COL Gene COL Gene

Bush to pay Social Secutity to Illegal Mexican Workers

▼

Bush to pay Social Secutity to Illegal Mexican Workers

from JoeUser Forums




Last night Lou Dobbs had a segment about the totalization agreement between United States and Mexico which George W. Bush has agreed to with the President of Mexico. I listened in disbelief to what was being said. I could not believe the president would approve such a provision. In essence this totalization agreement allows U S Social Security benefits to be paid for work performed while Mexican workers were illegally in the United States.

This morning I searched Google to see if I could confirm this story. Unfortunately it is true. President Bush made an agreement with Mr. Fox and directed the U S Commissioner of Social Security to sign a totalization agreement with Mexico on June the 29th 2004. This agreement becomes effective 60 days after President Bush submits it to Congress unless either the House or Senate rejects the agreement. This agreement would in essence allow payment of the U S Social Security benefits on the basis of work performed while the recipient was illegally in this country. In addition, it allows for benefits to be paid with as few as 6 quarters of work while United States citizens must work 40 quarters to receive any Social Security benefits.

The Social Security administration has estimated that cost of this agreement would be approximately $525 million dollars during the first five years after enactment to Social Security.

It is time to demand President Bush explain why he would have agree to a provision with Mexico that would pay benefits to workers while there were illegally in this country and why we would give them benefits in 6 quarters when American citizens are required to work 40 quarters to get benefits. We need and notify our representatives and senators to oppose this change if in fact President Bush as the unmitigated gall to submit such a provision to Congress for approval. How can any president agree to pay Social Security benefits to people who are violating our laws? How can Bush propose paying millions of additional dollars from Social Security to illegal workers when he is running around the country telling us that the Social Security system is in financial crisis? It is time to force Mr. Bush to explain himself and to make sure Congress does not allow such a thing to happen to the Social Security system of the United States of America.
politics
12,567 views 45 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee 1776

These people have ss numbers and are working but are in this country illegally. They would be required to work 6 quarters and pay taxes but are illegal. Why should an illegal worker receive SS benefits ever much with far less work then Americans? Why would a President of the U S support such a Plan? Why would Bush propose paying hundreds of millions more ti illegals from a system he tells us is in financial trouble? Give us a GOOD answer to these questions!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
My feeling is that if the conservative Republicans create enough of a fiscal crisis there is a strong possibility the liberals will take back control of the House-Senate and White House and a backlash of increasing taxes on the wealthy to restore fiscal solvency would rsult..


ColGene finally comes out and admits what the rest of us have always known about him!! ;~D
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said this was a good outcome. What I said is it is a likely reaction to the fiscal crisis that is being created by the current tax-and-spend policies of Bush and conservative Republicans. It is remarkable every time a discussion of our policies is undertaken , the Bush supporters attempt to shift the issue to the person making the comments rather than a discussion of the policies and their impact on this country. I have said from day one we should be balancing the budget paying for what we are spending. That is a reasonable and financially responsible position every individual, company and country must follow in the long run. The United States is paying with taxes only 75% of what we are spending. We borrow the other 25% and have created a hugh future problem for everyone in this country. That is where the discussion needs to be not on whether somebody conservative or liberal. The fiscal solvency of this country and our ability to pay our bills should not be a partisan issue. The problem we have today is that we have gotten so far out of balance that a solution is going to be painful and the longer we continue on the this path the more painful a solution will be when we can no longer ignore this issue.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
My feeling is that if the conservative Republicans create enough of a fiscal crisis there is a strong possibility the liberals will take back control of the House-Senate and White House and a backlash of increasing taxes on the wealthy to restore fiscal solvency would rsult.. I doubt today the majority of Americans would stand for major changes in Social Security or Medicare and would opt for increasing taxes especially on the wealthy to pay for these two programs.


This is what it's all about. Raising taxes on the evil rich. Class warfare.

You still don't get liberals are not going to be in power. The liberal agenda isn't for America.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
if you believe the current agenda of driving this country into debt is "for America", you are NUTS!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's the matter? Can't find ONE single "unbaised" source to backup your outrageous accusations?


What do you consider unbiased, only someone you agree with? And they are not MY accusations. Yeah, like I created a conservative website. Jeez! If these "accusations are proven true, just remember you admit that they're outrageous.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"What do you consider unbiased, only someone you agree with?"


You aren't that ignorant, Iconoclast. I shouldn't have the leeway to be able to "agree" with news, since news is made up of facts, not opinion about what might END UP being facts.

If the website you quote says things like "YOU MUST CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND HAVE THIS LEGISLATION STOPPED", then it is at best editorial, and at worst a political organization, which your reference is. You're being purposely obtuse at this point.

Ask yourself why the professional Bush haters haven't hopped on this bandwagon. Maybe because there isn't one? When the proposal to Congress is in some concrete form and you see Senate Democrats beating their shoes on a podium about it... then maybe we'll have something tangible to talk about.

The insipid part is the Col is already giving you hard numbers about the effects of a policy that hasn't even been agreed upon yet. 500 million in five years? 100 million a year? I'd be willing to bet the government spends more on toilet paper. It is most certainly dwarfed by the BILLIONS the Col is generally up in arms about.

