Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection


January 4, 2004, 10:08 PM
I don't know where to start, so I won't. I will highlight interesting passages.


Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection
Plan to Include System Enabling Undocumented Workers to Gain Legal Status
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 4, 2004; Page A05

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.

Undocumented workers now pay billions of dollars annually into Social Security but do not collect benefits because they give their employers fraudulent Social Security numbers. {editorial comment: prove it. I want to see evidence. I am quite skeptical.}

Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said he fears the Social Security plan could be used as an incentive for workers to go home instead of settling in the United States, which could create what he called "a permanent class of temporary workers with no political power." [editorial comment . . . and what is wrong with that??????]

"The knock that will be put on Republicans is that they want immigrants as workers but not as voters," Sharry said.

Bush is scheduled to announce the package five days before he meets in Mexico with President Vicente Fox, who has been prodding the White House since Bush was inaugurated to change an immigration system that has resulted in at least 8 million undocumented immigrants -- about half of whom are Mexican -- living in the United States. [editorial comment: why is V. Fox so interested in getting his people into the US. We need a regime change in Mexico. The workers paradise that Fox heads is not working and his solution is to export is malcontents to the US.]

In Mexico, analysts and officials reacted with cautious optimism to early descriptions of the plan, saying that they viewed the proposal as a sign of markedly improving relations between Bush and Fox. {editorial comment: again, why is it important for Bush to have friendly relations with a country that can not govern itself?]

Bush worked to develop warm relations with Mexico when he was Texas governor, and his first international trip as president was to Mexico. But the administration began trying to harden the borders after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Bush distanced himself from Fox after Mexico failed to use its seat on the United Nations Security Council to support the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. [editorial comment: "harden the borders"? Is there something going on that US peasants are not aware of?]

Fox has said that he and Bush will restart immigration talks privately at the Summit of the Americas, a meeting of the hemisphere's leaders to be held in Monterrey, in the Mexican border state of Baja California. Bush will make his fourth presidential trip to Mexico for the summit on Jan. 12 and 13.

Fox said last month that the two countries are working on agreements to allow Mexicans "to go and come each year as many times as they want, without problems, and so that they can work with documents in the United States." [editorial comment: someone had better explain how big and why]

Bush's plans, many of which are similar to ideas endorsed by the Democratic presidential candidates in their platforms and debates, would be the most broad changes to immigration law since a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

The immigration plan is Bush's first policy announcement of his reelection year, and aides said it was calibrated by Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove. An official on Bush's political team said the proposal will help bolster support for the president with Hispanic voters, who are regarded by both parties as a constituency that is largely up for grabs, and in the states of Florida and New Mexico, both of which Bush barely won in 2000. Bush travels to Florida on Thursday. [editorial comment: Rove had better start calculating the cost of voter anger is the public is percieving Bush to be sucking up to V. Fox FOR NO APPARENT REASON. I believe there is something going on but neither Bush nor Fox are hinting as to the reason. What is going on just does not make sense based on public information.]

The proposals will be a test for Bush because some House Republicans are skeptical and even hostile to the idea of liberalizing immigration controls. The Bush official said that in trying to persuade conservative lawmakers to back the package, the administration will contend that it reflects Republican values by rewarding work. [editorial comment: republicans growing a pair of principals? novel, really novel. Reward hard work? Hey, Dubya, how 'bout rewarding obeying the freakin' law?] The administration will also argue that the plan would enhance national security by making it more likely that immigrants with tips about terrorism would cooperate with authorities, because they would not fear deportation. [editorial comment: equine skat]

Officials said Bush's proposals draw heavily on a bill introduced by Sen. John McCain, his rival in the 2000 primaries, and Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake, all Arizona Republicans. That bill would create a Web-based Labor Department database of jobs that would be open first to U.S. workers and then to foreigners, who could be admitted with a "temporary worker" visa available for a maximum of six years. [editorial comment: so now federales are getting in to the head hunting bidness.]

The Arizonans' bill proposes a new type of visa for workers who are now in the United States illegally. They could come forward and receive this visa for three years. After that, the formerly undocumented worker could apply for a temporary visa like those held by workers under the electronic job registry. [editorial comment: assume for the moment the provision is passed. What do you intend to do with those illegals who did not come forward? Do you intend to say, "Oh, well . . . . "? Interesting the provision as reported has interest in legalizing illegals yet does nothing about illegals in the US and who have no interest in becoming legal. I repeat myself: equine skat.]

Immigration reform is a top priority of Bush's backers in the business community. [editorial comment: I'll bet it is] Daniel T. Griswold, an immigration expert at the free-enterprise-oriented Cato Institute, called Bush's proposal "compassionate conservatism at its best -- a market-driven approach allowing supply and demand to get together in the labor market." [editorial comment: I call is a capitulation to open border advocates and corporatists who want to shift the cost of labor to government. When do we begin to pay attention to that stuff about obeying the law?]

[editorial comments} When it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens, I think Rove // Bush is about to do something really unsanitary to their respective messkits.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 5, 2004, 01:48 AM
The more Bush pulls this crap,the less likely he's
going to get my vote!
This is the kind of thing that infuriates me.
If he gets re-elected I'll be surprised!


January 5, 2004, 02:07 AM

January 5, 2004, 04:01 AM
I am perfectly capable of cutting off my nose to spite my face.

In other words, if there is no discernable difference between Bush and the Democratic candidates on important social issues that affect me directly (illegal immigration and guns), I'm going to vote Democrat.

I'd rather take it in the gut from an acknowledged enemy than be stabbed in the back by 'friends'.

January 5, 2004, 04:25 AM

still not sure I am going to vote this year. I dont want to see another dem in the office after clinton but Bush really does not inspire me to vote. even if I do vote the electoral college can vote different from majority vote of the area they represent.

are we ever going to make average joes vote worth a damn and ditch the electoral college? not meant to hijack thread but do remember how the voting process works.

January 5, 2004, 04:33 AM
No, but we can damn sure vote out any Republican Congressman or Senator who backs this asinine proposal.

The trick is to make your Congresscritter fear his constituency more than he fears the RNC.

January 5, 2004, 06:18 AM
glocksman, instead of taking it from an enemy, vote your principles. See if the LP has a candidate worth voting for.

When you cant tell teh difference between two parties, one of which doesnt represent you and the other only 20% represents you, its time to vote 3rd party.

January 5, 2004, 07:30 AM
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is more "open borders" than Pres. Bush.

You cannot have open borders AND a welfare state; it just doesn't work.

January 5, 2004, 11:36 AM
illegal immigrants are a big part of the economy and generate a ton of profits. if you commies recognized that it's just market forces that drive illegals into job that you don't want and realized that plenty of real Americans profit from this maybe you liberals would shut up. There's jobs for you at WalMart. If your unions hadn't raised you up over the illegals this wouldn't be happening.

Notice the wording, illegals will be allowed if they have jobs waiting for them. The government is FINALLY going to create what will amount to a giant temp agency, matching illegals to jobs for major corporations completely legally. This has been in the works for several years and will be a huge boon to manufcaturing and agriculture. I'm sure once other industry's see the benefits it will catch on elsewhere. The retail and hospitality industry's are also large proponrnts of the plan.

Look at the huge strides we have made under Bush. If I am a major corporation I can now incorporate overseas and slash my tax burden. Now, instead of having to do a very costly move and build to Mexico or China, I can keep my stateside plants and bring in cheap labor. The new cheap labor will also have exemptions from some of the rules that govern US workers making them more productive and much cheaper. Providing the American consumer with cheaper goods and services. This is a win/win, despite all the communists whining. :)

January 5, 2004, 11:48 AM


:cuss: you, Bush...

See sig line...

January 5, 2004, 01:36 PM
Look at the huge strides we have made under Bush. If I am a major corporation I can now incorporate overseas and slash my tax burden. Now, instead of having to do a very costly move and build to Mexico or China, I can keep my stateside plants and bring in cheap labor. The new cheap labor will also have exemptions from some of the rules that govern US workers making them more productive and much cheaper. Providing the American consumer with cheaper goods and services. This is a win/win, despite all the communists whining.

And pray tell me just who will buy these goods and services when the American middle class no longer exists thanks to asinine proposals such as this??? :confused:

illegal immigrants are a big part of the economy and generate a ton of profits. if you commies recognized that it's just market forces that drive illegals into job that you don't want and realized that plenty of real Americans profit from this maybe you liberals would shut up. There's jobs for you at WalMart. If your unions hadn't raised you up over the illegals this wouldn't be happening.

In other words, all blue collar labor should pay $5/hr???
'real Americans profit from this'?? So 'real Americans' should be proud of paying wages that aren't enough to live on???

Son, you need to come off of your ivory tower and get out into 'real America'.

You'll find that most of us oppose illegal immigration precisely because of the declining wages and standards that follow them around when employers 'cut costs' by using illegals.

