Did you know that an illegal immigrant can, after becoming a legal immigrant, claim work done in the U.S. while they were still “illegal?” I only became aware of this when I saw the following headline from The Washington Times, 5/18/2010:

Illegals granted Social Security

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment — even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.

The following is from Tim Chapman, Director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., before the vote (emphasis mine):

To qualify for full Social Security benefits, a worker must register 10 years of work. Under current law, illegal immigrants who obtain legal status can use their previous illegal work history to apply for Social Security benefits.

A compromise immigration bill pending right now in the U.S. Senate (sponsored by Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Mel Martinez (R-FL)) comes at a time when our nation is facing an enormous crisis on the entitlements front. A recent report moved the year in which Social Security will go broke from 2041 to 2040. Congress cannot afford to keep the promise of Social Security to its own citizens, let alone illegal workers.

To remedy the situation, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has offered an amendment to the pending Senate immigration bill that would reverse this law to ensure that law-breakers are not rewarded for their past work at the expense of immigrants who have waited in line and American citizens.

Of all people, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted against the amendment, saying that it wouldn’t be fair to wipe out the “nest eggs” of currently legal immigrants who have already accumulated benefits from illegal work completed before they were authorized to work in the U.S.

Excuse me? Why should illegal work mean you’re entitled to anything? If you get a job with a stolen Social Security number, you should get jail time, not benefits.

Consider this scenario: a man who is a full U.S. citizen — born here and never a citizen of another country — wants to get a new identity (for whatever reason). He gets a job using a stolen Social Security number and forged and stolen documents. If he is caught, would he be prosecuted?

If the answer is yes, then any illegal alien who obtains work, loans, bank accounts, or any other benefit using the same stolen Social Security number and forged/stolen documents should be prosecuted.

Besides, the legal ramifications are spelled out when you sign forms for work, bank accounts, etc. — that by signing your name, you are attesting to the truth of the information you have provided. Usually, you are also agreeing to abide by the company’s right to fire you and close your accounts if they find that you provided false information, and not to hold the company liable for damages as a result of providing false information.

But back to the bill amendment…

I did some searching, and here’s a good summary of the amendment and vote (the original post is no longer online):

Just a few minutes ago, on the floor of the United States Senate, senators debated an amendment to the McCain immigration bill.

This is not, by itself, profanity-inducing.

But here’s the substance of the debate– Should ILLEGAL immigrants, once made legal by the McCain legislation, be entitled to receive the Social Security benefits they have paid into the system while ILLEGALLY using FRAUDULENT Social Security numbers STOLEN from actual, legal citizens of the United States of America.

The fact that this is even up for debate is just beyond insane. Everyone knows we will never have enough Social Security funds to serve, you know, actual citizens.

Every single one of those senators knows that, and they’re debating whether we should extend such non-existent, unsustainable, budget-busting, generation-saddling benefits to millions of people who fraudulently entered the system by stealing the identities (and sometimes ruining the credit) of legal Americans?!?

Sen. Ensign, God bless him, offered an amendment suggesting illegals should not be eligible for Social Security benefits accrued while illegal.

The U.S. Senate voted to kill that amendment, 50-49.

I can think of no better response to this than this quote written in 1919 by President Theodore Roosevelt:

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. ….There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

In contrast, Massachusetts seems to be following the letter of the law by not allowing illegal immigrants (or the companies who support them) any more leniency than they would American citizens caught in the same felonies. (To compare again, think what would happen if a company was found to knowingly and regularly hire U.S. citizens with false identities and forged papers. Both the individuals and the company would likely face prosecution or penalties.)

From the Boston Globe, 5/27/2010:

With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln’s respect for the rule of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a surprising turn of events, the legislation replaced a narrower bill that was passed Wednesday over the objections of Republicans.

The measure, which passed on a 28-10 vote as an amendment to the budget, would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing.

If there are “federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring,” why is the U.S. Senate voting to reward illegal aliens who got away with it?

I just felt like recording some here for posterity, or at least as long as I maintain this blog.

A commenter named “cdahl” had an idea to keep down the cost of health care and save American jobs at the same time:

Tariff imports, pay for it that way. Tax the goods that were sent overseas that resulted in our people getting laid off, our companies profits being reduced and wages to go down. Bring Fair Trade back (vs Free Trade). As an employer if I have to provide health insurance, it is a cost I have to put into my “widgits” that we manufacture. Chinese “widgets” don’t have that cost. Tariff them, put them on an equal playing field.

A liberal named “66ncounting” said:

….I guess the Dems haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on in the country for the past year. Everybody is blaming everyone else in the Dem camp when they aught to own up to the fact that they are all to blame. Brown took advantage of the huge tactical glich made by the Dems. ….I began to think Obama was going to be a one-term president when last March or April he had the health-insurance fat cats come to the White House for a closed-door meeting. I e-mailed the WH begging him not to cave but I knew he already did. He had already caved when he started that bi-partisan crap. I don’t want this bill that was written by big insurance for big insurance to become law. I am a liberal and I hate this sell-out bill for liberal reasons. Obama wimped out when he wouldn’t kick ass and take names with Congress like Johnson did to get Medicare passed. Oh, by the way, after Medicare was passed it only took eighteen months to get it up and operating—And this was BEFORE computers!

Obama made health-care reform incomprehensible to most of us. We don’t support what we can’t understand. How could he not know this?

“Voter-in-LA” noted:

….In a recent contract negotiation conflict here between Blue Cross and a large hospital, it came to light that out of every $1 BC reimbursed the hospital for, only $0.55 was actually spent on the care of the insured patient. The balance was made up of $0.35 for uninsured/medicare and $0.10 for the hospital’s profit.

