|
2007
Congress Should Stop
the Totalization program.
January
2007
The idea of giving
(READ)
illegal aliens from Mexico Social Security benefits is not necessary from any
perspective, and at this point we believe it is distracting and irresponsible.
Mexico's new President has indicated his
willingness to admit publicly that Mexico has education and economic problems
which is the primary source of America's illegal immigration problem, and the
Mexican president has stated that the Mexican government will work on improving those
problems.
The idea of "Totalization" sounds somewhat like a double denial
based on guilt, which is not necessary, and the simultaneous need to create a
new issue for the purpose of distraction and delay.
Considering the timing of this idea, it appears
that it might be a political deal wherein this is something it will take for the
Democrats to agree to allowing Private Savings Accounts to be part of the Social
Security Reform debate later.
We say: That is a bad idea! Instead of capitulating, with an idea like that, to the Democrat's empty obstruction,
that is, refusing to debate Social Security Reform while Private Savings
Accounts is on the table, Republicans should stand their ground and force
the Democrats to provide constructive ideas. Then create something that is not
"bipartisan" but simply constructive, forward moving, and economically sound. Conservative Republicans often make this mistake in order to appear
"moderate" or "bipartisan."
That is why LightBookproductions said a
while back; get the demolition of politics out of both of these issues (Social
Security & Immigration Reform) and fix the primary
problems first.
2006
There are many conservative writers
and several legislators whom we read and respect that have
made strong statements we support regarding the issue of immigration.
In this Parallel we will highlight several statements from a selection of writers
whom we trust and believe to understand the
historical context of the immigration issue beyond its contemporary "political" status. LightBookproductions
would like to say once again that our view of this issue is based on
issues of sovereignty and national
security.Amnesty by
any other name. "...the real
issue is not how feasible it is to round up and deport 12 million
illegals. The real issue is how you prevent 12 million from becoming
tens of millions more by allowing amnesty.
There were only about 3 million illegal aliens when an amnesty bill
was passed 20 years ago, leading that number to quadruple. Do we
want today's 12 million illegals to quadruple?"
Dr. Thomas
Sowell: The Hoover Institute
The Pence Plan is basically an
end run around the problem with a paid vacation added on. "At the heart of the Pence plan is
amnesty. Illegal aliens here return to Mexico for one week with an
assurance they can come back to their jobs. Down there, they visit
"Ellis Island Centers" to register as "guest workers" and return
with "work permits." The illegal are made legal and put on a path to
citizenship...Why is Pence proposing capitulation at the moment
Americans are looking to the Republican House as their last, best
hope to kill the Senate amnesty, end the "guest-worker" scam and get
control of America's borders before we lose our country?
Answer: The forces in Washington
pushing for an amnesty deal, by whatever name, are immense -- the
White House, the ethnic lobbies, the Big Media, mainstream churches,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the "conservative" front groups and
foundations they finance, and corporate contributors to congressmen
who fear law enforcement. Then there is a Democratic Party that
voted 10-to-one in the Senate for amnesty, as it looks to legalized
aliens as future voters to bury the conservative cause forever in
this city.
Anyone who thinks the establishment has given up because it has lost
the country does not know it. Behind closed doors, deals are even
now being discussed for a "compromise" bill that will give GOP
congressmen cover for selling out the cause for which they bravely
voted in December.
Patrick J. Buchanan: The American Cause
The Kennedy-McCain,
795-page bill is just a gargantuan regressive investment into the
problem, not the solution "...this Kennedy-McCain (aka Hagel-Martinez)
bill might be the worst and the most expensive bill ever passed by
the Senate...The bill gives these temporary workers some
preferential rights that U.S. workers do not have. These new
temporary workers can't be fired from their jobs except for "just
cause," they must be paid the prevailing wage, and they can't be
arrested for other civil immigration offenses if they are stopped
for traffic violations. The bill assures the preference of
in-state college tuition (something that is denied to U.S. citizens
in 49 states), and certain types of college financial assistance
will be available to illegals at the state's option. As minorities,
they might even get affirmative action preferences in jobs,
government contracts, and college admissions."
"After the so-called temporary workers
and their spouses become citizens, they can bring in their parents
as permanent residents on the path to citizenship. Although the
parents have never paid into Social Security, they will be eligible
for Supplemental Security Income benefits, and in 46 states they
will be eligible for full Medicaid benefits after five years.