And as far as not being a 'real American' goes, let's see what Teddy Roosevelt had to say on the subjects of property, unions, and immigration.

"Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin...would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."

The corporation has come to stay, just as the trade union has come to stay. Each can do and has done great good. Each should be favored as long as it does good, but each should be sharply checked where it acts against law and justice."

"Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."

I guess TR wasn't a 'real American', eh? :rolleyes:

Forgot to add:
If I am a major corporation I can now incorporate overseas and slash my tax burden.

Your country's at war and all you can consider is slashing your taxes that are needed to pay for the war.

January 5, 2004, 02:39 PM
What is it about the Bushs that confuse them so about the peps that elect them. They pxxp on the very people that elect them and seem so unconcerned.

I think the Bush administartion is totally underestimating the upset this will cause in their core voting block. Totally underestimating.

Like (one-term) Father...like (one-term) Son I'm afraid.


Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 04:20 PM
Immigration reform, like gun control, is another issue where George W. Bush is significantly to the left of Senator Joe Lieberman. These issues put Bush solidly in the mainstream of Liberal Democratic Party thinking.

Bush has lost my vote for good.

More evidence that our current system of government has broken down and no longer serves to meet even the basic functions of a soverign nation.

Meanwhile, they're ensuring that terrorists can't possibly enter the US by fingerprinting and photographing them at the airports. Sure hope they don't fly into Mexico first then walk across the southern border.

January 5, 2004, 04:25 PM
Waitone wrote:What is going on just does not make sense based on public information. When it comes to the topics of border security, illegal aliens, etc. . . . never have truer words been written.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 04:46 PM

illegal immigrants are a big part of the economy and generate a ton of profits. if you commies recognized that it's just market forces that drive illegals into job that you don't want and realized that plenty of real Americans profit from this maybe you liberals would shut up. There's jobs for you at WalMart. If your unions hadn't raised you up over the illegals this wouldn't be happening.

What a badly informed, outdated statement. Your thinking is at least 20 years out of date on this issue. The jobs that are now being outsourced, to India for example, are those that pay very high wages here in the US and which require at least a decade or more of college and work experience to become proficient at.

Or are you saying that the software and hardware engineering jobs that used to pay $70,000 here in the US are somehow undesireable?

This trend now includes jobs in the legal profession also. Intellectual Property Law firms are now outsourcing high paying jobs to India as well.

These are not jobs where Unions have inflated the labor costs, instead they are the jobs that most parents in the US strive to provide their children a chance to obtain.

January 5, 2004, 10:41 PM
Worse than what Bush is doing is that he is doing it without public discussion. He is heading off to Mexico City next week to "initiate talks." Say what? Where is the public debate? Where is Congress? WE ARE UNREPRESENTED. In theory this is a Republic. In theory. This is one of the biggest issues affecting this nation's future and Bush-Rove (yes, they are one two-headed mutation) behaves as if we didn't exist. That means ALL of us, including people who can make arguments for open borders. This issue is important enough and complex enough that it should be the page one story every night on the news and should be exhaustively explored. Instead, like more and more things, it is being "handled" furtively, "privately," off the democratic radar screen. This is vile and detestable.

What ought to happen, if the people of this country were truly empowered, is that the '04 Election should be postponed until our representatives are compelled to confront all of the major issues. All we have seen so far is a series of comical Democrat debates with a slew of candidates tossing quips and insults but managing to avoid amost every major issue that will affect us, our children, and our grandchildren. It's a disgrace.

January 6, 2004, 01:46 AM
What will be both entertaining and terrifying is how many people with full knowledge of this system and its ramifications will STILL vote for Bush because "he is the lesser of two evils."


January 6, 2004, 02:41 AM
:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :mad:

January 6, 2004, 09:03 AM
This thing has all the trappings of a major policy agenda by Bush.

First we get Ridge's trail balloon which is quickly poo-poo'd.

Then we get a series of stories about how Bush is thinking about fixing the problem.

Followed by well-placed articles in papers of record which are then picked up and spread on internet news sources.

Then out comes the announcement at the end of last week that on Wednesday of this week (that's tomorrow) Bush will unveil his full plan which coincidently occurrs just before he goes to mexico to talk with Comrade Fox.

Meanwhile, congressional vermin are beginning to ask questions.
Opinion outlets are getting really cynical in saying this is pandering votes and not designed to help "hispanics (a made-up term).

I still can't help but think BushRove are about to make a serious policy misstep.

January 6, 2004, 09:13 AM
Congress has been neutured by Bush. This is the most powerful and secretive Executive branch we've ever seen. Maybe there were others years ago but not in my lifetime.

Glocksman- great post! I'm with you all the way. My diatribe was dripping with sarcasm :)

January 6, 2004, 09:14 AM
My apologies then.

I took it at face value. :o

The annoying thing is that there are people in business who see things exactly that way. :fire:

January 6, 2004, 09:42 AM
yep- I work for a few of them. it's all about a bigger house on Nantucket and filling the coffers of the family trusts. god forbid their daughters talk to anyone whose net worth is less than 9 figures either ;)

ahhh, the American aristocracy, such a fun group.

January 6, 2004, 10:17 AM
Just curious.......

Is anyone going to actually wait until the plan is put forward to decide what they think about it.

No.....oh well......

Probably not as fun as jumping up and down over what the plan MIGHT be.

January 6, 2004, 11:47 AM
Good idea. Waiting is prudent.

However, when the White House (that'd be DubyaRove) places an article in a major organ (that'd be Washington Post) containing information that can only come from the minds creating the plan, I'd say waiting to jump is not necessary.

Besides, politicos do this all the time. They schedule a major policy announcement and a few days before they leak provisions in order to get the pundits and various policy leeches keyed up.

This is the game that is played in moving public opinion. You can bet the WH is twisting arms on capitol hill to blunt public opposition. The reason provisions are leaked is to measure the public attitude. The WH then has time counter the opposition in the minds of only those who count. . . congress.

Way this thing is playing out makes me thing BushRove knows there is strong public opposition and in order to get is passed BushRove has to kick congressional butt into line.

January 6, 2004, 12:58 PM
I don't care what kind of immigration plan they have, nothing will work as intended because the agency in charge of immigration enforcement is grossly underfunded.

According to a recent Washington Times series on our very exposed 4,000 mile Canadian border, there are only 2,000 immigration agents to enforce immigration policy inside the 60 mile border buffer zone.

You can bet the underfunding is probably intentional.

Those 2,000 agents must round up 400,000 illegals under deportation orders as well as find and arrest the "estimated" 8 to 12 million illegal aliens in the country.

And, don't expect much resistance in Congress to Bush's plan. With the exception of Congressman Tancredo, virtually everybody on Capitol Hill is too frighten to even discuss illegal aliens even when they kill us by the thousands, and cause many billions of dollars in damages.

January 6, 2004, 02:26 PM
I was in a Southern State visiting over the Holiday and the particula area I visited has an unemployment rate about 10% or a bit more.

The recent down economy has really taken a toll there.

Believe me, the folks in that area go to full combustion at the mention of legitimizing illegals. Ten years ago you could walk into any factory in that town and all the employess were locals. That's not the case today for the factories that are still running (giving the economy that number is down)and for some strange reason the peps there seem to think the illegal are taking their jobs.

In a related aspect of the issue, according to a local news paper that State is documenting the fasting growning increase in the Hispanic community in the US.

Texas right.

No....North Carolina. And the paper was the Charlotte Observer.

Bush may get what he wants with this plan but it may turn out to be one of several self induced wounds we will point to in the future that cost him re-election.



January 6, 2004, 02:36 PM
I am not a one issue voter. And I have been reasonably supportive of Bush for the WoT and the economic issues (tax cuts). However, this may be the straw that breaks my back. The support for the AWB, Partriot Act, CFR, Education, Medicare, and now bending over to Comrade Fox on immigration.

This will be a monumnentally stupid move on his part. Conservatives can waver on some issues, and be stroked on others. But immigration, illegal or otherwise, is out of control. :barf: :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

January 6, 2004, 02:56 PM
A lot of us knew this was coming but probably didn't want to really believe it. It's hard, after all, to accept that your alternative to socialism is himself not a whole bunch better (if at all). Which leaves those of us who believe in the basic American ideals where exactly? We are caught between two forms of socialism-collectivism, the faux populist type (Dean) and the global corporatist type (Bush). The American taxpayer exists to pay the bills, and no one cares what he thinks. So far this tax-serf doesn't seem to care that much; he's still got his MTV and his SUV and his ADD, after all. Britney's antics are still amusing and there's still Jacko to make fun of and all the cause celebre murder victims he's glad are someone else. Why worry because a few dinosaurs who prattle on about the Constitution being gangraped?

We are being sold out by the elites. It's that simple. If globalism is so great then where are the plans to make the average American richer by pursuing it? If Mexicans can come here and work, why can't we go down to Mexico, buy land, start businesses, and make money? Bush should be, at the very least, fighting for something bi-lateral.

