Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts

Social Security Changes: HOAX

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

Fwd: Fw: SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES(Glen what do you think of this is it a type of a scam?)

Yes it is:

This email has been circulating before Obama was elected president. Originally it contained Bush's name and Obama has now been substituted for Bush. It originated in

2006 in regards to a confusing parliamentary occurrence that happens when a motion [in this case a senate bill] has a motion to amend attached. People who vote for or against an amendment might vote the opposite on the final amendment dependent on whether the amendment passed or failed. Its not uncommon for them to be characterized as voting just the opposite of how they actually voted. It's also not uncommon for them to unintentionally vote the opposite of what they intended. Amendments can confuse the entire issue as anyone who has dealt with parliamentary processes [Union, board, legislative meetings etc.] can tell you.
The original 2006 email mischaracterized the Senate Bill at issue and listed the vote from the amendment to the bill as the vote for the actual bill since that vote tended to be more damming for Democrats. The email further muddied the water by intentionally describing the actual bill as a vote for something other than what the bill was about. The amendment was actually a motion to PREVENT former illegal immigrants from obtaining access to social security payments they had made into social security through fake social security numbers. That amendment failed and that amendment would have actually stopped what the original [and current] 2006 email is claiming congress was trying to do. So during the Bush administration the idea of the 2006 email was to taint the democratic senators who actually voted to prevent what the original email claims to be trying to prevent. The list of senators where dropped as was Bush's name and just Obama is listed now as the purpose of the current email versions intent is to misrepresent him alone and to promote xenophobia.

To see a more current example of how motions and amendments can confuse things click here. [warning it gets even more confusing] The same thing is being practiced in Republican 'ROBO calls' in an attempt to make it appear that democrats are supporting raising the debt limit while opposing spending cuts. [p.s. they aren't but I do.]

To me, the amazing thing about the whole hard core anti-immigration group and the social security is broke group is they are bumping heads in regards to solving their particular grievances. In 2005 [the last year available] it is believed that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers paid 5 BILLION DOLLARS into social security. This is money they will never get and it represents a plus for the SS trust fund. A minority use fake ss numbers yet they accounted for that much in 2005? Imagine if we legalized even less than half of the illegal's in this country. Since a majority of illegal immigrants get paid under the table and therefore do not pay either income taxes or social security payments imagine how much tax revenue and ss payments are being avoided. Legalizing even a portion of those illegal immigrants, forcing their employees to properly collect those revenues, could be a great boost to both social;l security trust fund and tax revenues. Take it a step further and think what it would do for the unemployment insurance funds if those employers paid premiums for employees that they now avoid by hiring illegal's and paying them under the table.

naturally I've oversimplified the issue, and obviously I have a slanted point of view on the issue, but if Republicans would occasionally drop the 'hard core, take no prisoner approach' to problem solving and look for solutions we might actually see bipartisan solutions instead of reoccurring long term campaign slogans [hot button issues: abortion, immigration, regulations, gay marriage, etc.,]. Identifying the problems is not the same as solving it, we can usually agree on the problem, the problem's solution is seldom obtainable by advocating an extreme or unbending position, compromise moves us closer to a final resolution while unbending stances just guarantees that the problem will continue to exist and therefore the political benefits of always having a hot button issue to whip out every four years.

GlennDL

Related links:

The above was in response to the following e-mail:

----- Original Message -----REMEMBER THIS IS A HOAX-----
From:
To: Glenn Littrell
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES(Glen what do you think of this is it a type of a scam?)
SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?
As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow 'illegal' aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Instructions are below. If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names.
If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.
Thank you!
To add your name, click on 'forward'.. Address it to all of your email correspondents, add your name to the list and send it on.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When the petition hits 1,500, it is up to you to send it to< REFERENCE DELETED gdl else, it will not be sent.
PETITION for President Obama:
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a pre-requisite for social services in the United States .
1. Mary PETITIONERS DELETED gdl