I can understand people not wanting the government involved in their healthcare at a provider level, but I really do believe some cost containment needs to be looked at. If things stay unchecked, there will be fewer people who can afford the premium increases that will be necessary.

“m2c2″ thinks Democrats are too nice for their own good:

Ummm… last time I looked, one of the things that “got them elected” was a strong stance in favor of a national healthcare overhaul, including a public option. The Dems have a larger majority in both houses than W ever had, back when he did whatever the hell he wanted. They shouldn’t be afraid to force this issue. It is crucial to the long-term survial of the nation.

“Jim Dettman” thinks that Massachussetts voted in Scott Brown because they already have the health care, and passing a national bill would add “more cost giving them something that they already have.”

“Boston1977″ offered a view from Massachussetts in response to several comments about  his/her state:

I am from Massachusetts and voted for Scott Brown so I must be one of those gullible idiots you are refering too. You ask, “you really think that the GOP has answers?” My question back to you is, what are the Democrats answers? I am sorry, but bribing Senators from Nebraska and Louisiana are not answers. Ramming a bill, that no one has read, down our throats when the polls show it is not supported is not the answer.

….I will not deny that Bush started this TARP mess but I think the blame goes far beyond him and the Republicans as you would like to point out. Have you forgotten Barney Frank and Mr. Dodd? They had a huge part in creating this mess. And don’t just blame the banks and corporations that gave out all of these suspect loans, what about the idiots that took out the loans in the first place?

Bottom Line – Since Obama has become President, the United States government has a majority stake in the Auto Industry, Banking, Finance, …and now they want Healthcare too. This does not sound like the country our Founding Fathers intended. The US government is not supposed to own private sector businesses.

And finally, these three commentors debate on which came first, the chicken or the egg (metaphorically speaking).

Shawn:

Democrats who blame the economic downturn on Bush: Watch this CSPAN clip:

It wasn’t the Republicans that brought on the housing bust and ensuing economic problems. It started with a bill called “The Affordable Housing Act” by Barney Frank. The Federal government pushed banks to “relax” their standard lending criteria so that many more people could get mortgages and buy houses.

As usual, the liberals don’t have a sense of reality. In huge numbers, those people defaulted on their mortgages, which meant the banks owned the houses, which in turn made the housing market crash (ever hear of Supply vs. Demand) and made banks fail

And just if you don’t believe it, here’s CSPAN footage of the hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C40uvoIw0mw
Note that even he mentions the possibility of jobs lost in technology around 1:27. “..And then when people ARE dislocated here, if they lose their jobs in technology or they don’t buy the products any more…”.

Here’s Obama’s viewpoint(s) (which flipflops and you’re believing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppfH5IJ3a0

If you watch the video with Clinton and are old enough to remember, the Dems back then were even saying it would adjust if things got worse for Americans based on what Clinton said. Apparently, for people like you, “adjust” means to blame Bush over a decade later. The same things are being said now with this health care bill. Dems are saying to pass it now and they’ll fix it later if it’s not working. Sorry, but fool me once, shame on me.

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and others contend that because Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage under a state law, the upset victory by GOP state Sen. Scott Brown to take Edward M. Kennedy’s old seat could not be seen as a referendum on the issue.

“Massachusetts has health care. … The rest of the country would like to have that too,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “So we don’t say a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should.”

Hmm… I think Pelosi has completely misread the situation. A state that already has health care would have some valuable input on whether their model should be taken nationwide.

It would be nice if this election prompted the media to investigate the Massachussetts system more closely and see how happy they are with it.

I’m also curious whether Pelosi honestly believes her statement, or if she hopes that by saying it, it will be true.  Does she really think Massachussetts shouldn’t make a statement about nationwide health care, or is she downplaying their relevance because she thinks it woud be negative and hurt the legislation in progress?

I found the attitude of Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., very interesting as well:

“We shouldn’t show the arrogance of not getting the message here,” said liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., contending independents had turned against the bill and the Democratic base had lost its enthusiasm. “I don’t think it would be the worst thing to take a step back” and turn the focus to jobs, in conjunction with scaled-back health care goals.

Contrasting that with Pelosi’s comments, it sounds like there may be some splintering among Democrats.

Update: Scott Brown is holding a press confernce right now. A reporter asked what he would tell Majority Leader Harry Reid about what to do next wih the health care bill. Brown responded that Reid has his own way of doing things and that he wouldn’t tell Reid what to do. However, Brown added that Massachussetts has experience in this area, and he would be able to advise Reid on how to “do it better.”

The bottom of the screen read “State of Global Economy: World Affairs Council.” It was recorded earlier today at The University Club in Washington DC. The Deputy Chief of Mission from the French Embassy was addressing the group, reporting figures and other economic items from his country.

What made me stop and just stare was that as the Deputy Chief was making his report, the camera panned into a wide shot, revealing well-dressed men and women eating lunch on fine china on linen-covered tables, complete with goblets for water, small cups of coffee, and in the center of each table a floral arrangement featuring tigerlilies.

Yeah, I don’t know who all was garhered there, but somehow I don’t think they will take the global economic challenges that seriously. Oh, I’m sure if you asked any one of them directly, they would dispute that. And perhaps the more important stuff is covered at regular meetings.

It’s just that eating good food and feeling satisfied and full tends to make people quite agreeable. Believe me, I’ve been to lunch meetings. There’s a lot of good feeling, not much conflict. People are more content with food in their bellies.