Is he caving in? No, I don't think so. His priority isn't getting parity for Americans. It's making sure that a source of cheap labor, subsidized by the American taxpayer, is guaranteed for THOSE WHO COUNT. Americans are used to thinking that our Government is FOR US, so it's hard to accept that that is an obsolete concept. Will anyone call Bush to account on this? Anyone?

January 6, 2004, 03:12 PM
Social Security Funds for Illegal Aliens?

“Adding millions of lawbreakers to the Social Security system would be a slap in the face to our retirees. Why should we bend over backwards for those who broke our laws to work in this country while shortchanging the needs of hardworking Americans and legal immigrants who have put money into the Social Security system for decades? With Social Security in financial trouble, it is totally insane even to think about adding millions and millions of alien lawbreakers into the system. Congress must act now to pass H.R. 1631 and keep this travesty from happening."
— Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) [1]

With Social Security facing projections of insolvency, a Bush Administration plan would hasten that crisis by sending hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security payments to Mexican citizens living in Mexico—including those who have worked illegally in the United States.

Under current law, an alien who worked illegally in the U.S. can only become eligible for Social Security benefits by becoming a legal U.S. resident. But officials at the State Department and Social Security Administration (SSA) are preparing a plan that would pay benefits to illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico.

The Bush Administration is negotiating an agreement with Mexico that Mexico has been seeking since the first such agreements were concluded more than twenty years ago. It would gain greater U.S. Social Security benefits for Mexicans who have worked in the United States, including those who worked illegally, and for their family members.[2] The agreement has not been signed yet, but the idea has already raised a firestorm of concern that may forestall it. If it were signed, it would be submitted to Congress, which would then have 60 days for either house to reject it, or it automatically would go into effect as an executive agreement.

A totalization agreement totals together periods of work by an individual in two countries, when calculating eligibility to receive benefits. The agreements are designed to ensure that people from one country working for years in another one do not fall through the cracks and end up ineligible for benefits in either country.

The U.S. has twenty such treaties with other counties, nearly all with European countries with economies similar to the U.S.’s and limited numbers of beneficiaries (2,084 in the case of the U.K.). The one proposed with Mexico would be dramatically different—not only because far larger numbers of people would be affected, but also because there are so many Mexicans who work illegally in the United States who might benefit from it.

The Mexican agreement would apply to all Mexicans who worked in the United States for a minimum of six quarters (one-and-a-half years of full-time employment) but less than 40 quarters (the amount needed to qualify for Social Security benefits without an agreement). To receive benefits in the United States, the Mexicans would have to become legal residents, but that requirement would not apply if they applied for Social Security benefits from Mexico (i.e., former illegal aliens could apply for Social Security).

The annual cost to the U.S. of the 20 existing accords is about $183 million; the agreement with Mexico is expected to cost Social Security between $78 million at first, rising to $650 million—in the SSA estimate—and more likely many times that in the view of the General Accounting Office.

GAO Tells Congress a Mexican Agreement Could Impact the Trust Fund

While the Social Security Administration (SSA) estimated that an agreement with Mexico would not make a measurable impact on the Social Security trust fund if it applied to 50,000 Mexicans — the number of current Mexican SSA beneficiaries residing in Mexico — and if that number increased to 300,000 beneficiaries by 2050[3], the General Accounting Office (GAO) disagrees.

In testimony on September 11, 2003, the GAO challenged the SSA’s methodology for estimating the costs of an agreement with Mexico. The methodology failed to take into account the estimated five million illegal alien Mexican workers in the United States, Mexicans now living in Mexico who earlier worked illegally in the United States, the fact that the agreement likely would make family members living in Mexico eligible for benefits that they are not currently entitled to, and the effects of a proposed new guest worker agreement. Also, the GAO found that there was no effort to systematically study the record keeping of the Mexican authorities who would be partners in the program to assure the validity of information received from that source.

The GAO dismissed the validity of comparing the impact of an agreement with Mexico to the one with Canada, because of the disproportionate number of illegal alien workers from Mexico. It also noted, “The cost estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change after a totalization agreement goes into effect. Under totalization, unauthorized workers could have an additional incentive to enter the United States to work and to maintain the appropriate documentation necessary to claim their earnings under a false identity.”

Given the questionable methodology used by the SSA to assess the impact of an agreement with Mexico, the GAO concluded that the SSA’s assessment that such an agreement would not have a measurable impact on the trust fund was not supported by the analysis, and, “Thus, for the Mexican agreement, additional analyses to assess risks and costs may be called for.”

Alternative Approaches

The SSA has been recommending, since 1999, that Congress adopt legislation to “prohibit the crediting of nonwork earnings [unauthorized earnings using a fake or restricted SSN] and related quarters of coverage for purposes of benefit entitlement.” The operation of maintaining the suspense account — where all payments go that cannot be matched to an individuals account — and later researching and identifying wages in that account claimed by a worker who has subsequently gained legal work status is costly to the trust fund (as much as $63 million annually).[4]

This approach suggested by the SSA would appear to have the same effect as stipulating that periods of illegal work in the United States may not be counted toward benefits eligibility in a totalization agreement. However, until a provision such as the SSA recommendation is enacted, no further totalization agreements should be agreed to without a provision that excludes unauthorized work.

[1] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, letter to FAIR, April 28, 2003.

[2] At present, people residing in Mexico who receive SSA benefits must meet all of the requirements for U.S. workers, including to have paid into the SSA system for at least 40 quarters (10 years full-time).

[3] “Congressional Response Report: Social Security Administration Benefits Related to Unauthorized Work,” Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, March 2003.

[4] In tax year 2001, the SSA sent 944,000 “non-match” notices to employers, but this has been scaled back, supposedly for cost reasons. More than 500,000 people with non-valid SSN’s paid into the trust fund in 2000, according to testimony by the Senior Citizens League on September 11, 2003. It was not until September 2002 that the SSA began verifying non-citizen immigration documents prior to issuing an SSN, according to SSA testimony on September 9, 2003.

January 6, 2004, 06:07 PM
I wish I knew *** kinda dirt Vincente Fox has on this administration to make them dance to this tune...

January 6, 2004, 09:12 PM
Who needs dirt? How about blood?

Bush's sister-in-law (Jeb) is/was a Mexican national. His brother Neil is about to marry a Mexican national. Is this a factor? You tell me. Who knows what drives this man? A need for power? A need to be loved? Bush chokes up when he talks about the need to "reform immigration;" he has the compulsion of a zealot. For him I suggest the 12-Step Program he never went through--before we are all compelled to pay for his guilts.

That said, what's relevant is that Bush is compromising the future of this country both fiscally and culturally. How do WE benefit from his intended largesse? We don't. He is buying an election (he hopes) with the Social Security system. That system, already weak, has no chance of surviving with half of Latin America set to go on the dole. If Congress goes along with this kind of corrupt pandering, we can all trot out our Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire and sing along chapter by chapter. We are moving, as a nation, into very dark territory.

Jeff White
January 7, 2004, 12:46 AM
I don't know who Bush is trying to please. It's not enough for the left (nor has any of his pandering on any issue from eduacation to medicare been) and just serves to alienate the conservative base. I heard Rush Limbaugh today talking about how it was the price to pay to destroy the democratic party. I don't understand how you beat somebody by becoming just like them. Like they really expect me to believe that all these new found converts to the republican party will stay if it reverts back to conservative principles?


Details of Bush Immigration Plan Outlined
1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A plan being proposed by President Bush (news - web sites) would give legal status to foreign workers, including millions already toiling in America's underground economy, removing the fear of deportation but not putting them on a fast track toward permanent U.S. residency.

In a speech Wednesday at the White House, Bush will ask Congress to approve changes to immigration policy, saying they would make the country safer by giving officials a better idea of who is crossing the border, bolster the economy by fulfilling employers' needs and protect illegal workers' rights. Also, in a nod to conservatives who oppose any reward to those who enter the United States illegally, Bush is including in his plan incentives to entice the workers to go back to their homelands.

There are an estimated 8 million to 10 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, perhaps half from Mexico.

Under the Bush proposal, which could smooth relations with Mexico and help Republicans lure Latino voters, foreign workers could apply for legal status for a three-year period if they had U.S. jobs. They could travel to and from the United States and possibly work in the country for additional three-year periods if approved by Congress.

Senior administration officials who outlined the proposal for reporters Tuesday night said the president is calling for an unspecified, but "reasonable," increase in the number of green cards available to workers. However, they said that being part of what is being called the "temporary worker program" would not give foreign workers any advantage to applying for green cards, or permanent residency status — the first step toward obtaining U.S. citizenship.

Immigrant advocacy groups say the president's proposal falls short of comprehensive reform. On the other hand, groups wanting to curb immigration say the president's proposal for a three-year temporary worker plan, rewards foreign workers who broke the law when they entered the United States.