If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names.
If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.
Thank you! Just think every time that the list hits 1,500 in all the forwarded
e-mails, this petition will be sent not just by a thousand petitioners, but rather
THOUSANDS of petitioners!
To add your name, click on 'forward'.
Add your name to the bottom of the list, then
Address it to all of your email correspondents and send..
________________________________________

Missouri Law On Illegals: EXPLANATION

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

While I have not researched the Missouri Law or the references in the article mentioned I will point out that, as the information is presented in this email, there are several differences in the two laws that might explain why one was acceptable and one not. I am sure there are more differences but two primary differences are:

the Arizona Law puts police officers in in the position of having to enforce provisions of the law that could lead to 'profiling'. In spite of the claims that the law specifically states profiling is not allowed there is language and instructions that does not clarify how the law is to be carried out without profiling. The Arizona produced training video for law enforcement, available online, is even more ambiguous in its instructions.
The Missouri law instructs the verification of immigration status for "any person arrested" the Arizona law says any person suspected, but does not explain 'suspected' in a unambiguous manner. To check the status of someone arrested and someone walking down the street is two significantly different things. One makes since but the other belongs in Russia when it was communist, or the south during slavery.

In the case of the Arizona law the end result will be that more legal immigrants, native born citizens, and African-Americans in Arizona will be profiled than illegal immigrants.
GlennDL see more
The above was in response to the following e-mail:

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: FW: Missouri law on illegals

Missouri set the bar!
SO WHY IS EVERYBODY SO UPSET ABOUT ARIZONA???
Simple solutions to not so complex problems!
The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done.
They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voted in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English. We need to take a lesson from that!
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. (Laws that the federal government is NOT enforcing!!)
The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET. In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly
awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of
Missouri taxpayers! Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010.
Missouri Ahead of the Game in Dealing with Illegal Immigrants
PLEASE PASS THIS AROUND - MISSOURI DID NOT GET "BASHED" FOR THEIR LAW, SO WHY IS ARIZONA????

Born and Raised…this is so wrong!!! : HOAX

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

Once again this one is a hoax. It is a variation on a chain mail hoax that originated in Canada in 2004. Referring to Canadian pensioners and immigrants/refugees. The chain mail has appeared with Australia substituted for Canada and now with America substituted for Canada/Australia. It is meant to do one thing, stir up anti immigrant fear and hatred.
Refuges are different from immigrants in that they are legal and are allowed to stay on the basis of fleeing some form of persecution or oppression. They might receive a short term stipend but it is not just a matter of raising their hand and saying I'm a refugee. They eventually have to prove their status or be deported. The so-called monthly income of $2,470 for a refugee comes from [in Canada] a ONE TIME payment of $1,890 and a $580 a month stipend until they find work. A pensioner in Canada receives $1,012 a month, long term, so as you can see the refugee doesn't make more a month than the Canadian Pensioner

"Aid to needy refugees in the U.S. is much less and is generally limited to eight months. Unlike Canada, the U.S. government doesn't pay aid directly, but instead gives grants to states for refugee resettlement. In California, for example, the maximum cash payment to a single refugee is $359 per month, according to the state Refugee Programs Bureau. Refugee families with children can qualify for welfare under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and maximum levels vary widely by state. In California, one of the more generous states, the maximum for a family of three is currently $723 per month."
-Brooks Jackson

As far as the 'anchor mom' and other claims these are usually based in little fact, or exaggerated fact that tend to rely on and further fan already stereotyped notions about immigrants of color, legal and illegal.
In regards to the Vets remarks about his financial problems I cannot comment as he doesn't provide any real details, all his references to amounts are based on comparisons he makes to figures related to anchor moms and refugee payments. Most Vets will relate their disabilities in terms of being 20%, or 40% etc., but he doesn't. I am sure however that there are many valid issues related to disabled Veterans and the rules they have to follow, but the fact that his complaints are being tied to the disinformation about immigrants and refugees makes me question whether the plight of disabled veterans is just being used as a ploy here, to further our hostilities toward immigrants and refugees. Mixing the two issues will only stir up emotions, any attempt to deal with the two problems as they relate to each other would be unproductive because they are unrelated. [Another point to, if he is part of the original Canadian version I don't believe Canada was in Vietnam? Need to check with Sarah Palin on this?]

