Mexicans Getting Social Security, WTF!

Originally posted by Zeratul
In case you didn´t knew, illegal mexicans are also humans. The explotation and opression they suffer in your country plus the workforce they represent would be enough to at least make you think:
"Hey, we are really using them and treating them like crap, at least lets gave them social security, because after all, they are also humans"

The policies and views against mexicans have at their core hatred for the mexican people.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Zeratul]

obviously,you do not live here... So,I would think that disqualifies you on being an expert on our immigration program,or the American opinion...

Now, with that being said, I must say that it's amazing to me that the U.S is expected to have a wide open border policy. How is that fair? How is that just? How is that equal?

quote: Originally posted by Zeratul
In case you didn´t knew, illegal mexicans are also humans. The explotation and opression they suffer in your country...

These immigrants are not ILLEGAL MEXICANS. They are LEGAL MEXICANS who ILLEGALLY force and lie their way into America and VIOLATE American law by their own CHOICE. They are free to return to THEIR OWN COUNTRY of Mexico at any time. Instead, they DECIDE to continue to break U.S. law and live here illegally. As such, they ARE NOT VICTIMS of U.S. law, but instead are PROFITEERS of ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. It is the majority of U.S. citizens that are being oppressed as they are forced to tolerate weak national boarders and convoluded U.S. policy that endangers citizens' right to be protected from harm and unnecessary physical and social liabilities.

Mexicans are oppressed and exploited in MEXICO. Even as illegal felons the US treats MEXICAN CITIZENS far better than MEXICO does. This is why MEXICAN CITIZENS continue to jump our boarders and refuse to use legal channels of immigration. This is why they CHOOSE to stay here despite the "oppression" you speak of.

I don't know what sort of ILLEGAL immigration policy your country has, but are you willing to accept and reward over 20,000,000 new anonymous criminals or "illegal resident visitors who may or may not be following laws while they are here" with money out of YOUR coffers while meanwhile CONTINUING to let more in?

Can your country afford it? Can your social system afford it? Can your legal system afford it? Can your prison system afford it? Can your educational system afford it? And, most importantly, SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED that you take on 20,000,000 people and make your CITIZENS pay for it in a REPUBLIC even if they don't want to?

You see, our government is not supposed to force U.S. citizens to reward countries like Mexico for failing its own people. Why should LEGAL U.S. citizens shower boarder jumpers and stoways with benefits and rights intended for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS from ALL OVER THE WORLD and of course U.S. CITIZENS?

REWARDING illegal immigrants is like refusing to pay the winner of a lottery contest (legal immigrants who respect the U.S.) and then paying everyone with losing tickets (illegal felon immigrants who do not respect U.S. laws by default) just because they bought (or stole) a ticket. It's insane.

If the only restaurant I can afford is horrible, I can't just go eat out of the trash at a better restaurant and steal food out of their kitchen because I can get away with it and then when I get caught expect to get free food and reservations for life from the restaurant's owner or shareholders. It doesn't matter if I mopped the floors after breaking in every night. I WAS BREAKING THE LAW BY BEING THERE.

Illegals are LINE JUMPERS. They are cutting in line instead of waiting like the many law abiding people of the world for what is and rightly should be a priviledge. Even for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, U.S. citizenship is a PRIVILEDGE AND NOT a RIGHT. To remain ILLEGALLY in the U.S. is unfortunately already too easy and that has created a climate of delusional criminal entitlement.

To remain in ANY country ILLEGALLY, the illegal immigrant has do to an incredible amount of dogding and lying to keep from getting caught. That is the fault of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and not the U.S. America is "kind" enough to tolerate them while breaking our laws. And when they get caught, they get an American lawyer for free (paid for by LEGAL CITIZENS) to help them continue to break the law.

And that "opression" that you speak of. What are the chances that thousands of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and those that support such felons would be able to march in parades right by law enforcement agents while flaunting their ILLEGAL status and making outrageous demands to be rewarded for it in any other country BUT AMERICA? France? Italy? Spain? Iran? China? Israel? England? Mexico? Of course not. So why whould America be expected to tolerate anything different?

It's a perverse miscarriage of justice that somehow this could only happen in AMERICA. They'd be shot on sight in numerous other countries or thrown into slave camps.

Here in America it's the LEGAL citizens that are oppressed at the hands of a corrupt administration that allows our safety and national sovereigny to be criminaly neglected and deconstructed.


[edit on 9-1-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Originally posted by Zeratul
In case you didn´t knew, illegal mexicans are also humans. The explotation and opression they suffer in your country ... blah diddy blah blah blah

We get a paper from the S.S. Administration telling us that Ismael's SS# is not valid and to have him contact them.
Ismael is guaranteed $17.50 per hour, he makes 80 hours of straight time and 33 hours of overtime n a two week period.