"It's a two-step amnesty," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict immigration rules.

"It's not what the folks on the left want, which is a quick green card, but it is an amnesty nonetheless," he said. "It legalizes illegal immigrants and is going to increase the number of green cards so that people will be able to move through the system faster."

"Extremely disappointing," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic immigrant advocacy group.

"It's a serious backtracking to where the president was two years ago when the administration was prepared to provide some kind of path to legal status," she said. "They're proposing to invite people to be guest workers without providing any meaningful opportunity to remain in the United States to become legal permanent residents. It appears to be all about rewarding employers who have been hiring undocumented immigrants while offering almost nothing to the workers themselves."

She said that under current immigration law, foreigners who have violated U.S. laws, including entering the country illegally, can be banned from re-entry for three years to life. The White House was unclear whether it wants to waive that law for illegal immigrants who participate in the temporary worker program.

She also argued that there are only 5,000 green cards a year available for unskilled workers and the wait to get one is about 15 years. Congress would have to increase the number of green cards by hundreds of thousands to accommodate the millions of immigrants in the country illegally who would want to work, Munoz said.

The announcement comes just before Bush's scheduled meeting with Mexico's President Vicente Fox (news - web sites) next week at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico. Mexican officials have complained that the administration sought their help to improve border security and combat drug trafficking but failed to respond to pleas for an easing of U.S. immigration policy.

Bush also is expected to broadly discuss giving workers from some countries expanded access to Social Security (news - web sites) benefits, sources familiar with the plan said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Current law generally requires any worker — legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen — in the United States to have a total of about 10 years of work history to become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. Under reciprocal agreements the United States has with about 20 nations, some foreign workers are permitted to count work history in their native countries toward the 10 years they need to become eligible for Social Security benefits. These agreements also keep workers and employers from paying taxes into both countries' government retirement systems.


Associated Press writers Suzanne Gamboa, Leigh Strope and Robert Gehrke contributed to this report.

January 7, 2004, 02:06 AM
You know, if the left takes over we will end up like the USSR. So, 60 years after they take over, if we live to tell about it, we can guide our country back to the path of liberty and capitalism. People will see that socialism and communism just dont fly.

Why do people have to experience something that doesnt work to see that it doesnt work, even if they have witnessed others' failure? :rollyeyes: :fire:


January 7, 2004, 11:33 AM
So what is a conservative to do given that so much of what Bush as done with the Patriot Act, runaway federal spending, a willingness to sign an AWB IF it comes his way and now this legalization of illegals to name but a few.

Do I just not vote?

Or....do I do the ultimate...and vote for the Dem no matter how bad they are? That will certainly raise the level of suffering for ALL, lib or conservative, in the most time expedient matter if any of the Dems can win....which is looking more likely as Bush uses incrementalism to run off his base.

I wonder.....


January 7, 2004, 11:53 AM
Selfdfenz has brought up a good point. While I have been pretty supportive of Bush in regards to the WOT and other issues, the signing of McCain-Feingold and Medicare prescription coverage, the fact that he has not vetoed any of the spending bills that have crossed his desk, and now this quasi-amnesty for illegals are rapidly souring my opinion of him. :fire:

While I have thought about the Libertarian party as an alternative, I cannot support their open borders policy. To paraphrase what someone else has so well stated, to have open borders for a welfare state is to drive down the road to national bankruptcy in a Formula 1 car, rather than the family sedan that you are presently in.



January 7, 2004, 11:57 AM
Limbaugh thinks this is the price we pay to destroy the Democratic Party? Well, total "genocidal" war is folly, real or sublimated. We don't WANT a one-party control, no matter how wonderful it may appear. We know from history where that goes. I don't want another Tiberius, no matter how much "compassion" he proclaims. Nature prefers variety and adaptiveness, even if the Republic Party of today does not.

I think what Bush has done is to expand the theater of war. Not against another terror-support foreign state but against those Americans who still hew to the core values laid out in our Constitution, call that group what you will.

It is all about political power and money now, and it's right in our faces. Citizenship used to be about more than just holding a job, but globalism doesn't have a human face any more than Socialism or Communism.

January 7, 2004, 01:11 PM
I think this new Bush immigration policy is admission that we cannot control our borders, and Feds have gave up trying. So, Bush comes up with a complicated quasi-amnesty program full of loopholes and flaws, and is unenforceable.

According to a recent series of article in the Washington Times, there are only 2,000 immigration officers that have been assigned to arrest and deport 400,000 missing illegals under deportation orders, as well as track down, arrest and deport the "estimated" 8 to 14 million illegal aliens in country.

2,000 officers cannot even make a dent in those numbers of illegals. So, what does Bush think his new policy will accomplish other than pandering to Latinos in an election year?

By the way, there are less than 11,000 border patrol officers assigned to protect over 6,000 miles of border with Mexico and Canada. There are only 1,000 BP on the 4,121 mile Canadian border.

In 2000 general election, about 50% (98 million) of the people eligible to vote actually voted. Bush and Gore votes were almost evenly devided. If Bush keeps sticking his finger in the eye of his conservative core supporters based on him being on the wrong side of number of issues, that core may sit out the election as well as not contribute to his campaign. Then, quite possibly, Bush will be a one term President.

Perhaps one way to send Bush a message is this. In the up coming Presidential primaries, if there is another Republican on the ballot other than Bush, vote for the other Republican.

January 7, 2004, 01:48 PM
We can't control our borders because "we" don't want to, we being our own American elites. We can't seem to control our welfare system either. Nor we can seem to even ask those who arrive here to assimilate themselves. We need to do some serious soul-searching about what's broken down in our culture and who is behind that breakdown.

As for Bush's "compassionate" proposal I consider it effrontery that is consonant with a man who increasingly looks like more show than substance (and, yes, I used to be a Bush backer). No one elected him to give our rights, blood, and treasure away to anyone promising him a vote.

From what I saw of Arnold's State of the State speech yesterday Bush is damn lucky that (so far) Arnold is ineligible to run for the Presidency. I think Arnold would take the nomination and the election in a walk. Whether that's good news or just the other shoe dropping remains to be seen.

January 7, 2004, 02:05 PM
Be assured the gun-grabbers will find a way to put the AWB on Bush's desk. And, he will sign it.

What is more evil, a Democrat you are knowing what heshe stands for, or a Republican calling himself "passionate conservative", acting like the most leftist Democrats?

I feel totally betrayed by GW Bush (McCain is another one of this ilk). It's the arrogance of power.

This last drop makes a joke out of the "patriot act" and "homeland security. The whole thing is another step in making subjects out of once "free" citizens.

Disgusting :barf:

January 7, 2004, 02:08 PM
Yes, many illegals commit crimes and are here to milk the welfare system. However, that is a tiny minority of the illegal immigrant population.

People are falling for the old "blame the foreigners and other different people" when things get tough. It is a trend that goes back to the Roman Empire, one that has been commented upon and critiqued for nearly 2000 years.

That being said, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE ANY BENEFITS TO illegals who aren't employed. But I do think we should blame the corporations whose execs make hundreds of millions and who would rather hire illegals than documented workers because it is cheaper. Our entire agricultural system is built around illegal labor.

If you are a white male in the United States who doesn't live along the border with Mexico, corporate scandals and corruption (white collar crime) are FARE MORE OF A THREAT TO YOU than minorities, illegal immigrants or affirmative action. We are just taught to see them as a threat because they are "different' or "browner" or "a threat to our culture". People who say that know very little about the history of American immigration. They gripe that "they don't want to learn our language", while our Polish, Italian and German ancestors took on average 2 generations to assimilate. They say that "they just want to take our money and take it out of the country" and forget that 100 years ago 50% of Italian immigrants left the US to go back to Italy once they had made enough money to buy land there. They claim that these immigrants "aren't like the ones we used to have" or are somehow inferior, forgetting that for almost a century the Irish were viewed as sub-human, inferior, and a different race with "scientific" studies to back up those claims. Today there are 80 million Americans with those "inferior" genes.

BTW, I work a lot with construction/industrial trades and I can say that Mexicans in particular are entering the industry in large numbers. However, I can also say there is a HUGE shortage of labor in this area in places like Baton Rouge and Jacksonville, and Houston. Immigrants are therefore attracted to those trades. I recently attended a workshop for an industrial trade where they were complaining that the Mexicans had already "left their trade" to move up to more prosperous ones, and they had no-one to hire.

I am NOT SAYING that illegal immigration is a good thing, or that illegal immigrants benefit society, or that there are no problems with our borders. However, the much of the hysteria is apalling and so blatantly a product of propaganda.

January 7, 2004, 02:36 PM
Well, when the Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, etc., came here, there was not a welfare state to hand out food stamps, free medical care (at the hospital emergency rooms), free bilingual education and so on.

