hold our economy, and rebuild our economy after the 9/11 hit. That was priority. JMO< okay?

Now, since that time, after his re-election, it seems, that Congress, the Judiciary and now Executive branches, have turned on the American citizen.
Bush, is gone. 2006 brings a new opportunity to dump the old guard that have sold us out. I have to look forward, because we can not change what has happened. The judiciary is going to be where the bloody fight for the republic takes place.

We have to stand up. Every American citizen from every political stripe, that wants to hold our sovereignty, voting rights, constitution, and rule of law, HAVE to evaluate the battle before us in 2006. WE have one last chance, as I see it, to DUMP THE BUMS who sold us out.

This is why Hillary & Newt are teaming up on immigration 'reform'.. but she only talks about the NORTH border, not the south.. notice this... SHE KNOWS the bread and butter folks on the Dem side are Americans first too.

To me, I make no secret about this, illegal immigration, and the border AND Judges are THE MOST CRITICAL issues for the 2006 election.
30 posted on 05/12/2005 7:35:15 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

:p wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh... ~stabs out eyes after reading that~


31 posted on 05/12/2005 7:36:39 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
Hear ya, JJ. I respect you opinion...

But now we're stuck with a lame duck Prez who's blatently undermining U.S. sovereignty at the Mexican border. AND he's got nearly a full term left to wreak havoc as the rest GOP and the Judiciary lie down like dogs.

"Illegal immigration, and the border AND Judges are THE MOST CRITICAL issues for the 2006 election."

Aye!!!...

If W is true to form, bet the farm the pooch will be royally screwed regarding the SCOTUS nominations.

32 posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:13 PM PDT by dreammaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dreammaker

Thanks DM.. But Bush can not make law.. that's the good thing..

Now as far as that pooch is concerned, I'm concerned (as Dachle would say)/s

I like the field in play so far. But I thought I liked Alberto Gonzalez too, and am re-thinking that.

Next week, it's the nuclear option. Either the dems go for up or down vote or it's nuke time. IF, Frist backs down, then we'll know, to 'hide the pooch'.

But, 2006 is around the corner.. and we all must keep the pressure up...turn it up... whatever it takes... to throw BUMS OUT.

Believe me, I understand how steamed you are... me too. We are on the same side brother, even if we don't agree on every single ding-dang point.. :)


33 posted on 05/12/2005 7:51:21 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane; hedgetrimmer; B4Ranch

This is an excellent post as it clarifies the illegal immigration situation and puts it into perspective.

I disagree with you regarding who kicked this into gear. It is my opinion that George H. Bush started the ball rolling at the end of the first Gulf War. I remember his speeches talking about the One World Order. Before this war GH Bush went to practically every country in the world to get agreements and help for this war. Because so many countries assisted in that war, this was his rationale for the One World Order. He dropped in the polls right after this. He also kept pushing NAFTA in speeches. He tried to deliver NAFTA but failed as the Democrats blocked it.

When Clinton was elected, he pushed NAFTA through with the help of Republicans. I think this is the reason GH Bush and Clinton are so buddy, buddy. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is picked as the next President. Whether she will win is another story.

Your links are excellent. Thanks for posting this.

Read this for some background on what is happening.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis2.htm


34 posted on 05/12/2005 8:54:14 PM PDT by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita; HiJinx; gubamyster

This is an interesting post.


35 posted on 05/12/2005 8:57:35 PM PDT by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: texastoo

Thank you so much for your post. I have obviously not done my home work on GHWB. Thank you for taking the time to clue me in. I have not yet, but will, read the link you provided.

Only one thing remains holding Clintons feet to the fire, IMO, and that is the lifting of the 'cap' of illegals that would be "allowed" into the country.. Not legal immigrants, but illegals. When I can put my eyeballs back on the document with the accurate dates and figures, I'll post it. However, if memory serves me half well, in '94 Clinton essentially eliminated the 'cap' of illegals from something like 7500 per year to 65,000. Again, essentially the opening of the floodgate. This was done, as I read it, for votes to slam dunk a 2nd term. Then, taking state legislatures was next.. and indeed, that happened in CA. I'm specifically referring to those supported by MALDEF/LARAZA etc. To ensure BlueState Lock. That's how I developed my opinion about Clinton's complicity in this.

