Posted on 12/03/2004 9:35:08 AM PST by Ed Current
bttt
And I'll raise you one BTTT. Call.
The most effective solution to this problem would be to make eligibility for federal highway funds contingent upon the states' denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
I'm certainly not in favor of illegals having DLs. However, I am dead set against what this legislation will allow for: National ID Cards. What information will be encoded on them? What rights will be denied to you if you don't have one (like if it is lost or stolen)? What about counterfeit ID's and identity theft (now you will only have to make 1 item to steal an identity)? What about radio chips in the cards that can track all of our movements?
Sorry, I'm not ready to trade my basic rights for the illusion of security.
Looks like we have the every few years attack on our military intel to make it like the Carter/Clintoon CIA by those in congress who hate a strong military.
Good article. Kudos to Sensenbrenner, Hunter, Tancredo et al. for fighting for border security and a pox on the open-borders crowd. Why send 100,000+ troops to Iraq when we refuse to safeguard our own borders? It's insanity.
btt
In addition to the items considered in this post I would like to offer some more items or maybe different legislation.
It might be good to start with the basics.
Voter Legislation. This would require positive picture ID from anyone casting a ballot in a Federal election. That ID number would be matched with a national database where it would be verified as belonging to a real living human being and that person has not already voted in the particular election. Registration for voters in a Federal election would close on June 1 or 30 days before a primary.
No voter registration could involve anyone other that the person is registering. ie no one could bring your card in for you.
No convicted fellon could vote in a Federal election.
Border Control. All illegal imigrants would be deported immediately. Positive ID would be required of anyone entering the country in the future. A tracking/reporting system would be designed and implemented to ensure that a person here on a visa was actually doing what the visa allowed. ie a student must be actively attending a school.
Term Limits. All Federal elected positions would have term limits. (as the president does now).
Congress 4 two year terms
Senate 2 six year terms
Judges would no longer have lifetime appointments. Federal judges 10 years max. Supreme Court judges 15 years max. All judges must retire by age 75.
On driver's licenses, how about a simple field indicating citizenship which could be "US Citizen", "Foreign " or "Undeclared". Some of the House Provisions on driver's licenses are obnoxious such as mandating states to join a Driver License Agreement (DLA) and require states to record the most minor traffic violation even the most minor equipment violation. The Senate version of driver's license provisions are more friendly. A rhetorical question, how much does Larry Ellison and his company, Oracle stand to make if this passes ? He rattled his saber on how we need a national ID after the 9/11/2001 bombings. How much is he paying the House members to push the onerous provisions ?
I'm curious if you've heard about the new SS/Bush Administration Totalization agreement with Mexico.
Totalization: Sellout of American Workers
by Phyllis Schlafly
Nov. 17, 2004
The Democrats are trying to make a campaign issue out of George W. Bush's alleged plan to "privatize" Social Security, scaring seniors into thinking their checks will be cut off. That is a phony issue; all Bush suggests is to offer younger workers the option (not the compulsion) of transferring a very small part of their Social Security benefit into private investments.
The real threat to Social Security doesn't come from giving young people this opportunity. The threat comes from the Bush Administration's plan to load illegal aliens into the Social Security system, an idea that would skyrocket costs and bankrupt the system at the same time that baby boomers flood into their benefit years.
The code word for this racket is "totalization." The United States has totalization agreements with 20 other countries, which have been reasonable and non-controversial, but totalization with Mexico is TOTALLY different.
The idea behind totalization with other countries is to assure a pension to those few individuals who work legally in two countries by "totalizing" their payments into the pension systems of both countries. All existing totalization agreements are with developed nations whose retirement benefits are on a parity with U.S. benefits, and the affected employees work for companies that have been paying taxes into the other countries' retirement systems.
Workers from the other 20 countries come with documents from their employer verifying that they are authorized to work in the United States. Only a minuscule fraction of Mexicans enter with such documents.
The legitimate goal of totalization with other countries is to avoid double taxation for retirement when employers assign their employees to work temporarily in another country. Reciprocity works because there is rough parity between the number of U.S. workers in the 20 other countries and the foreigners from those countries who work in the United States.
