| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/31/2006 10:37:17 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
. |
Posted on 03/29/2006 7:15:28 AM PST by surely_you_jest
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call "amnesty." "Let's wait and see what the Senate can produce," he told reporters yesterday when asked whether House Republicans would reject the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal to allow the estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. to seek citizenship after paying a fine.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Another noob chimes in.
She never says stuff to people's faces/posts.
She's only here to stir the pot.
Right noob. Go troll elsewhere.
Where was that and how few?
Not nearly enough.
Hmmm...
Hillary said that implementation of the House bill would be some kind of affront to Jesus.
Seems to me that it is the supporters of amnesty that are 'siding with Hillary'.
The source was provided by none other than one of your buddies in Post 1083.
FR is not a cross-section of America. We've have a whole host of one-issue "conservatives" here.
I don't suppose you can find a picture of them with a FLAG, can you, since that's what you're claiming should be done.
For all we know, they are legal and were busted for drugs.
LA.
I'm aghast that a few thousand agitators and ungrateful, violent Mechistas are being appeased, while the majority of citizens are having their opinions so cavalierly dismissed.
Why don't you have the GUTS to address the people you're talking about? I can't remember the last time you did.
You're a complete chicken$h*t.
Puh-leeze.
Traffic law enforcement doesn't work on the notion that every single driver on the road is checked for having a valid driver's license.
But that's what you're suggesting we do for immigration enforcement.
But, since you support granting amnesty to illegals, here's some food for thought.
In June, 2004, George W. Bush's appointed Social Security Commissioner signed with her Mexican counterpart the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Among other things, it waives federal laws and allows the Mexican illegal alien:
To apply for and receive US Social Security benefits after having worked (illegally, of course) in the US for only 6 quarters (18 months). US citizens (read: you and I) have to work at least 40 quarters (10 years) before we're eligble to apply.
To apply for and receive US Social Security benefits for their Mexican (national) wife and Mexican (national) children, even if they have never stepped foot in the USA.
Sounds good?
Here's the punch-line. The GAO reviewed the methods used by Bush's Social Security Commissioner to investigate how financially sound the Mexican Social Security Administration is and how robust their accounting methods. (Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges) Here's what they had to say:
SSA has no written policies or procedures it follows when entering into totalization agreements, and the actions it took to assess the integrity and compatibility of Mexico’s social security system were limited and neither transparent nor well-documented. SSA followed the same procedures for the proposed Mexican agreement that it used in all prior agreements. SSA officials told GAO that they briefly toured Mexican facilities, observed how its automated systems functioned, and identified the type of data maintained on Mexican workers. However, SSA provided no information showing that it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal controls used to ensure the integrity of information that SSA will rely on to pay social security benefits.
The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social security benefits. Mexican workers who ordinarily could not receive social security retirement benefits because they lack the required 40 coverage credits for U.S. earnings could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with as few as 6 coverage credits. In addition, under the proposed agreement, more family members of covered Mexican workers would become newly entitled because the agreements usually waive rules that prevent payments to noncitizens’ dependents and survivors living outside the United States.
The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) by 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow sixfold over time. However, this proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. The estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement could create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States to work and maintain documentation to claim their earnings under a false identity. Although the actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would not generate a measurable long-term impact on the actuarial balance of the trust funds, a subsequent sensitivity analysis performed at GAO’s request shows that a measurable impact would occur with an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent, even in cases where uncertainties about the number of unauthorized workers were less prevalent. Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed totalization agreement is even more uncertain than in prior agreements.
How much effort did the SSA officials expend? Read what the GAO has to say:
The law also does not specify which elements of other countries’ social security systems must be evaluated during totalization agreement negotiations. SSA officials met with Mexican officials to exchange narrative information on their respective programs. Senior SSA officials also visited Mexico for 2 days in August 2002. During their visit, these officials told us that they toured social security facilities, observed how Mexico’s automated social security systems functioned, and identified the type of data maintained on Mexican workers. SSA took no technical staff on this visit to assess system controls or data integrity processes. In effect, SSA only briefly observed the operations of the Mexican social security program. Moreover, SSA did not document its efforts or perform any additional analyses then, or at a later time, to assess the integrity of Mexico’s social security data and the controls over that data. In particular, SSA officials provided no evidence that they examined key elements of Mexico’ s program, such as its controls over the posting of earnings, and its processes for obtaining key birth and death information for Mexican citizens. Nor did SSA evaluate how access to Mexican data and records is controlled and monitored to prevent unauthorized use or whether internal and external audit functions exist to evaluate operations.
Lovely.
This is what you're supporting.
Yeah, right.
Hardly. It's elemental. Most of our political elites don't give a rat's a** about America or ordinary Americans. They are interested in lining their pockets when in office and cashing in after leaving. The clear and indisputable economic fact that mass immigration hurts working class Americans doesn't impress them any more than do the polls showing that the overwhelming majority of Americans want immigration reduced, because they frankly aren't interested in what oridinary Americans want or think. They are only interested in what the special interests who pay their way want.
Not even a dent. Not even a start, but I am grateful for all arrests of illegals.
I feel for the mods. It's probably pretty hard to distinguish from the DUmmy infiltrators and the rabid third-party, one-issue posters.
They both want Republicans destroyed and Bush impeached.
Looks like we need to riot in the streets and burn the politician's cars and houses in order to be heard.
I don't think the DemocRATS want a bill because then they can use it as a club to Reps in the election. DemocRats never ever want solutions to any problems unless it can be fixed with more taxes.
according to who? the MSM?
o...k.
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.