Ismael belongs to a "Tool Program", so we lease his tools as a percentage of his income. Ttl. Pay= $2266.25 - Tool Prg @ $514.15 == new paycheck at $1677.03 from which payroll taxes are withheld.
Ismael gets the Tool Program check in the amount of $514.15 for which he is responsible for paying taxes, Ismael has never paid taxes on these checks in his life and said if the IRS wants to tax him, he will return to Mexico, he is married with one child and declares five children on his W-4.
This goes on every two weeks, which means that Ismael has around $13,000.00 of yearly income for which he has never paid taxes.

Who is exploiting and oppressing who?

Originally posted by Zeratul
The policies and views against mexicans have at their core hatred for the mexican people.
[edit on 4-1-2007 by Zeratul]

Brought on by the behavior of the mexican people themselves.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
It is against Mexican Law for ANY foreign nationals to be employed in Mexico, that's a fact Jack!

Totalization agreement

There are 3,000 Americans working in Mexico, mostly higher level employees with major corporations.

I stand corrected, the law has changed!

An employer's work force must be at least 90% Mexican, not counting management, officers and directors.

Mexi Law

Nice find on the law. I wasn't sure I'd be able to track down an actual code with my shoddy Spanish, so that's a nice resource you've acquired for us.

I would like to hope that this change in their law represents a movement in the right direction which will expand as their economy recovers from the financial crisis of 1994.

We sometimes forget that a little over a decade ago, Mexico was believed by some to be on the brink of becoming a first world nation. At about 3 pesos to the dollar, the peso was a bit overvalued, but at the time it was hard to imagine the 10+ pesos to the dollar happening anytime soon. The problem is that they started borrowing pesos against dollars as an attractive way to finance debt, which triggered a bank run at the first sign of trouble and made things far worse than their situation really warranted.

Mexico's future isn't all that bad. Their export sector will become more competitive not only in America but elsewhere, creating a demand for educated and experienced upper managers, which will mean eventual reciprocity as Mexican laws have to loosen in order to allow their companies to gain the help they need to compete. As it is their laws don't include managers for a simple reason- they're keeping out South American labor, not American skill. The years we've had to be a forebearing neighbor will pay off when the different situation of Mexico proves the ability to provide an venue for us to work through in difficult times, thus providing a basement to how bad things can get for America.

Of course now I'm really begging the question of what a North American Union would look and operate like, and that's more than I've got the patience for just at this moment, so I'll shut up until there are replies.

We don't owe illegal aliens anything. If they want to be part of the system, then they need to register within the system, iow, legally enter the country.

This pretty much sums up the entire issue. No matter how much work illegal immigrants have done for america, the fact remains they are ILLEGAL. everybody else has gone through the system, it is difficult, but not by any means impossible. Americans are not shunning immigrants, they just need to be FULLY CONTRIBUTING members of society.. there is more to it than hard work.

I have a question for those who say that whatever contributions illegals might make are irrelevant because of their status. This isn't rhetorical; I'm looking for an answer on this. I'd like to see what principles are at work on the other side of this issue.

I would like to preface this question with an explanation of what motivates it though.

I understand that there is in fact a legal principle which might be seen as applicable on your side: the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree"- that one is not entitled to profit from his crimes.

However I note that most cases to which this principle applies do not involve the US government accomodating the crime, as we do with illegal immigration.

I would argue that since the government is party to the crime, which is to say that the government has aided and abetted the offenders both by act and omission through lack of enforcement, through amnesty, through collection of taxes on individuals whos social security numbers don't match up with their W-4 information, etc.

Because of that, I believe that there is an implied superceding contract entered into by both parties with regard to the collected payroll taxes. The government representing the people of the United States has waived the legal contract and practiced a different though unwritten agreement with illegal immigrants.

In this context I offer my question:

You move into a room in another person's home, and sign a rental agreement, but you soon become involved with one another, comingle finances, and no rent is ever exchanged. After two years you break up, and you are suddenly sued for 2 years in back rent. Do you owe the money?

If the answer is no, as I believe most courts would find it to be, then where does the analogy break down so as to permit the position held on the US government's practice of a contract with illegals other than those enshrined in our laws?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
... then where does the analogy break down so as to permit the position held on the US government's practice of a contract with illegals other than those enshrined in our laws?

Because there are people who believe that it is a RACE issue and heaven help us if we should racially offend anyone ...

< sarcasm on> ... except that darn whitey, don't care fer them no how no way, jus' ship 'em all back to wherever. < sarcasm off>

[edit on 13-1-2007 by 2stepsfromtop]

[edit on 13-1-2007 by 2stepsfromtop]

Would somebody please explain to me how illegals can get Social Security without paying into it. All the Illegals at my work get paid cash under the table. Not only do they not pay taxes on their income, obviously they don't have to claim the twenty-five percent of the server's tips they're given either. But us tax paying citizens sure do have to claim and be taxed on our tips. Really fair isn't it?