I am aware that a large percentage of Italian and east European immigrants went back home, but maybe it was also the case that they found out that the America of those days did not really have streets paved with gold, and they preferred to live in poverty in their homeland rather than in a foreign land.

It is said that 20% of the people in America today is foreign born. And according to the Dept. of Justice, 30% of the people in prisons and jails are foreign born. And that is with a welfare state. That tells me something right there.

January 7, 2004, 02:38 PM
Forgot to mention that the 30% of foreign born in our prisons and jails represents 600,000 people. Not exactly a tiny fraction.

January 7, 2004, 02:40 PM
Immigration pre-welfare state is a whole different bag. You can't compare, economically, what went on a hundred years ago with today.

This is about more than economics, however; it's about acculturation. A multicultural and multilingual America is not going to hold together. Immigrants today don't have to assimilate any more. How long do you think, for example, that English-speaking American citizens are going to be willing to subsidize people who have no desire to be the same kind of Americans they are? We are moving toward the precipice; it's not far ahead. Personally, I see a Bosnia in the making, starting with California. Perhaps Bush will be remembered as the man who brought tribal warfare back home rather than abolishing it abroad.

A hundred years ago there used to be a lot of Black tradespeople. Where are they today? All this is great for Mexicans, but where are the Black tradesman pounding nails and laying bricks? I live in L.A. I don't see any. Blacks are being frozen out of these kinds of jobs. That's wrong.

January 7, 2004, 02:48 PM
I am a second generation Italian/Scottish-American. My grandfathere were unskilled/lowskilled laborers/tradesman.

I live in Atlanta, which has one of the fastest growing latino populations in the nation. I enjoy these immigrants and see them working hard or trying to work hard to build lives for them and their families, they same way my ancestors did.

I dont see too many southern boys out there in august, roofing houses from 7 am to 9 pm. But the mexican guys do it. Do you know what that does ... It makes the contractor build houses faster, it allows the Builder to sell his houses faster, it allows the bank to recoup there money faster. It allows you to borrow that money at a low rate because the bank gets it back faster.

Illegal immigration is a large problem, I know this. But the majority of these people want to work, to better their lives, live in our America.

I am not sure how I feel about this plan yet, but fellow THR do not blame the immigrant that wants to improve his world, our founding fathers did the same thing.

January 7, 2004, 03:03 PM
Bush is giving his standard "I will put William Shatner to shame while saying nothing" speech.

Maybe I cought it late, but I havent heard anything that says what will happen.

"...Border crossings" YOu heard it here first. Our borders are swiss cheese without legal repurcussions for violating them.

Wait, now he is saying that our border has to be secure. My god, this guy is full of hypocrisy.:scrutiny: :fire:

Significantly increased the border patrol by 1000 agents and border safety. Asking Canadian and Mexican .gov's to help 'secure' the borders. So not only are we getting the Fox (pun intended) to guard the henhouse, but we are pluging a gaping hole in a submarine at 2000ft deep with cotton balls. Lovely.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Temporary worker visas. Great. He is condoning the jobs not only going over seas, but also to non-US citizens in-country and not to those who need money and who didnt spent gobs training for it IN COUNTRY. I want to scream and seek blood pressure medication.

My prediction: A sudden increase in the unemployment rate, the economy going to crap, and everyone not knowing what to do because our two party system has become one party, but with two different names.

PS: Now he wants illegals to take skills and $$$ gained in the States to go back to their home country and INCREASE THEIR GDP, NOT OURS.

PPS: He says that violators of immigration laws shouldnt be made citizens. My lord, this hypocrite is infuriating.

Bill Hook
January 7, 2004, 04:37 PM
We're a "welcoming society" :rolleyes:


I don't know how we can afford A) the WOT, B) even more handouts to old folks RE: prescription drug benefits and C) giving SS benefits to foreigners, illegal ones at that, when we likely won't be able to pay the benefits of US citizens in 30 years or so.


January 7, 2004, 04:43 PM
But I do think we should blame the corporations whose execs make hundreds of millions and who would rather hire illegals than documented workers because it is cheaper. How can you blame someone for going after the better deal? Any capitalist would hire the guy who is willing to do the job for a lower wage, benefits, and with less .gov hassle.

Has anyone else noticed that most politicians and the three or four biggest parties are all in favor of open borders?

January 7, 2004, 05:13 PM
I dont see too many southern boys out there in august, roofing houses from 7 am to 9 pm. But the mexican guys do it. Do you know what that does ... It makes the contractor build houses faster, it allows the Builder to sell his houses faster, it allows the bank to recoup there money faster. It allows you to borrow that money at a low rate because the bank gets it back faster. (who is going to buy these homes when the middle class is gone??)

Illegal immigration is a large problem, I know this. But the majority of these people want to work, to better their lives, live in our America.

I can see why some might romantize "illegal immigration". I think the word illegal may mean "like goin over the speed limit" to some.

The mexicans will do work americans wont do?? I dont think so. Americans wont work for the low pay mexicans are willing to work. Thus the "trade jobs" pay far less to mexicans and they will not be able to live in the houses they build. Goodby middle class.

Check it out..mexicans & central american immigrants sent "home" over 14 Billion last year.

These folks aint here to become Americans...(most dont want to be Americans..they have loyality to Mexico first) they came for our jobs..and they are getting em..and some think that is fine.

How bad can it be if they do take our jobs..so what eh!!

Remember..the Mayor of Los Angeles declared: Los Angeles is a Mexican City!

Coming soon to a city/state near you..Mexifornia


January 7, 2004, 05:30 PM
Mexifornication is more like it.

January 7, 2004, 06:05 PM
One of the Islamic terrorists that tried to blow the World Trade Center in NYC in 1993 gained amnesty during the 1986 mass amnesty program. He told the Feds he was an agricutltural worker. What was that? Six dead and 1,000 injured.

January 7, 2004, 06:45 PM
Sounds like everyone here is looking for a good reason to vote away their gun rights, which is exactly what will happen with a Dem Prez and a Dem Congress...

Cheers everybody

January 7, 2004, 08:38 PM
Let's face it, our gun rights are not at the whim of any party, at the whim of a majority. I think most of us here are agreed on that.

I for one have no intention of dismembering my country by voting for Bush because he MIGHT allow me to hang on to a .22 or a single-shot shotgun to protect my house. Our right to self-protection is not negotiable. Molon labe!

January 7, 2004, 08:50 PM
AFter the 89 Import Ban, GW's comments regarding the AWB, the Prescription drug bill, and this, I think it's pretty obvious the Republicans believe they can lie to us with impunity -- and believe we will keep voting Republican because we either can't believe we're being lied to, or we accept utter defeat on Issue A because we support their position on Issue B.

Gun-owning, anti-illegal-immigration, border-protecting, limited-govt Americans who vote Republican are like abused spouses -- we just keep on believing that they really love us, and that to leave them would be disloyalty.

January 7, 2004, 09:09 PM
Actually there's no such illusion on my part. But I feel certain that a Dean victory will embolden the antis and then you can kiss goodbye even your favorite Romanian .22

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 7, 2004, 09:38 PM
In testimony on September 11, 2003, the GAO challenged the SSA’s methodology for estimating the costs of an agreement with Mexico. The methodology failed to take into account the estimated five million illegal alien Mexican workers in the United States, Mexicans now living in Mexico who earlier worked illegally in the United States, the fact that the agreement likely would make family members living in Mexico eligible for benefits that they are not currently entitled to, and the effects of a proposed new guest worker agreement. Also, the GAO found that there was no effort to systematically study the record keeping of the Mexican authorities who would be partners in the program to assure the validity of information received from that source.


January 7, 2004, 09:59 PM
If someone ran on the "I'll make the Southern border one giant minefield and expell all the illegals"-Platform, I'd vote for him with a smile, but thats not gonna happen any time soon.

I'd really like to vote for W, but I might have to go Libertarian in this election.

I'll probably make up my mind on 9/14/03: No AW renewal = vote for W, AW renewal = vote for Libertarian. I might have to fill in the scantron sheet with a little regret due to W's campaign finance and immigration decisions, but 4 years of hardcore liberal rule might not be so good at this point in time.


January 7, 2004, 10:19 PM
follow the monet trail. Every decision Shrub makes is of benefirt to big business, Halliburton, Clear Channel Radio , companies that want cheap labor, drug companies etc.

January 8, 2004, 12:20 AM
This being a gun related forum, we naturally worry about gun rights more than other things. We like to tell ourselves things like "The 2nd insures all the others."

I don't know who I'm going to vote for in '04, but it sure won't be Bush. He's gone on record as supporting the AWB. He brought us the Patriot Act, Patriot II, Campaign Finance Reform and now he wants to reward a bunch of lawbreakers. Why not out let all the guys who're in prison for firearms related offences? How about the people who tried to shave a few bucks off their taxes? I'm sure they'd be willing to vote for him if they could just get to a poll.