So, in ten years this would cost us a billion dollars, in a nation running at a 600 billion dollar deficit this year. I'm thinking this isn't going to sink the boat. There are certainly bigger fish to fry, even if this ends up being reality.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
In order for a person to obtain a work SSN they must have the following:

Alien Status: We need to see an unexpired document issued to you by the DHS, such as Form I-551, I-94, I-688B, or I-766. We CANNOT accept a receipt showing you applied for the document. Your documents must show that you are authorized to work in the U.S.

If you’re a non-U.S. citizen, we must verify your documents with the DHS before we issue a SSN card. We will issue the card within two days of receiving verification from DHS. Most of the time, we can quickly verify your documents online with DHS.

That is from the SSA online website: Link

Getting a Social Security number is not so easy without a US birth certificate and two forms of ID, and as shown above the Department of Homeland Security basically regulates foreigners receiving them.

The only way an illegal can get a work number is to have received one while under a legal work authorized status by the DHS, then lose that status for what ever reason. Which leave him open for deportation, when the DHS back tracks the now illegal through the employer who is paying into SS.

The regular fence jumping illegal can not receive a SSN under existing SSA regs. and if they did it could be a great tactic for the immigration officials to track them down.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
the issue of it being hundreds of millions or a billion is not the issue. It is about our president and who is proposing to give benefits to illegal aliens that legal American citizens and do not have. Why should we be giving anything or proposing to give anything to somebody who was breaking the laws of this country? I have yet to read any reply that justifies what Bush is proposing.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've yet to read what Bush is proposing other than "in essense" from panic-mongering folk. Anyway, you started spouting the cost of it yourself, so you must have thought it was an issue.

As far as justification, one could say that this is more about stopping big-business abuse of illegal labor. You over and over refuse to address the fact that you basically can't STAY illegal and take advantage of this. It seems like this is an initiative to get everyone on the same page, and give more incentive for aliens to legitimize their status here.
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
Can anybody post a link to the text of the agreement that was signed last year, or any changes to the SSA regulations (I have found none)?

I'm just want to read the accual text to see how the mechanics will work.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has kept the agreement signed in 2004 from being released. It will be available when he sends it to Congress. If he had released it prior to November It would have been very negative. Why he has kept in from going to Congress after the election is a good question. I do not see how this can be spun into anything positive no matter when he makes it public..
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
" If he had released it prior to November It would have been very negative. Why he has kept in from going to Congress after the election is a good question."


The latter kind of defeats the former. Had he released the details the week after the election, I would lend your paranoia a little more respect. Given that we are well into the second term, I would assume it isn't ironed out yet.

I mean, it would be silly to put something out there with details that weren't concrete yet, so idiots could sit and whine and play Chicken Little for patently obvious partisan effect.

"I do not see how this can be spun into anything positive no matter when he makes it public.."


People have already given you positive reasons, and dismissed the biggest part of your negatives. You won't care, because truth and reason aren't your goals. Fear and division are your perpetual goals.

You continually border on the traitorous, given that your total focus is the demoralization of the US public and the erosion of power. There's a difference between honest political opposition and being a agitator bent on undermining a legitimate President with an unending stream of twisted facts and outright propaganda.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
" If he had released it prior to November It would have been very negative. Why he has kept in from going to Congress after the election is a good question."


The latter kind of defeats the former. Had he released the details the week after the election, I would lend your paranoia a little more respect. Given that we are well into the second term, I would assume it isn't ironed out yet.

I mean, it would be silly to put something out there with details that weren't concrete yet, so idiots could sit and whine and play Chicken Little for patently obvious partisan effect.

"I do not see how this can be spun into anything positive no matter when he makes it public.."


People have already given you positive reasons, and dismissed the biggest part of your negatives. You won't care, because truth and reason aren't your goals. Fear and division are your perpetual goals.

You continually border on the traitorous, given that your total focus is the demoralization of the US public and the erosion of power. There's a difference between honest political opposition and being a agitator bent on undermining a legitimate President with an unending stream of twisted facts and outright propaganda.


Hear, hear Bakerstreet. Well and "truly" spoken ( unlike someone else here who shall remain nameless). You get an insightful for this.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet

WHAT Positive reasons? Spell them out!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet

WHAT Positive reasons? Spell them out!


Why should he? That has been done before more times than I care to think. And he's correct. Everytime this has been done you either tell the person that they're wrong, don't know what they're talking about or you ignore them entirely. Are you married to dabe? You should be. People like you and her belong together.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
The results of this administration prove the Bush policies have not made things better in America unless you are wealthy!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
The results of this administration prove the Bush policies have not made things better in America unless you are wealthy!


I agree with you on this issue ColGene, but leave your class warfare vomit in the toilet where it belongs.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you agree, then I guess you also agree we need different policies?
Reply #45 from PolMach Forums Top
If you agree, then I guess you also agree we need different policies?


--Policies..BS....America is in a natural period of decline...every "empire" [or whatever you wanna call it] experiences these...some of them never recover...e.g. the fall of rome,babylon,persia,germany,etc....history repeats itself and we're up next...