But now, you have given me more facts to absorb. Much appreciated.

Thanks.


36 posted on 05/12/2005 9:19:11 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: JesseJane

BTTT for later


38 posted on 05/12/2005 10:46:30 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
Petition to secure our borders
39 posted on 05/13/2005 5:25:58 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport them all; let Fox sort them out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texastoo

That was an excellent link. Thank you; bookmarked as well.

Check this out: It has numbers I've never seen before.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_13_05_FH.html


40 posted on 05/13/2005 8:50:18 AM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Done!


41 posted on 05/13/2005 8:50:37 AM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
If Mexico had a remotely honest government it would be cheaper to send aid to help them develop their country.

True. But if they were not such a corrupt country our government would not need to send aid, people would invest there without being prodded.

42 posted on 05/13/2005 8:59:21 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

Bttt! You're doing an excellent job with all the research and time you've put into this subject. Much appreciated.


43 posted on 05/13/2005 10:14:38 AM PDT by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

Thank you for the kind words MW.. I have learned soooo much from other FReepers, and followed links to meet my own curiosity. Just want to help. F/R does what the MSM won't; give people the information and let them draw their own conclusions. :)


44 posted on 05/13/2005 10:41:59 AM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

Ooooooh me. Your article about Hillary is good but she is bad.A couple of days ago, Laura Ingram had excerpts of Hillary's speech on illegals. Laura kept interrupting saying "what Republican is saying this? where are the Republicans?" Laura admitted that she sounded good and I have to agree with her. Hillary had all the answers. What Hillary is doing is taking the issue away from a 3rd party. The one worlders know they have to do that. Bush doesn't care and neither do the RINOs. This is probably the strategy of daddy Bush and Clinton. Just speculation on my part.

You are correct, we have to keep searching for news that the MSM keep from us.

Just yesterday, I was searching the GAO website for totalization for India regarding the Indian nurses coming over. I didn't find it but I did find a report on Mexico.
This was a generalized report and at the end of the report it stated that the US has totalization agreements with 20 countries now and in 2004, $2.5 billion in social security was paid to foreign countries. This is another little gem that Bush hasn't mentioned in his social security discussions.


45 posted on 05/13/2005 11:33:10 AM PDT by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
Ho----leeeeeeeee Cow! I did NOT know this....

the US has totalization agreements with 20 countries now and in 2004, $2.5 billion in social security was paid to foreign countries.

Do you have a little link to that??? Grmmmbling........^$$*&^_(_*&*^&$^%%@&(*

46 posted on 05/13/2005 11:43:27 AM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

I was afraid you would ask for this site. I had to search again and strangely it wasn't under Mexico but under totalization with India (still haven't found it).

It is a very long read and to be quite honest, I didn't read all of it. But what I did read was interesting as the SSA is being put to the test in how to verify Mexicans births, deaths and fraud in Mexico. The Mexican totalization agreement will no doubt bust SS. They get preferential treatment (grand bargain) in that they only have to work 18 months to qualify while an American has to work 10 years to qualify. The other 20 foreign countries have to work 6 years. Can you say (grand bargain)?

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05250.html

Go about half way down the page with your sidebar and look for footnote 6 at the end of a paragraph. That paragraph will have the info you are looking for. My mistake as it was 2.4 billion.


47 posted on 05/13/2005 12:40:59 PM PDT by texastoo (a "has-been" Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: texastoo

Dang TT, I didn't mean to put you to work on that... it IS funny that things are moving around all the time on the web these days... hmmmmmmmmmm... (putting tinfoil down)

Anyway.. I have to tell you I am floored at this. I know I'll probably get whacked for saying this, but, for years we've been warned that SS won't be there for us when we retire, or significantly lowered benefits. This is why I don't care if we save the damn thing. I don't want illegals to get a dime. I gurantee you the middle will be cheated further with talk of means testing etc.. so, forget it.. Kill SS.. The best part of doing without it, is that is takes the issue away from DC.

Thank you for the link.. I am saving it.


49 posted on 05/13/2005 12:48:23 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Not a word about improving the treatment of their hosts. Bahhhhhhhhhhh.

....shooting them dead? Well, what would they do if the situation were reversed? Shoot us.


50 posted on 05/13/2005 12:52:04 PM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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