AWCheney’s Forum On Immigration

Social Security Totalization Treaty With Mexico

[UPDATE:  This posting has continued to attract attention, with commenters providing some excellent updated information.  For this reason I have decided to move it to the top of the blog, with my thanks to those individuals who have given it continued relevancy.]

Well, better late than never. I got my computer back from the shop a bit later than I anticipated, but I finally have my act together and am ready to get this out, as promised. I’m afraid that there are no videos this time, but there is volumes of research that I had to wade through to put this post together…and I hope you will all find it at least somewhat enlightening.

Most of you have probably not heard much about the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico or, if you have, most likely you are not fully aware of the nature of it…nor its consequences. In fact, Social Security Totalization Treaties have been around since 1977 and have already been signed with 21 other nations:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/

The presumption in these bilateral treaties is that they are mutually beneficial to the workers of both nations, however, that particular benefit is rather questionable in the case of Totalization with Mexico:

http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/WorkingMexicoChapter10.pdf

“The social security problems in Mexico can be listed briefly: limited coverage in terms of the working population and in relation to the total population in spite of the existence of a law and an institution close to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary. The public systems of social security currently include 50% of the total population and 30% of the economically active population. A historic deficit of health care and maternity insurance hovered over the work risk insurance and retirement funds for almost 50 years. It is on this deficit that the government based part of its argument to justify the privatization of the pension scheme.”

In addition, Mexican Visa and Immigration laws are far more strict than they are in this country, making it highly unlikely that a comparable number of American citizens would be participating in the system, and wages are, of course, considerably lower for the average worker. The alleged “savings” for the “American worker and employer” are also unclear, as I was unable to find the actual text of the Agreement. I suspect that it leans a little heavier on the side of the employer.

The Social Security Trust Fund of the United States has also been the subject of debate for many years because of the dwindling funds available, to the point that benefits have, on occasion, been cut rather than increased to address inflationary factors, much less accruing cost of living increases. Many of our retirees in this country are faced with the monthly choice of whether to buy food or their necessary medical prescriptions. As a matter of fact, estimated dates of trust fund exhaustion change often…and seldom for the better. Now we have another “fly in the ointment.”

Although it is unclear whether the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico has been signed by the President as yet, the SST Agreement with Mexico was signed by the U.S. negotiators in June of 2004. The most detailed information that I found regarding this agreement at Social Security Administration On-Line was very much a PR piece promoting the Treaty, dated June 2004:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/USandMexico.htm

The “Fact Sheet” contained the following quotes which stood out for me:

“An agreement with Mexico would save U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first 5 years of the agreement.”

And

“Social Security actuaries estimate that a totalization agreement with Mexico would have a negligible long-range effect on the Trust Funds.”

“Costs to the U.S. Social Security system are estimated to average about $105 million per year over the first five years. These costs are for additional benefits to eligible U.S. and Mexican workers and reduced Social Security tax contributions under the dual taxation exemption.”

Now this doesn’t sound so bad…until you check out the GAO (General Accountability Office) reports referencing the agreement with Mexico (2003, 2005, 2006).

Highlights of GAO-03-993, a report to congressional requesters, September, 2003, “Social Security Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges”

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d03993high.pdf

…includes the following:

“SSA has no written policies or procedures it follows when entering into totalization agreements, and the actions it took to assess the integrity and compatibility of Mexico’s social security system were limited and neither transparent nor well-documented.”

And…

“The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social security benefits. Mexican workers who ordinarily could not receive social security retirement benefits because they lack the required 40 coverage credits for U.S. earnings could qualify for partial social security benefits with as few as 6 coverage credits. In addition, under the proposed agreement, more family members of covered Mexican workers would become newly entitled because the agreements usually waive rules that prevent payments to noncitizens’ dependents and survivors living outside the United States.”

Again we have a double standard for the illegal aliens and the American (citizen and legal immigrant) worker in proposed government policy.

The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) in 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow sixfold over time. However, this proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. The estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States to work and maintain documentation to claim their earnings under a false identity.

This report was issued by the GAO in 2003, which gave the SSA ample warning during negotiations that their estimates and assumptions were flawed.

The next GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, “Social Security Administration, A More Formal Approach Could Enhance SSA’s Ability to Develop and Manage Totalization Agreements” was issued in February 2005…

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05250.pdf

…sounded only a bit more optimistic, noting that the SSA had made an attempt to improve “policies and procedures for assessing the accuracy and reliability of important information from foreign countries,” it was obviously little more than professional/bureaucratic courtesy. In the section entitled “SSA Is Limited In Its Ability to Verify Individuals’ Initial and Continuing Eligibility for Benefits,” they fly in the face of that optimism in pointing out that the two steps initiated by SSA were insufficient, with the conclusion that…