I've raised a few kids in my life, some mine and some who were turned over to me by their parents. The one thing I learned above all else: Don't reward bad behavior!! If they broke the rules, they paid the price.

Bush has taken on some of the worse aspects of those kids. He has acted badly on a number of occasions by trashing one part of the Constitution after another. He has shown himself to be no different than Al Gore in what he wants to accomplish. Gore might have done it more quickly and with less finesse, but we'd still be bent over the barrel.

Our gun rights will go only as fast as we let go of our guns. Congress can pass all the laws it wants and as long as we-- that's all of us, including the ones with good jobs and nice homes and cars-- as long as we refuse to abide by those laws-- they will be ineffectual. It will make not a whit of difference whether the occupant of the White House has a 'D' or an 'R' by his/her name or whether Congress is predominately one party or the other, in the end, they'll still vote to take your "gun righs." It's up to us to keep 'em.

January 8, 2004, 10:01 AM
Romulus wrote,
"Actually there's no such illusion on my part. But I feel certain that a Dean victory will embolden the antis and then you can kiss goodbye even your favorite Romanian .22"

With Bush stating even before the last election, and during his term in office he supports the AWB, gun control is a none issue for the peps that support Dean. Dean and Bush are their men in this issue. Conress is holding the line on the 2nd at this time not Bush. The antis should take heart they have a gun-banner in the White House now!

Anyone that thinks this president is pro-2A and will go to the mat over the 2nd is just not listening the the very words he speaks and the actions he takes.

IMHO, no flame intended romulus:)


January 8, 2004, 11:31 AM

But wait! Teddy likes this...

"I certainly hope the administration's long-awaited re-involvement in this fundamental debate is genuine, and not because of election year conversion," Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy said in a statement Tuesday. "The immigration status quo is out-dated, unjust and unacceptable."

If Ted Kennedy supports this – it must be good.

Bush has lost my vote.

January 8, 2004, 11:34 AM
If Bush cannot comprehend the moral, social, cultural, fiscal, and legal liabilities surrounding his "solution" to the illegal alien problem in this country, it is rather unlikely he can comprehend the importance of the Second Amendment.

What he comprehends is what Karl Rove wants him to comprehend: VOTES. And I'm sure the two of them have already run the numbers on how many "rabid" gun owners can be safely ignored, written off as Bush has already apparently written off conservatives in general.

If Tom Tancredo ran for President he might pull enough votes to cost Bush this Election. I must say that would poetic justice given the fact that Rove told Tancredo to "never darkne the door of the White House again" because of his stance on illegal immigration.

January 8, 2004, 12:12 PM
There is only one fix to this mess:


Write your congressman, your senators, The WHite House, and The Republican Natl Committee. Tell them you think this idea stinks, why you think it stinks, that GW has lost your vote, and oh by the way, all your friends feel the same way and they vote too.

The only thing hte politicians care about is which side of an issue is the winning issue. IF they hear an uproar against this, most will choose to side with the uproar (with the exception of the hardline ideologues).

Write, write, write.

Oh, and even if he isn't your congressman, write Tancredo a letter of support.

January 8, 2004, 01:02 PM
Thank you Sparticus.
If you can't wait for snail mail:

For my part, I think the money that I might have sent to the RNC will have to go to the GOA and Ranch Rescue.

Write those congress critters!

January 8, 2004, 01:52 PM
No flame taken Seldfenz...

I haven't seen Bush use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to rail against "all those guns on the street" and "cop-killer bullets" and "rifles whose sole purpose is to kill lots of people" a la Clinton. Dean or Clark (let's not take for granted that Dean will be the nominee) will do so, just like ole Bill. I can see Dean, "I'm a physician, and let me tell you the CDC is right when it says guns are a public health issue!"

There will then be some Republican opposition in Congress, but the Presidency usually succedes in ramming through these things with their allies in the press whipping the antis into their typical frenzies.

Gun control is a sleeping dog now, but they will kick that dog awake with a Democrat in the White House. I just don't see that happening with Bush. With Dean (and surely Clark) it will be 1994 all over again...

January 8, 2004, 03:01 PM
Bush must just be pandering to the Latinos and others in an election year.

It is hard to believe that Bush and Co. have read the political tea leaves so erroneously. Every poll I have seen on immigration, especially illegal immigration, is 80% plus against.

Maybe Bush assumes this new policy will never get implemented. Scary part is supposedly the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill embraces the plan.

RNC head Gillespie says they are planning on another tight Presidential election in 2004. Now I can see why. Prior to this immigration announcement, all the pundits were saying Bush would win in landslide. But, maybe not now.

January 8, 2004, 03:03 PM
Maybe Bush assumes this new policy will never get implemented.

He also (supposedly) thought the USSC would rule CFR unconstitutional and look what that got us. He's also betting that conservatives will adopt the "where ya gonna go?" attitude. I'm afraid that's gonna send him back to Texas prematurely.

January 8, 2004, 06:30 PM
I understand the Dubya's New Years resolution is to read the Bills before he signs them. :D

January 8, 2004, 07:09 PM
Again: Write, Fax, Email, and call your representatives, senators, The White House, and the RNC.

Write letters to the editor of your newspaper.

Call in to talk radio shows.

But most of all, don't be racist about it. This is not about how many people from ________(Fill in the blank) are here. It is about respect for the law and preserving our system of law, our economy, and our resources. America is not a lifeboat with infinite capacity, with room for all 6 billion people. We WILL sink if we open the doors to everyone from everywhere.

January 8, 2004, 07:44 PM
You might add in your letters that the Bush immigration policy is basically an open admission that we have little control over our borders, and over those who successfully jump our borders.

And, what are the implications of that lack of effective control on the War on Terrorism, and the War on Drugs which we apparently are loosing?

One of the first duties of the Federal Government is to protect our borders, our people and our way of life. Those duties do not include having a job fair for illegal aliens.

January 8, 2004, 09:07 PM
"You might add in your letters that the Bush immigration policy is basically an open
admission that we have little control over our borders, and over those who
successfully jump our borders.

And, what are the implications of that lack of effective control on the War on
Terrorism, and the War on Drugs which we apparently are losing?"


I think we have too little control of ourselves, a lack of clarity about who we are, what is essential to protect, what kind of world we live in, and what we have to do--and Bush exemplifies that. We are in a time in our history where Bush's oft-repeated appeal to "compassion" is a luxury we can't afford. I voted for Bush in the hope that he would bring some steel to our spirit. Now I see he is just another appeaser obedient to political expediency.

January 8, 2004, 09:42 PM
The small city I live in (pop ~30,000) is home to the worlds largest beef packing plant. According to the local news editor we are a diverse population and we like it.

I have seen what the influx of illegal aliens does to the school systems, law enforcement , judicial systems and public services (welfare).
Not all these people are from Mexico, they come from South America via Mexico. I have respect for a hard working person trying to support a family but have none at all for people who are only here to exploit the system, show no pride or respect for the community and have no plan on staying and becoming a productive citizen.

I hear the claim "But they do pay taxes". Yes, but only the ones they can't avoid. Savvy illegals will use a false S/S number, claim the maximum number of dependants then not file state or federal income tax.

I have good health insurance but every time I go to the doctors office it costs me $20-50 in co-payments. As I'm writing out the check I see other people throw down a county health card, pay nothing then watch them in the parking lot getting into a $20,000 pickup truck with another $5000 worth of wheels tires and fiberglass accessories bolted on to it.

I've seen people at the grocery store with two shopping carts, one cart full of food-stamp eligible items the other cart full of stuff that's not. The second cart and a hand full of lottery tickets gets paid for with cash.

Again, I don't want to appear to be bigoted or racist, I don't care what country of origin or skin color these people are, if they're taking advantage of what this country has to offer with no intention of giving back then they don't need to be here.

January 9, 2004, 09:49 AM
I wrote all of my reps (state and fed) regarding the legalization of illegals 2 weeks before Christmas.

I'm still waiting for a response.

I will not surprise me if I never get a reply given that this is Texas, and most of the crew support Bush, at least with their silence.


Gary H
January 9, 2004, 09:59 AM
I would be OK with a program that requires that applicants apply from outside of the U.S. for jobs that have gone unfilled for a set period of time when properly posted. The employer would pay for the expenses involved in verifying that the person is not a felon, or terrorist and would agree to provide all medical expenses associated with the worker. The worker would need to exit the U.S. and go through the normal channels for any other immigration status leading to a green card. The flip side of the bill would provide the money for local/state police to go after illegal immigrants. Appeal would be severely limited.

Congress will tread with care in that the outcry will be great, but industry will grease the skids with lots of money. This should be interesting. Enough money should buy public opinion...

This century will see more mosques than churches in France and English as the world's universal language....except within the United States where we will produce all government documents in forty languages..including English..I think.