But this goal has no relevance to Mexico. There is no parity whatsoever between the number of Mexicans working in the United States and the number of U.S. citizens working in Mexico, and absolutely no parity in the social security systems of the two countries.
Mexican benefits are not remotely equal to U.S. benefits. Americans receive benefits after working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before receiving any benefits.
Mexican workers receive back in retirement only what they actually paid in, plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed.
Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which is estimated to cover only 40 percent of the workforce. The rest of the workers are in the off-the-record economy (euphemistically called the "informal" sector).
The 10 million Mexicans who have illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, did not pay social security taxes in Mexico, and did not work for employers who paid taxes into a retirement plan. If they were working at all, it was in the off-the-record economy.
Illegality is no issue with the countries where we have existing totalization agreements because none of them accounts for even one percent of the U.S illegal population. On the other hand, Mexico provides more than two-thirds of the illegals in the United States.
The Bush totalization plan would pay out billions in Social Security benefits to Mexicans for work they did in the U.S. using fraudulent Social Security numbers, something that Americans would go to jail for doing. It would pay Social Security Disability benefits to Mexicans who worked in the United States as little as 3 years.
The Bush totalization plan would lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Bush plan would even cover the Mexicans' spouses and dependents who may never have lived in the United States.
Since few if any of the illegal aliens have built up any equity in the Mexican retirement system, what is there to totalize? Totalization is a plan for the U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden.
When George W. Bush became President in 2001, the Mexican government expected the United States to pass amnesty (disguised as a guest worker plan and "regularizing" the entry of Mexicans). After 9/11, Mexico's national policy turned to increasing the number of its nationals working in the United States and getting them to qualify for all the social benefits and privileges Americans receive, from driver's licenses to Social Security and Social Security Disability.
The Social Security commissioners of both Mexico and the Bush Administration signed a totalization agreement in June of 2004, but the text of the agreement has been kept secret. Maybe we will be permitted to see it after the President approves it and sends it to Congress.
Let your Members of Congress know you want them to stop this billion-dollar sellout of American workers and taxpayers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/nov04/04-11-17.html
PDF TOTALIZATION AGREEMENT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1286668/posts?page=26 Post 36
Current Poll:
http://www.lauraingraham.com/
Thank you for participating in our Laura Ingraham poll. We appreciate your response!
Only one vote per poll per visitor is accepted.
Q: Should President Bush offer illegal aliens a pathway toward legalized status?
Answer
Percent
No 78%
Yes 22%
Q: Should President Bush offer illegal aliens a pathway toward legalized status?
Answer |
Percent |
||
No |
78% |
||
Yes |
22% |
I'm certainly not in favor of illegals having DLs. However, I am dead set against what this legislation will allow for: National ID Cards. What information will be encoded on them? What rights will be denied to you if you don't have one (like if it is lost or stolen)? What about counterfeit ID's and identity theft (now you will only have to make 1 item to steal an identity)? What about radio chips in the cards that can track all of our movements?
Sorry, I'm not ready to trade my basic rights for the illusion of security.
The proposal would not require a national I.D. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287840/posts
It would financially punish the states that could giva rip about illegal aliens.
CNN is reporting that Sen. John Warner is not thrilled with this intelligence bill as the Senate wants it. Lou Dobbs is worth watching. We need to work on Warner.
www.senate.gov
Congressional Switchboard. 1-877-762-8762
ping
Hunter and Sensenbrenner ought to be getting calls and letters thanking them for their guts.
Campaign contributions would be appreciated too, I'm sure.
The lame duck congress will produce a lame bill; this should be held over for the 109th Congress and the majority leadership should shake the committee's tree, shedding nuts and dead wood.
tiny thing ... thought I'd clear that up ....
Mexico is SO FAR unworthy of any trust from it's TOP that it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider ANY proposal much less their FULL-ON belly laughs of late! Señor Fox and his compadres are rapidly developing only the caricatures of themselves! ZORRO! zip ...xip...zits. We have a cure for that in "the states." It's called Clearasil!
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.