“Our review identified potential vulnerabilities in SSA’s policies and procedures for verifying individuals’ eligibility for benefits once an agreement is in force. When establishing an individual’s initial eligibility for benefits, the agency generally accepts critical documentation from foreign countries, without independently verifying the accuracy of such information. We also found that SSA’s two primary tools for determining an individual’s continuing eligibility—validation surveys and personal questionnaires—may be insufficient to ensure that only truly eligible individuals receive benefits.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives on March 2, 2006, the GAO representative, as part of the report “SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Procedures for Issuing Numbers and Benefits to the Foreign-Born,” offered the following comment (from the section “Responsibilities for Preventing Abuse of SSNs and Improper Social Security Payments”):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06253t.pdf

The State Department, DHS, SSA, and employers have responsibilities to help ensure that noncitizens who are not authorized to work are denied employment. The State Department identifies who among people abroad seeking to come to the U.S. is eligible to enter the U.S. and who is eligible to work in the U.S. DHS denies entry to people who are ineligible and enforces immigration requirements in cases where people enter the U.S. illegally or work without authorization.”

Of course, this presupposes that the border with Mexico, and the flood of illegal aliens over it, is under control by DHS and the SSA…and that the employers are providing no incentive for them to come. Don’t we wish!

The section of the report, “New Procedures for Awarding Benefits to Non-Citizens Protects Against Abuse and Improve Coordination with Other Countries,” includes the following:

“Under some circumstances, unauthorized workers may receive benefits based on work credits they accrued while working without an immigration status permitting employment in the U.S., with a nonwork SSN or without a valid SSN during their work years. If noncitizens later receive a valid SSN and become eligible to work, they can show SSA their wage records and request credit for earnings from prior unauthorized work.If they establish legal immigration status, they may then receive benefit payments based on the earlier periods of unauthorized work.

You recognize what this means, of course…the “under some circumstances” is amnesty. This would mean that the conservative estimate of 12 million illegal aliens (increasing daily), and their families, may well become eligible for Social Security benefits…retroactively.

Congressional hearings have been held on this, and I managed to find the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border, Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives in 2003 on the question, “Should there be a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico?” The link is as follows:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju89298.000/hju89298_0f.htm

And according to that first document cited here from the Social Security Administration (“United States/Mexico Totalization Agreement,” June 2004), “In the United States, once the agreement is signed, the President will submit the agreement to Congress where it must sit in review for 60 session days. If Congress takes no action during this time, the agreement can move forward.”

The fact is, this is a ruse…unlike other treaties, Congressional Oversight has been deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the case of Totalization Treaties:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46681.pdf

It should be noted that the provision of Section 233(e)(2) that allows for the rejection of a totalization agreement upon adoption of a resolution of disapproval by either House of Congress is an unconstitutional legislative veto.

“Congress has never rejected a totalization agreement. As a result, the fact that the mechanism under Section 233(e)(2) is unconstitutional has not been an issue. Congressional utilization of the mechanism in Section 233(e)(2) to reject a totalization agreement could give rise to a judicial challenge, potentially resulting in an invalidation of the disapproval mechanism and a determination that the agreement is effective. Specifically, in considering the effect of the unconstitutional disapproval mechanism, a reviewing court would consider whether the remainder of Section 233 is valid, or whether the entire statute must be nullified. The Supreme Court has held that “[u]nless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is a fully operative law.”29 In Westcott v. Califano, the court noted that “the existence of a broad severability clause in the Social Security Act reflects the Congressional wish that judicial interpretation of the act leave as much of the statute intact as possible.”30 The existence of this severability clause, coupled with the fact that the operative provisions of Section 233 would remain fully functional absent the disapproval mechanism in Subsection (e)(2), gives rise to the likelihood that a reviewing court would invalidate any attempt to utilize the disapproval mechanism, while giving effect to an otherwise properly executed totalization agreement.”

The Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico bears the power of the rule of law, and a very expensive one at that, yet not ONE individual in the United States of America will have the opportunity to vote upon it, either directly or indirectly through their representatives. It threatens an already dwindling Social Security Trust Fund, and has the potential to wipe it out completely in relatively short order. It may or may not have already been signed by the President of the United States, and that information was not available in my research (I found a number of sites which ASSUMED it had been signed, although they offered no credible sources…news or otherwise). I wonder, under a “North American Union,” how often we might be faced with similar dilemmas whereby we find ourselves no longer in control of our future…or even our present? It is when citizens of a nation grow complacent that they are most likely to lose those things which they hold most dear, such as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I’m sure our Founding Fathers would be proud.


Advertisements

July 11, 2008 11:42 pm - Posted by | Mexico | , , , ,

31 Comments »

  1. I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.

    Comment by Mike Harmon | July 12, 2008 12:38 am | Reply

  2. Wow Anke….I am actually dumbfounded, not so much by what you have posted as I am by the question “what should be done about it”? It’s almost like a runaway freight train, there’s no way to stop it!!