January 9, 2004, 11:18 AM
This will be the century in which America goes from being a nation to a concept, like "cool," or "The Enlightenment," that will be broadcast on a 24-hour satellite station for general inspiration. What is now the physical United States will be a combination of a Club Med and Starbucks, where people of the Global Oneness will come and get a pause that refreshes before returning to their New World Order workstations in the various international "markets." The world language will be orgasmic grunts and, of course, 1s and 0s run through that International ID-cum-transaction card that will be issued to the world's indefatigable shoppers.

A few cowboys and barbarians will have left for Mars, on a one-way trip. No one will miss them.

January 9, 2004, 12:42 PM
I wonder what this means?

Below is the CCN web-site that reports something interesting. We have a reviving economy, but so far it has created few new jobs. Economists were projecting 148,000 new jobs would be created in December, but only 1,000 new jobs were reported.

Maybe those new jobs are being outsourced overseas, or being taken up by illegal aliens and not being reported for obvious reasons.


It is interesting that during the 2000-2002 time period when the economy slowed down quite a bit, illegal immigration rates grew extensively. One conclusion is that the illegal aliens did not come to the USA looking for jobs.

January 9, 2004, 01:01 PM
who'da thunk?

You can not have an open welfare state and open borders. It will bankrupt us.

January 9, 2004, 01:13 PM
Border authorities fear influx from Bush plan

By Jerry Seper
Published January 8, 2004

President Bush's plan to grant guest-worker status and eventual legalization to millions of illegal aliens now in the United States will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to enforce and could spark a new wave of illegal immigration at the nation's already-swamped borders, law-enforcement authorities and others said yesterday.
One veteran Border Patrol official, after listening to the president outline the plan during a White House news conference yesterday, called the proposal "insulting," saying it diminished efforts by agents at America's borders who risk their lives every day to stop illegal immigration.
"Several thousand illegal aliens crossed into the United States as the president spoke to announce his new program, and I assure you, more are on the way," said John Frecker, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 9,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees.
Mr. Frecker said the president's White House announcement should have earned him the Academy Award for best actor, "since about 90 percent of what he said was not true."
"The border is, maybe, 10 percent more secure than it was prior to September 11, but it is still out of control," he said. "Before we do anything else, we need to make sure [that] the border is secure, that illegal aliens in the country are being apprehended and that employer sanctions are being enforced."
Mike Cutler, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service senior agent who headed major INS investigations into drug trafficking for more than two decades, said the Bush plan is similar to a 1986 amnesty plan that led to the biggest influx of illegal immigration ever.
"We never seem to learn from history," Mr. Cutler said. "This plan, by whatever name they call it, is amnesty and simply rewards people who have already broken the law. It is an open invitation for many others to seek, by whatever means possible, a piece of the pie."
Mr. Bush proposed a broad guest-worker program that would allow the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States to stay without penalty, making them eligible under existing immigration policies to apply for permanent legal residence and citizenship. The plan requires congressional approval.
Illegal immigrants who prove they have jobs can apply to stay in the country legally for three-year renewable terms. Under the plan, they also may bring family members into the United States and enjoy rights now reserved for Americans and for foreigners with permanent-resident status, including Social Security benefits.
Critics of the plan also question whether it is feasible for an already-overburdened immigration enforcement system to handle the millions of applications -- particularly because many of them could include false identity documents. They said only 2,000 agents are available to review the millions of applicants that might be submitted.
"When U.S. immigration officials were tasked with the responsibility of checking immigrants coming into the United States from the Middle East after September 11, it tied up all of INS' resources and caused significant delays," Mr. Cutler said. "When this country had problems trying to properly identify a few thousand people, how is it going to do the same with a few million?"
Mr. Frecker said, "A lot of those people are going to become grandparents before the government gets around to verifying their applications."
The White House steadfastly has denied law-enforcement concerns that the program offers amnesty for illegal aliens, saying it was not an automatic path to citizenship.
But Mr. Frecker noted that it allowed those in the country illegally to remain with no criminal sanctions, adding that "a pig is a pig is a pig." Mr. Cutler also said the plan excludes from prosecution those who already have violated the law by entering the country illegally.
Congress approved an amnesty program in 1986 that gave legal status to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The program contained increased enforcement and penalty policies aimed at ending illegal immigration, although the illegal alien population in the United States today is at least double -- some say more than triple -- the 1986 total.
Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which seeks to limit annual immigration, said the Bush plan threatens homeland security, grants amnesty to lawbreakers, establishes a "backdoor immigration program" and threatens the jobs and wages of American workers.
"There is little reason to feel confident that, absent a massive infusion of new resources, which is highly unlikely given current fiscal realities, anything approaching thorough background checks can be conducted on applicants for a guest-worker program," he said.
"There is every reason to believe that adding new responsibilities to an overtaxed immigration system will make us less safe."

January 9, 2004, 01:40 PM
"We have a reviving
economy, but so far it has created few new jobs. Economists were projecting
148,000 new jobs would be created in December, but only 1,000 new jobs were

The reason is deep structural changes in the economy. Higher productivity--aka computerization--means we do more with less, and with fewer. A lot of jobs we had we don't have and don't need any more. That will be more true in the future. A lot of jobs just aren't coming back, ever. Eventually, robotics will begin to displace even the menial jobs.

January 9, 2004, 02:05 PM
Longeyes, you may be correct.

However, some analysts say that overly cheap labor, both domestic and foreign, can stifle innovation and invention.

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that when writing contracts for overseas manufacturing in places like China, the bids do not even bother to factor in labor costs.

It is an interesting statistic that the USA leads the world in one major category. That is the amount of energy used to provide $1 million of product. USA uses less energy than any other nation in that category. China and many other low cost countries are polluting themselves to death because they are inefficient users of energy.

January 9, 2004, 02:10 PM
export jobs, import poor educated workers, how does that work.???

January 9, 2004, 02:12 PM
The reason is deep structural changes in the economy. Higher productivity--aka computerization--means we do more with less, and with fewer. Careful! Don't fall into the trap varous talking heads tend to drop into.

I don't have the exact URL but the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a page of definitions. If you look up the definition of productivity according to the BLS you'll find out that one of about 4 or 5 imputs into the definition is "purchased business services." In other words the definition of productivity includes the ability of a company to stop performing work inside a company and send it to the outside.

So what's happening to productivity? Dropping of barriers to exiting the US labor market has permitted US companies to oursource services from lower labor cost areas of the world.

Computerization has a minor part in improving productivity. There is nothing is current technology or current management techniques that permits US corporations to have month over month improvements in productivity. Buy a computer? Fine that's a one time improvement. Rearrange work flow? Fine that is a one time improvement. Neither improvement can continue month after month after month.

What will increase productivity figures is a month after month decision contract outside services. The only other way to provide month after month improvement is to continually cut back internally. First you cut back in the mail room because the receptionist can sort mail between calls. Then you can cut back the receptionist because the phone system can do the same job. If a custom insists on talking to a human being, the call can be transfered to the sales secretary who can also sort the mail. What do we need a sales secretary for when we can combine the secretarial functions of sales and marketing into one person who can also sort the mail. . . . . .My point is productivity numbers are increasing to some extent because we are eviscerating companies. Every month something else is being cut off and thrown out.

My opinion? Improvements in productivity are slightly influenced by technology upgrades and organizational restructuring. Most of the improvements has to do with outsourcing business services. What are business services? Everything from paying Swisher to clean latrines to shutting down factories in Podunk, IL and sending the work to Vietnam or Cambodia.

Do not, I repeat, do not fall for the "improving productivity of the American worker" argument as the reason for fewer jobs being created. Just another example of newspeak.

Edited to add:

The multifactor productivity indexes for major sectors measure the value-added output per combined unit of labor and capital input in private business and private nonfarm business. Multifactor productivity indexes for aggregate manufacturing and for 20 manufacturing industries provide measures of sector output per combined unit of capital (K), labor (L), energy (E), materials (M), and purchased business services (S) inputs—KLEMS inputs.

January 9, 2004, 02:21 PM
export jobs, import poor educated workers, how does that work.???

It's quite simple really. You have two political forces. One who serves the rich and powerful, and one who serves the poor. The rich and powerful want to get more of the same. The poor want to be rich and powerful but are too stupid to realize that the political force they support really WANTS them to stay poor and thus, dependent. The middle class tends to hurt both causes so the assault on the middle class continues no matter which force is in power. Meanwhile the middle class continues to split their vote between the two based on ancillary issues which do nothing to further their own cause. The middle class keeps this country free. The upper class always wants more power and the lower class is always being duped by liars that promise to make them middle class by way of wealth re-distribution. Of course, there are also complicated dynamics within the middle class as well. These usually involve those folks who made themselves middle class through hard work but still identify with the lower class and those who were born upper middle class but fancy themselves as upper class because they have lived comfortably their whole lives. The vast majority of the middle class were born that way, and are fighting tooth and nail to stay that way. These folks are the backbone of the country, and they are disappearing at an alarming rate.