Qualifying for Social Security has become an incredibly difficult and slow process for American citizens these days. My older Brother has a bone rotting disease that's caused him to have a hip replacement, back, knee and wrist surgery, and still had to hire a Social Security attorney to get what's due him. At fifty-five years old, he's worked his entire life most recently making sixty-thousand a year. But it's going on three years now and he's still being denied benefits. What's wrong with this picture?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'd like to see what principles are at work on the other side of this issue.

Lets say there is a country club. I walk in, pretend to be a member, and donate some money to support the club's annual spaghetti dinner.

It is then found out that I am not a member. I now don't get to go to the dinner.

Same with social security. There is a system in place, and if I want to participate, I am permited to. Illegals choose not to participate, donatives notwithstanding.

Now, you might say, fair enough, so give the donation back.

But they only obtained the money that they 'donated' by fraud in the first place, and aren't therefore entitled to it.

Indeed, extending this, they shouldn't be able to collect pay in the first place.

However I note that most cases to which this principle applies do not involve the US government accomodating the crime, as we do with illegal immigration.

Since when? If the government helped OJ kill his wife, we'd still object to him collecting money on his 'tell all' book.

through collection of taxes on individuals whos social security numbers don't match up with their W-4 information, etc.

They don't permit it, they are simply defrauded of it.

Because of that, I believe that there is an implied superceding contract entered into by both parties with regard to the collected payroll taxes.

Interesting. I don't think any public official would make that arguement, but there does seem to be some sense in it.

You move into a room in another person's home, and sign a rental agreement, but you soon become involved with one another, comingle finances, and no rent is ever exchanged. After two years you break up, and you are suddenly sued for 2 years in back rent. Do you owe the money?

I don't see how the analogy relates. Apologies.
Or are you saying that the illegal and the government are the couple that break up?

dollmonster
Would somebody please explain to me how illegals can get Social Security without paying into it.

THey can't.

That'd be a neat trick though.

All the Illegals at my work get paid cash under the table

And they'll never be able to collect social security.
Many other illegals do pay taxes. They commit fraud, in order to represent themselves as citizens, and because of that, taxes are taken out of their paychecks, like anyone elses. This allows them to collect social security when the time is approriate, so long as they are still successfuly able to defraud the government into thinking that they are legal citizens.

Qualifying for Social Security has become an incredibly difficult and slow process for American citizens these days.

Well, with this new bill, should it pass (and pretending that its even accurately represented in WND, which it probably isn't), your brother only has to work for 18 months before he can collect.
He wouldn't collect much, only about what you'd get after putting into the system for 18 months, but still, he'd get that.

Illegals that don't pay taxes aren't collecting social security. Mexico is not on the verge of merging with the United States. People in Chiapas state will not be voting in the 2008 election.

At fifty-five years old, he's worked his entire life most recently making sixty-thousand a year. But it's going on three years now and he's still being denied benefits. What's wrong with this picture?

The problem is that he's not old enough to collect social security. The bill being slammed in the WND article would make him old enough.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Lets say there is a country club. I walk in, pretend to be a member, and donate some money to support the club's annual spaghetti dinner.

It is then found out that I am not a member. I now don't get to go to the dinner.

Given the premise that the US government has not at any point turned a blind eye to illegal immigration, your analogy is relatively strong.
Unfortunately, the US government has been very much a partner in crime to illegal immigrants, and I think that causes the analogy to break down. If we go with your analogy, the country club has represented in word and in deed something contrary to the fine print; they told their security to stand aside as a man who obviously didn't belong to the club walked right in without signing the guest register, smiled politely and welcomed him, then suddenly decided to start enforcing the rules after they had his money.

So I feel that the core of my question has gone unanswered: is there any reason why the government's active practice of a different contract should not restrain them from suddenly pulling out the written contract, as in the rent analogy I used?

They shouldn't be able to collect pay, but the government enabled them to. It did not merely fail to stop them, but it tollerated the establishment of sanctuary cities- a special case of ignorance to federal law which is best demonstrated by comparing it to what the feds do when state or local governments decide to legalize marijuana. I'm not arguing for illegal immigration or marijuana. There IS a right way to do things, no question about it, and the illegal way isn't it. All I'm saying is that the government has to do things the right way as well. The pot has nothing on the kettle either morally or legally.

Since when? If the government helped OJ kill his wife, we'd still object to him collecting money on his 'tell all' book.