Siblings and adult children (and their families) will be given
preference in future admissions. Estimates of the cost to the
taxpayers of this gargantuan expansion of the welfare state are at
least $50 billion a year over the long term. U.S. taxpayers will pay
for entitlements to these tens of millions of low-income families,
including Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income,
Earned Income Tax Credit (cash handouts of up to $4,400 a year to
low-wage households), public schooling and lunches, the WIC program,
food stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families.
Kennedy and McCain's "temporary guest workers" would give America a
future like France, which is staggering under the weight of
multicultural guest workers who never went home and bloated
taxpayer-funded welfare entitlements."
Phyllis Schlafly: the
Eagle Forum.
|
We believe America needs a stronger and more aggressive border
control regime now.
We believe the current proposal from the U.S. House of Representatives to build
700 miles of fence (a real fence like in Israel) along the Mexican border would
improve operational control of the border.
The issue of border control should be a first priority, as well as a separate
the issue from the guest worker/amnesty issues, which are equally in need of immediate
and comprehensive reform.
We support both the REAL Act and the CLEAR Act.
We believe that thoroughly securing the border first, would then make the citizenship
and guest worker problems easier to reconcile.
We also believe that Mexico is not doing enough to create more economic and educational opportunities
for her own people.
from LightBookproductions
2005
Political Stand
Excerpt from a letter to
Senator Elizabeth Dole:
Chairman: Republican Senatorial
Leadership Committee...September, 2005...Regarding
what issues the Republican Senate majority should focus on in 2006.
3. Reforming Immigration laws ASAP and much tighter border control…
I like the HR idea of a 700-mile real fence because I believe it is practical and it
would improve and facilitate operational control of the border.
Immigration reform based on enforced citizenship rather than being based
on a political concept of “diversity” because good citizenship criteria
should have never been replaced with “political standards” of diversity,
which is how it appears this item has been wrongly approached for a long
time.
For example, the reality of racial equality regarding education has been
bastardized by the liberals through the political evolution of
affirmative action.
I believe going back to the baseline of citizenship, and then perhaps many
of the more obvious economic problems created by mishandling the
illegal immigration-guest-worker programs can begin to be reversed.
Meaningful diversity will follow when citizenship criteria are maintained
first.
|
|
2007
Congress should stop the
Totalization program.
January
2007
Phyllis
Schlafly:
The Eagle Forum
Posted:HumanEventsOnline
1/15/07
Totalization is the
bureaucratic buzzword for the plan to put millions of illegal Mexican
workers into the U.S. Social Security system. They would collect U.S.
benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social
Security numbers plus alleged earnings in Mexico.
President Bush's secret plan for
Social Security has just been released to the public in response to a
Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by TREA Senior Citizens League, a
million-member seniors advocacy group.
U.S. citizens must work 10 years to
be eligible for Social Security benefits, but the totalization
agreement would allow Mexicans to qualify with only 18 months of work
in the United States, and pretend to make up the difference by
assuming work in Mexico. It is highly doubtful that the illegal
immigrants ever paid into a Mexican system for eight and a half years.
It could be "virtual" work or "virtual" payments (just like the
"virtual" fence proposed for the U.S.-Mexico border, or the "virtual"
law that promised to build one).
Mexican retirement benefits are not
remotely equal to U.S. benefits. U.S. citizens receive benefits after
working for 10 years, but Mexicans have to work 24 years before
receiving benefits.
The Bush totalization plan would put
millions of Mexicans onto the rolls of the U.S. Social Security system
just as the baby boom generation retires. The White House won't deny
that imposing higher taxes on U.S. workers is "on the table" to deal
with the expected shortfall.
The Bush Totalization plan would lure
even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hope of
amnesty and eligibility for Social Security benefits for themselves,
as well as for their spouses and dependents who may never have lived
in the United States.
Americans should raise a mighty
clamor to demand that President Bush NOT sign this billion-dollar
rip-off of American taxpayers and senior citizens. Meanwhile, tell
your Congressional representative to hurry up and pass the Ensign
bill. |
Tom
Fenny:
U.S. House of Representatives-Florida
Posted:HumanEventsOnline
1/18/07
The U.S.-Mexico
Social Security Totalization Agreement currently being drafted by the
Social Security Administration is not far from implementation. After
the current agreement is finalized, approved by the State Department,
and signed by the President, Congress will have 60 days to pass a
resolution of disapproval of the agreement. If Congress does not
disapprove, it will automatically go into effect. Though the stated
aim of the totalization agreement is to coordinate the Social Security
programs of both countries to our mutual benefit, the actual
advantages clearly lie in Mexico's favor.
