I am in the wrong profession! I have my 'day job', which pays decently and I do this writing stuff for free as of right now. I have a savings program for my retirement because I'm quite aware that Social Security will not be much when I retire; if it is even there at all.

But, thanks to Mexico's greatest President, President Bush, I could have a retirement plan without the hassle of doing it legally. Jeff Johnson, a Senior Staff Writer for Cybercast News Service writes:

Illegal aliens who work under borrowed, stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers could collect retirement benefits based on their illegal earnings as the result of a Bush administration plan. Critics charge the federal government has grossly underestimated the cost of the proposal, which they believe could run be billions of dollars per year. - CNSnews.com December 8, 2005.

[emhpasis added]

The fed has, "grossly underestimated the cost of the proposal?" How about the federal government has forgotten that such a proposal would be a complete disregard for the law and a complete disregard for us Americans and legal residents of this country? How can anyone, especially a president, justify such a plan?

While members have not been able to reach agreement on the details of a temporary or "guest worker" program advocated by President Bush, the White House might use the legislative opportunity to seek approval for an International Social Security Agreement with Mexico, something it has wanted for more than two years.

Since when did the United States Constitution give any protections to Mexico? Since when did the Oath of Office state anything about taking care of Mexico in any way? Lastly, what right does President Bush have to push such an agreement?

Just where do President Bush's loyalties lie? One would have to wonder with a plan such as this.

Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Cybercast News Service that the arrangements, usually called "totalization agreements," with industrialized countries like Canada, the United Kingdom and even France are beneficial. But those benefits, he argued, would not come from an agreement with Mexico.

"The point to a totalization agreement is for two advanced countries that occasionally send corporate transferees from one country to the next for a two or three year stint to be able to reconcile their respective retirement systems," Kirkorian said. "It's not for a third world country that sends millions of peasants into a developed country to take advantage of; there's a complete mismatch, an imbalance.

So, is this plan just to help re-distribute the wealth? I mean, we are all at fault for being a wealthier nation than Mexico.

Totalization agreements work if they mutually benefit both nations. What would be our benefit to give away Social Security to a nation with nothing to give in return?

Copyright 2005 - John St. Michael