January 9, 2004, 02:27 PM
Waitone, good point and very true. What you cited is very much of the IT world I work in. Outsource functions and import educated foreigners who will work cheaper, but not necessarily any more efficiently. In some instances these imported and outsource employees are less efficient in output per hour, but they cost much less by the hour.

January 9, 2004, 02:37 PM

I think both improving technology and outsourcing are factors in what we are experiencing.

What I know is we are not going to be rescued by massive importation of unskilled, uneducated labor at this time in our history any more than we will be by outsourcing high-paying jobs, for marginal bottom-line improvements.

We have three billion people on the margins. Globalization is the great equalizer, just like Mr. Colt's invention.

What is to be done? As the man said.

January 9, 2004, 02:44 PM
Fix, I heard the conservative author Richard Poe say exactly the same thing on the G. Gordon Liddy program.

Poe says radical forces always want to destroy the middle class because the middle class is the mainstay and anchor of society and most resistant to radical changes.

To defeat the middle class you must destroy it. Poe mentioned three ways this is done:

1. Levy such heavy taxes that the middle class have to work their tails off to maintain their lifestyle, or even survival, thus distracting them.

2. Introduce and promote as much cultural distortions as possible such as porno, promiscuity, anti-religion, political correctness and the like.

3. Disarm the middle class, gun control being the tool. Make them too weak to fight.

Maybe you just mentioned a fourth way. Take away their jobs and livelihood and give those jobs to illegals and foreigners. And, leave that as threat to others.

And, maybe a fifth way is to overrun the country with illegal aliens in such numbers that they become a major and exponential component of serious crime that the middle class will surrender their rights for protection, e.g. radical change.

January 9, 2004, 03:12 PM
There is a theory popular amongst the textile industry vets (or victims) that says the US fully realizes its cost of living is entirely too high to compete in a global market. Solution to the problem is to reboot the cost of living so that it comes back up in line with global standards.

How so? Export manufacturing, not just the jobs. Export knowledge based positions linked to file transfers. Import people who will willingly live on the margins of US society for a shot at a better life. Use those people to lower entry level wages and eliminate direct costs of employing people on the low end of the ladder. Import highly skill workers on a temporary basis and use their presence to scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they want a pay raise.

Amnesty for illegal aliens will reduce the direct cost of employing labor in the US. Outsourcing overseas will reduce the cost of doing business in the US. No health costs, no environmental costs, no safety costs, and no litigation risk.

Theory goes, once the US labor market has been destroyed, congress will rewrite tax law to make is attractive to bring jobs back into the US. . . . at a vastly reduced cost or corporation.

Meanwhile, government at all levels has not reduced its take by one red dime.

That's what textile vets think is going on.

January 9, 2004, 03:21 PM
The textile vet theory is far fetched because it would require something resembling forward thinking on the part of the government. Much too complicated IMO.

Jeff White
January 9, 2004, 03:24 PM
Who does the pressure to increase the minimum wage figure into the textile workers theory? As soon as we got a democratic administration in state government here, minimum wage shot up and is going to keep going up. This isn't going to encourage employers to hire anyone, legal or not.


January 9, 2004, 04:14 PM
Joe and Jose are standing side by side in front of HR looking for a low end job.

Joe has to be paid minimum wage, 1/2 of his social security costs, medicaid tax, workman's comp, ad nauseum

Jose gets paid ?. No benefits, no nuthin'. Jose doesn't show on the books.

Figure out what happens to prevailing wages on the low end.

For the record I think the textile theory is way off base but elements of it are quite accurate.

Whether or not we are looking at a government mandated reboot is irrelevant. What is important is the US is in the process of destroying the middle class and simultaneously desroying its tax base. The ruling class has yet to figure out tax revenues will eventually fall.

January 9, 2004, 04:28 PM
Waitone, there is a snag there.

By not hiring a qualified American, the employer is potentially violating Federal Labor law based upon discrimination of national orgin.

Also, if Jose is an illegal alien, and the employer knowingly hires Jose, especially if not checking his documents, then the employer is violating another Federal law. This violation may include jail time for the employer.

If Jose is using a "stolen" Social Security number, Jose probably is in violation of Federal law.

January 9, 2004, 04:29 PM
Not if Jose has been granted amnesty due to his former employment at the chicken plant.:banghead:

January 9, 2004, 06:45 PM
In regard to technology taking away more jobs than illegal aliens...

In Ancient Greece, a philosopher named Hero invented the first steam-powered engine. Even in its crude form, it was able to power a number of items (pulleys, towing, oars, etc.). However, it was relegated to a novelty item by Greek society.

Reason: slave labor was so cheap that no one saw any need to change.

We're in the same boat now, folks. Illegal aliens are the new slave class. Not because Americans won't take the same jobs, but because Americans won't take the same jobs for $2 an hour & depend on Medicaid & welfare for the rest. Illegals will. And big buisness & Dubuya is more than happy to let them... :banghead:

Remember what finally happened to the Greeks? "Those who don't remember history.....":uhoh:

January 9, 2004, 10:05 PM
Illegal aliens are not the new slave class. The American taxpayer is.

January 10, 2004, 12:07 AM
Amen to that. I am starting my taxes for this year. And I am not afraid to say that I am really PO'd :banghead: :cuss: :fire: :barf:

January 10, 2004, 12:13 PM
Next week's meeting in Mexico City ought to provide oodles of thrills and spills. I can hardly wait.:D

January 10, 2004, 04:26 PM
We will see only happy faces and hear blather about common goals to make life better for immigrants.

We will not hear the plan nor the reason for the plan nor the timing of the plan.

Most importantly we will hear nothing of the reason for Bush's seemingly insane proposal. My experience is if a politician puts out something that borders on the insane there is consistency and logic; just not where I'm looking.

January 10, 2004, 04:30 PM
My fears are one or more of the following coming to pass:

1. Police officers get false calls and ambushed in cities in which people feel like the cops abuse them.

2. Anti-mexican violence rises sharply, especially in high black/white unemployement areas. Look at the English experience, where roving bands of poor, unemployed urban whites beat up immigrants and minorities.

3. Vigilante groups go down to the southern border and start sniping border crossers on known ingress trails.

4. Welfare offices become the abortion clinics of the 2000s, with protestors, bombings, and snipings.

5. Another McVeigh-style explosion, except this time at a La RAza office.

6. 5. above, except at an IRS building.

I'm not advocating any of the above, just making educated guesses based on study of history, human nature, and current events.

January 10, 2004, 07:53 PM
Your observations have been made by others also, notably by Thomas Chittum in his book "Civil War II".

In addition to controlling the borders, one of the things that needs attention is the overbearing cost of hiring 'legal' employees. Govt rules make it so expensive to hire and maintain employees, that illegals, in addition to lower wages, don't have all of the administrative costs associated with 'legals'. This alone is a huge incentive for employers, all other things being equal.

Although I don't ever want to see it, I think that history will repeat it'self, and the US culture will turn really violent. Due to the nature of todays instant communication, and high speed travel, I also think that it's a lot closer than most people think.

January 10, 2004, 09:42 PM

I'm sure you know that the kinds of tumult you are concerned will come to pass have already taken place, though so far the aggression has been toward the Anglo/gringo persuasion. Border incidents are common and well-documented. About a year ago, it was reported that members of American Patrol were assaulted after a meeting in Santa Ana, CA; they were set upon in the adjacent parking lot by community members who didn't like their message . It was also reported that representatives of the Santa Ana Police Dept. looked on and did nothing. I wasn't there and can't confirm it but have heard Glenn Spenser discuss this on talk radio here in Los Angeles.

I think we all hope that these issues can be resolved without violence but certainly these are matters where feelings run high and where government representatives have failed to provide an adequate response to head off nastiness.

January 11, 2004, 08:42 AM
I knew about the burglaries, range damage, and environmental damage along the southern borders, but not about the American Patrol incident.

I heard today on the radio that some pro-immigrant groups are pushing Congress to provide college benefits for "children of undocumented workers." How insane and PC have we become when we are trying to give American's tax $ away to illegal invaders?? God bless anyone who wants to come to America to work hard and provide for their families, but not on my involuntarily coerced dime.

January 11, 2004, 09:00 AM
People worry that a welfare state and open borders cannot survive. While this is true, it is important to realize that Libertarians generally want to ditch welfare as well.

Open borders would never actually happen under the LP, but it would be a lot easier to officially get in.

La Pistoletta
January 11, 2004, 09:18 AM
"Ah, I think I'll go that way instead..."

January 11, 2004, 12:57 PM
There is no point in talking about "open borders" unless Americans are going to be given equal access to other countries for economic exploration and development. I don't mean Halliburton and GE. I mean small businesses that can expect cooperation, acceptance, and the protection of civil laws.

I really hope Bush returns from Mexico City with more than just give-aways intended to mesmerize American Latinos who might be persuaded to "go Bush" in November.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush to Seek Immigrant Benefit Protection" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!