If the
totalization agreement is allowed to go into effect through
congressional inaction, the Social Security Administration says
that 50,000 additional Mexicans would qualify for Social Security
benefits in the first five years at a total estimated cost of $525
million. This number would not include family members waived in or the
millions of illegal immigrants who may be granted amnesty. In that
same time period, they stated that the agreement would only save U.S.
workers and their employers $140 million, or an average of $28 million
a year. Our existing 20 totalization agreements average savings of,
per country, $40 million a year. Not only are the costs of this
agreement almost four times the savings, it saves us $10 million less
than the average agreement.
This totalization
agreement would impose considerable additional costs on a U.S. Social
Security system already over-burdened and scheduled for insolvency by
2040, and it would encourage further illegal immigration by
low-skilled Mexicans who consume more in entitlements than they pay in
taxes.
Though Congress has
never before voted to disapprove of a totalization agreement, this
agreement with Mexico represents a drastic departure from comparable
programs with other countries: it affects a far greater number of
people, it involves more significant costs while conferring fewer
benefits, and it provides incentives for further illegal immigration—a
problem unique to our neighbor to the south. If the President signs
this agreement and sends it to Congress to review, I hope that my
colleagues will put serious thought to where the benefits of this
agreement lie, and I think they will find that the answer is not in
the United States. |
2006
October 26, 2006
Today (October 6) the
President signed the Homeland Security Bill, which originated in the House of
Representatives, that contains a requirement that Congress fund the 700-mile
real fence along
the Mexican border. It was reported
today that the $1.2 billion appropriation is only about one-third of what
fence construction will cost, and the final decision as to precisely how many
miles of fence it will take to secure the border will not be made until
December by Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security.
Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania.
|
The ACLU needs to get out of
the way.
Hazeltown: Illegal Immigration
Relief Act passed 4-1 by the City Council.
The ACLU says in its lawsuit
against Hazeltown that the law is "illegal" or "unconstitutional"
because only the federal government can enforce immigration policy.
But the Hazeltown city council is
not "enforcing" any federal immigration policy. The city
council is creating a law that empowers local landlords to
make a choice. The landlords can rent to illegal aliens and
pay a penalty for harboring someone who is concurrently breaking a
federal law, or they can refuse to rent to illegal aliens.
To paraphrase Pat Buchanan's point
regarding Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's recent action:
Resistance to his common-sense preemptive strike against illegal
activity reveals how ingrained is the "ideological hostility" to any
idea that might halt the flow of illegal aliens into our country.
The key words there are
"ideological hostility." Mr. Buchanan is referring to
what conservative call the amnesty crowd, and specifically to the reaction
from the incoming Democratic Governor of Massachusetts Deval
Patrick, who is calling Romney's action "a bad idea."
Wrong! Romney's action is a
perfectly legal option any Governor in the United States has to
implement at his discretion.
What Mr. Patrick really means is
that he thinks it is a bad idea for a politician who wants Hispanic
votes to make this agreement with the federal government. With the
challenge to keep it operational will be on his watch.
One would not have to be a legal or
constitutional scholar (one would just have to have some common
sense) to see that the federal government intended to avoid
"ordering" individual states to empower local authorities to execute
illegal immigration laws because (at that time) perhaps some
states might not feel the need to deal with illegal alien problems
in that manner. It is clearly set up as an option for state
and local authorities to exercise if they see the need to implement
the federal agreement.
Regarding Hazeltown and to make it
worse for the ACLU, for example, the Hazeltown city council does not
need a federal agreement to create a law that punishes landlords who
are harboring criminals.
If "harboring criminals" is too
harsh a term for the politically correct thinkers, then we will
change that phrase to landlords harboring people who are violating
the law just by being there.
The ACLU lawsuit should have been
thrown out of court before it got there.
Back to Massachusetts: Mr.
Buchanan is right. "What the Romney plan challenges is the
'sanctuary' policy many cities have adopted under pressure from
ethnic lobbies."
When a situation that so obviously
impacts our sovereignty and national security, reaches a point
wherein not to enforce the laws becomes the easy thing to do via
political calculations scurrying around behind double-talk, then one
has to say to hell with the politics...And ask: Why not just fix the
problem?
|
|