Actually there are a number of books in which people recount crimes they have committed in the service of the government and they are allowed to profit. The reason is quite simple; although it is clearly against the letter of the law it is not regarded as a crime because the government has legitimized it in practice.
This one is about soldiers who obeyed unlawful orders to conduct attacks in a nation the congress never authorized the use of force against.
This one includes an account of purjury. True he was never convicted of a crime, but neither was OJ.
Should I find a bibliography on the Nixon administration? I'm pretty sure so much as signing their names would constitute an offense for some of them.

They don't permit it, they are simply defrauded of it.

Not true. We know that the feds know something is amiss because they notify employers when it comes up, yet they fail to actually move and stop the offense. That's on top of what ordering the national guard to watch them cross the border and not do anything, on top allowing sanctuary cities to operate that policy, etc.

Interesting. I don't think any public official would make that arguement, but there does seem to be some sense in it.

Of course nobody should make the argument. The reason nobody would or should make that argument is because it suggests that the government doesn't have to stop ignoring the law. The government does have to stop ignoring the law, then this argument will no longer apply.

Ultimately the point, in my mind, is not that we have to tollerate illegal immigration, but that we have to find a working policy which ends the problem by allowing legal entry to the extent that is safe for our economy, and then by creating disincentives here and incentives in Mexico (such as applying real pressure to the Mexican government to push them into putting their own house in order) designed to reduce the excess demand for entry to the US.

I don't see how the analogy relates. Apologies.
Or are you saying that the illegal and the government are the couple that break up?

More or less. The breakup is a catalyst not necessarily representing anything.
The point is that you have the authority over the property in question (the government) expelling someone (the immigrant) and having a legal right to money per contract (acknowledging the strength of your argument for keeping the SS money) but possibly having undermined that right by never having practiced the written contract (they undermined the strength of laws against illegal immigration by enabling the violation, and these laws which they undermined are the basis for their claim to the money).

So, the topic of this post was basically as follows:
in 5,000 characters or less, tell pro-border security politicians to either "get in or get out", and state your preference for getting in. I'm windy. Sorry.

Vagabond,

So I feel that the core of my question has gone unanswered: is there any reason why the government's active practice of a different contract should not restrain them from suddenly pulling out the written contract, as in the rent analogy I used?

If I understand the question's wording; YES, THERE IS A REASON TO PULL OUT THE CONTRACT.

In the end, an illegal line-hopper is still an illegal line-hopper no matter how manny times the line has been successfully hopped before. When it's time to oust the line-hoppers, they have to own up to the fact that they are indeed line-hoppers and therefore criminals under the written law.

Analogy: I steal a car. I drive the car to work. I take care of the car filling it with a full tank of gas every day and washing it, etc.

Law enforcement is inefficient when it comes to catching people like me and many stolen cars are never found. This may seem like a "blind eye" agreement as it allows me to drive to work as long as I drive my stolen car. My job may even enhance the community. However...

One day I am caught with the stolen car and arrested. The car is impounded and I am jailed. Now I am not entitled to the gas I put into the car while I used it. The owner of the car does not have to bail me out of jail, drive me to my contributive job, pay me for the full tank of gas, or reimburse me for cleaning supplies. So you see, I was able to make money for myself at work by driving the stolen car and this required gas and maintenance for which I paid, but it in no way made me the owner of the car even if I were to drive it for 1000 years.

In the end, by being sneaky, I made some money and maybe even saved some. To do it, I stole a car and paid maintenance into the car to keep my job. But I will never be entitled to reimbursement for my maintenance cost. Profiting from the use of the stolen car in no way translates into ownership of the car.

Similarly, getting away with the crime of illegal immigration and paying maintenance to hold a job (taxes...if at all) in no way translates into legal citizenship and any entitlements legal citizens may have. Conversely, legal citizen's who break the law by NOT paying taxes due face punishment, but they do not lose their citizenship. The two do not equate. Working doesn't make anyone a citizen. Paying taxes in no way equates with citizenship. Legally, work is connected to taxes. Legally, citizenship is connected to the legal terms of citizenship. There is no "back-door by default" way to citizenship.

I don't know of many crimes whereby getting away with the crime for any period of time somehow means that once caught, I am therefore granted innocence solely on the fact that I was able to get away with the crime. Weak or even negligent law enforcement enabled me to continue driving the car, and they may be legally pursued by the rightful car-owner as well, but that does not affect my non-ownership status. Two wrongs are two wrongs are two wrongs.

It would be like a successful jewel thief that got away with stealing jewels for 30 years and bought a lot of expensive jewel-stealing equipment. And then, when he or she is caught, claiming that they deserved to be let free due to their long running success AND claiming that he or she was entitled to any money spent on the jewel-stealing tools. Local police could even be guilty of allowing me to commit my crimes via indifference or bribes, but the crimes are still crimes when it comes down to the act of jewel thievery and getting away with it doesn't make me innocent.


[edit on 1-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 1-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]