Bush and his cronies are out to destroy our country (and others, too!) in pursuit of his "One World Order." This is part of a huge fascist plot to undermine democracies - including our constitutional republic.

For those who think this is extremist, take a look at a former thread about the NAFTA Superhighway.

And to those who continue to wave the flag patriotically, however thoughtlessly, don't think It Can't Happen Here. Don't think "This can't be happening!" It can, and is.

Maybe, finally, the immigration issue will cause our neighbors on the other side of the aisle to take time to look at the issues, not as right vs. left, but rather as right vs. wrong, even as Pat Buchanan writes "His" (Bush's) "refusal to defend and secure the borders is well-nigh impeachable....Time to lock and load."

Opponents of the Immigration Act are gathering in a March for America and are petitioning in accordance with Jefferson's Manual.

The mainstream media consolidation has meant a uniformity of content and message. That's consistent with the sixth characteristic of fascism, controlled mass media.

Bush's support for the immigration bill illuminates (an accurate pun, intended) a carefully contrived, incrementally segmented, well-dispersed series of actions leading toward the ultimate goal of globalization. Fragment the picture into enough small pieces, enough incremental legislation, and it will go undetected - until it is too late, and accomplished.

The immigration bill is one piece of that picture. The bigger picture is the merger of the North American continent into one trading block: one currency, diminished if not obliterated national sovereignty, etc.

As always, the key question is: "Who benefits? Who pays?" To answer that question, take a look at just one impact of this "immigration bill."

"In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

This law applies to aliens of all nationalities, regardless of the existence of totalization agreements. The agreements compound the problem, however, by increasing the pool of foreign workers who can qualify for U.S. social security benefits on the basis of work performed while here illegally. Under totalization agreements:

• Foreign workers can qualify with as few as 6 quarters of work, rather than 40 quarters (benefits would be prorated to reflect only credits earned in the United States); and
• More family members of workers are entitled to benefits, because the agreement waives rules that restrict certain payments to non-citizen dependents living outside the United States. Under current law, non-citizen spouses and children must have lived in the United States for at least five years (lawfully or unlawfully), and the family relationship to the worker must have existed during that time in order for them to receive benefits while outside the United States. A totalization agreement overrides this requirement."

Notice that a foreign worker (another possible euphemism for "illegal immigrant") may qualify for social security benefits after as little as 6 quarters? While American citizens don't qualify until 40 quarters?

But there's more, to just this one aspect of the proposed immigration bill. There's the law of unintended consequences.

"For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of US coverage.

But Mexico's retirement system is radically different from that of the United States. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the US system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest."

Care to venture a guess what the outcomes of the law of unintended consequences will be?

The impact of the proposed law becomes even more interesting (and twisted) when one considers just two more factors: 1) there's been no comprehensive study - read that "guesstimate" - of the potential cumulative financial ramifications of the economic impacts, and therefore, the impact on the American taxpayer is unknown, and 2) it appears the government is (again, or still, depending on your perspective or disillusionment) "cooking the books." According to a Congressional Research Study done by the Library of Congress:

"Currently, since Mexico meets the “social insurance country” definition, a Mexican worker may receive U.S. Social Security benefits outside the United States. Family members of the Mexican worker must have lived in the United States for at least five years to receive benefits in Mexico, but typically under a totalization agreement, this requirement is waived allowing the payment of benefits to alien dependents and survivors who have never lived in the United States.

The Social Security Administration reports that the projected cost of the agreement would average $105 million annually over the first five years. In September 2003, the Government Accountability Office reported that “the cost of a totalization agreement with Mexico is highly uncertain” because of the large number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico estimated to be living in the United States."

So, we are to believe although we don't accurately known the number of illegal immigrants in the country, we can reasonably estimate the the cost to provide them social security benefits? Is it credible to think that $105 million annually will cover the social security benefit costs without knowing the number of illegals in the country, let alone their ages? This sounds like crystal ball calculating!

This is precisely the reason that the immigration bill - which will give amnesty to lawbreakers - is a hot button issue. It is not an accident that we see thousands of illegal aliens in the streets demonstrating - often waving their homeland countries' flags - openly demanding amnesty for their illegal entry into the country. They know that they are cheap labor to the corporate interests - "Who will pick your tomatoes?" - and they know that they have a quasi-protection in the current corporate-controlled political environment. And the government is happy to collect their tax receipts, often under falsified social security numbers and names, and sequester the funds. According to the CRS report:

"The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains an “earnings suspense file” that represents an estimated $520 billion in wages that cannot be posted to individual work records because the names and Social Security Numbers (SSNs) on wage reports submitted by employers to SSA (W-2 forms) do not match SSA’s records.7"

Experience has taught illegal immigrants that they can cross the border and have a better life (albeit exploited) in the states than in their own countries, where their governments are too corrupt to support and reward the economic development of individuals - or shrewd enough to negotiate favorable agreements.

There are a whole range of actions that could be taken to work toward eliminating illegal immigration if we have the political will to do so, but, instead, the politicians would rather grab the money and keep their corporate benefactors quiet; it props up the government's fiscal picture.

Never mind the taxpayers who will pay the tab for increased eligibility to social security - or the whole range of other social services, such as health, education, corrections, police and fire, etc.

This is a complex problem (I've omitted numerous other complicating considerations and factors, like "anchor babies," children born in the US of illegal immigrants) that the politicians want to simplify and dispense with through amnesty, unintended consequences be damned. But that's not the only answer, is it?

The best "amnesty" program is economic development in their own countries, where they can live with and support their own families and communities.

###

For an overview of the S.1348, the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, see: http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/i/BushImmiReform.htm