There is an immigration problem, it needs to be fixed, but injecting fear, hatred, stereotypes, half truths and lies into the debate only pushes us further from a solution. Trying to push each others buttons with these tactics does not get us closer to a solution it pushes us further apart as for each person we convince with a lie we lose another person who recognizes that it is a lie.

Here is the reference link for more on this at TruthOrFiction.com : http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/refugees.htm
and Snopes.com : http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/refugees.asp
Here are links to three related articles at FactCheck.org :

The above was written in response to the following chain e-mail:

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM
Subject: FW: ALMOST DIDN'T READ THIS. GLAD I DID

Please read the whole thing

Born and Raised…this is so wrong!!!

My name is d'Lynn. I'm a disabled Vietnam vet. [Picture removed] I don't look too bad for a beat-up old fart, do I? And that's my ride.   She's looking pretty good also, especially when you consider that she'll turn twenty this summer. That's right, it's a 1990 with a 1990 sidecar. I can't ride a solo bike, ergo the sidecar rig. It's my sole means of transportation - rain or shine, snow or wind, and this summer also marks a milestone in both of our lives, as I will finally be able to pay her off. Twenty years old? What?   Why did it take so long? You weren't paying attention, were you? It's right at the beginning of this paragraph.
I am a disabled vet, which means I receive a veterans administration disability pension, which also means "I'm broke!" Just one step ahead of being homeless every month, and that's not an idle statement or an "Oh, woe is me" dire complaint. There’s a point to this, so hang in there a minute or two and read on.
There's a 25-year-old illegal immigrant woman living in Florida , with eight kids. Yes, eight "anchor babies" and she receives just shy of $1,500 per month per kid, plus medical, plus food stamps.
Oh, wait. I've been informed that I shouldn't call them Food Stamps anymore. That's not PC. It's all called “Social Assistance” now. You do the math on that yourself.   I'd say that she was schooled early in how to make it in the system. Twenty-five years old, eight kids . . . . . yep, she started early.
You can whip out the calculator if you want, but this woman, who never has paid a dime in taxes of any kind, (and still doesn't – she's 'illegal,' remember?) is here in this country illegally. She hasn’t paid out one cent in medical for all the “anchor babies,” makes more in one month, legally, than I receive in over a year and a half in disability payments and I can't even get food stamps! Oops, I mean “Social Assistance.”
Technically I am eligible for “Social Assistance.” I was told it would be a walk through – a gimme – being disabled. No problem, and in the very next breath I was also informed that under the law the amount I received in “Social Assistance” would be deducted from my disability pension. Let's say I take a great photograph. It was just luck, a one of a kind accident, in the right place at the right time shot. My local newspaper offers me fifty bucks to use the photo in a featured story. (I live in a small town and fifty bucks is all they could afford.)   I have to report that fifty dollars to the VA as earned income, which will immediately be deducted from my next month’s disability check. If I don't report it I’m in violation of federal law and technically they can stop my disability pension and prosecute me under a federal felony. Pretty cool, eh? For fifty bucks.
I see no point in dealing with two federal bureaucracies, so I don't bother. What's the point?
She's here illegally and with just one kid would make over twice what I receive per month. She has eight and she’s not a stand-out case.   She’s not alone. That's the way the system works. Millions of illegal immigrants know this, know how the system works and know how to use it. (Haven't you seen the pamphlet? It's handed out all along our borders, "The Illegal Immigrants' Guide to Keeping America Just The Way It Is.") and that's just the way it works.
Did you know that the federal government provides a “refugee” in this country with a monthly “stipend” of $1,890, plus $580 a month in “Social Assistance?” That’s $2,470 a month, tax-free. That's two and a half times what I’m allowed to receive as a disabled vet. And just what did they do to earn this? All you have to do is show up on our collective doorstep, raise your right hand and swear that you're a refugee and, bingo, receive $30,000 a year, tax-free. That's more than someone making $15 an hour, and they have to pay taxes to boot!
Now, in defense of the Veterans Administration, they are doing what they can with what they've got. This is precious little compared to what they should have to get the job done. At least this country has a VA.
It's the Senate that keeps passing laws, rules and guidelines, cutting their budget, denying requests for more staff and computer systems to handle the massive work flow. Their hands are tied by the very government that's supposed to give them what they need to get the job done, by the government you voted into office.   Don't scream at the VA. I have.   It's misguided anger. The point to this “story?” Just why are you paying such high taxes to support this incredibly screwed-up government? Why?   And I’m not proposing you stop paying your taxes. That's wrong. There are good programs and reasons to pay your taxes and support our government.
What am I proposing? It's quite simple.   Vote.
The government, our government, is broken and we as the voters serve as the maintenance crew.   We fix it . . . . . by voting. If your state Senator has been in office more than two terms, vote 'em out at the next election.   If your state representative has been in office more than two terms, vote 'em out of office. We put term limits on just about every publicly-elected official in the country except the House and Senate.
Why?   Believe me, they know this and love it!   Ahhh - the power!
I don't care how much you believe your Senator or Representative is doing a good job.   They're not! Look at the government you have....that we have. How can you state they are doing what you want as the voter that put them there? How?
Vote them out of office. Do it. Change the course of this country's history by what you are granted and guaranteed under the law.   Vote! And if you have the guts, the anger, the outrage, start a petition in your state for a state-wide initiative to be placed on your next state ballot. Limiting the terms of office for your state senators and state representatives to your federal government to two terms.
The federal government will never pass such a law, but you can. You can get it done.   You can force it. You can make it a law.
This is the first step in “getting it right.” Just vote. It's simple.   It's easy, dammit!
This first step will send a very clear message. It’ll work.   It’ill put “us” back in control of “them.”   As it should be. As it was intended in the first place.
Are you an American?   Born and raised? Then vote!
Side note: I sent this e-mail to a little over one hundred on my e-mail list.   If you believe I’m wrong or misguided or you simply don't agree, that's fine. Go right ahead and delete this e-mail. No problem. Sorry to have bothered you.   But if you think I just might have a worthwhile idea, something we can easily accomplish, something that could be a small part at getting this country back under “our” control, then please pass this along.

Additional Notes:

Our Immigration Problem
Profiling Is Not A Benign Event
I'm A Legal Citizen

I’m a Legal Citizen and I must Show My ID When… : FAULTY PRIMUS

by Glenn Littrell
(archived from www.glennlittrell.org)

All of these examples are OPTIONAL! In other words you show the Police officer your ID as part of the agreement you made when you obtained your drivers license. A drivers license is a privilege, not a right. But even in that case you only have to show it when you are pulled over for an infraction, not because of your color, nationality or the way you look, hopefully.
With the exception of the signing for drugs all the other examples are things you choose to do and the requirements are not law, they are established by those businesses. If you don't want to show your ID to your doctor then don't, change doctors. You can't be arrested for it. And surely you won't be detained because you left your ID at home.
In the case of the pharmaceuticals it is because you are obtaining a controlled substance, not just walking down the street.
There is a difference between these examples and the Arizona law, more legal immigrants and citizens will be stopped because of this law than illegal's.This law does nothing [new] to control our borders or stop illegal immigration. It is meant to, or at least will result in, the targeting of non-whites in general.

The above is in response to the following e-mail:

----- Original Message -----
I'm a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment. 4. When filling out a credit card or loan application. 5. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.   6. When applying for any kind of insurance.    7. When filling out college applications. 8. When donating blood.9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially
        if I'm out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day!
Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt!!!!!
Why shouldn't we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?
                               Go ARIZONA !!!