    Contact my Representative and/or Senators, asking them to look into it and do something? No good. They’re too busy with political maneuvering prior to November; besides, they probably don’t know anything about it, wouldn’t care if they did, and if they DID know about it and did care, there’s nothing they COULD do about it anyway.

    From your research, it seems difficult, if not impossible even to determine the STATUS of this thing. How in the world can this be, that we don’t even know where the issue stands?? With as many enemies of the current administration as there are in Washington right now, enemies who are grasping at ANYTHING to give them a leg up, why wouldn’t one of these politicians dig this up and run with it as a campaign issue?? It’s the same way with the NAU.

    It’s not that I don’t believe this stuff (chose my word carefully there, Anke) is going on, it’s just that I can not understand how such huge issues can be kept such dark, dark secrets. What has happened to our “checks and balances”? Perhaps THESE are the “bipartisan agreements” that our politicians are so proud of and that we the commoners just aren’t smart enough to understand what’s best for us anyway.

    Comment by freedom | July 12, 2008 7:05 am | Reply

  3. There are a lot “huger” issues being kept in the dark out there Freedom…that’s why I started getting into this research. I started wondering about it, and if it related to the issue of illegal immigration…and it does (my next post will be the “European Union: Future of the Americas?).

    Do you remember the number of times that Bush (Papa and son) have used the term “New World Order?” I believe that Clinton may have thrown it out there once or twice. It’s all a part of the globalization process…one world government. It started long before either you or I were born, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is, whether we are able to do anything about it or not, it’s important that we try. Perhaps we can prevent abrogating all of our rights to a bunch of multi-national capitalists and their bureaucrats.

    What’s REALLY important is that Main Street America wake up to it. It’s “conspiracy theory,” and haven’t we been taught that conspiracies don’t exist and if you believe they do then you have an unbalanced mind? Well, we ALL know government wouldn’t try to cover up ANYTHING, right? And that all politicians are as honest as the day is long, right? We all know that big business only has the best interests of the consumer at heart, right? And that they welcome lots of competition from small businesses able to rise out of free enterprise (which, folks, NAFTA is not), right?

    Well, call me paranoid (and somebody surely will), but the facts are out there if you just choose to dig deeply enough…we’re not a fascist society quite yet (but we would be if the Patriot Act II had been fully implemented). People need to educate themselves to what’s happening around them. We’ve grown too fat and happy in our consumer-driven society where everybody has to have the newest toy, the biggest house, and the best car…while we have no time to look around and see what’s happening to our future.

    Comment by AWCheney | July 12, 2008 4:04 pm | Reply

  4. Well Anke, I repeat: “With as many enemies of the current administration as there are in Washington right now, enemies who are grasping at anything to give them a “leg up,” why wouldln’t one of these politicians dig this up and run with it as a campaign issue”? It just doesn’t make any sense NOT to do that from a political strategy standpoint.

    If the NAU and the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico were “a Bush thing,” you KNOW the far left “Bush Haters” would be ALL OVER IT, whether they supported it philosophically or not…they’d be against it just because of Bush.

    Likewise, what has happened to Pat Buchannan, Bill Bennett, and Newt Gingerich and the conservative crowd on this issue?

    Why hasn’t someone from either the far left OR the far right taken SOMEONE to task over these programs??

    Comment by freedom | July 13, 2008 9:00 am | Reply

  5. It’s really quite simple, Freedom…because the mainstream media has painted it as “paranoid conspiracy theory” (as I said in the third paragraph of my previous comment), and if anyone in the media brings it up to “experts” and our political leadership, they laugh and say it’s exactly that. Take another look at the videos on both of my North American Union posts and you’ll see what I mean. It’s all part of the cover-up.

    The only prominent media personality who has consistently been addressing these matters is Dobbs at CNN…and too many people dismiss him as a right-wing nut, including many of his colleagues in the other media outlets. You may have noticed that I haven’t used anything from Lou Dobbs in my research links, and it’s precisely for that reason. I don’t want to give anyone the excuse to say that my sources are not credible…yet he has addressed ALL these things on numerous occasions. People are far too willing to dismiss those things which make them uncomfortable.

    Comment by AWCheney | July 13, 2008 10:06 am | Reply

  6. holly crap….

    what rock did this crawl up from under….

    i thought i was well informed and pretty much up on what these sleezebags are up to, but this, this has caught me completely of guard….

    right on withe the NMU, and the NWO angles, add in the freefall on the dollar which i think is a co-ordinated effort by the fed and illegal fed. reserve, throw in a dash of sub-prime meltdown, a pinch of bear stearns hanky panky [letting indymac bank fail was a nice touch], $145 self generating inflated price of oil, the banking debacle unfolding every day, the credit card defaults soon to come, unemployment, natinal debt, the stimulus package we could not afford and two wars being fought on borrowed fiat money are rapidly creating a toxic soup that will allow the idiot in chief to “declare” a financial emergency enabeling all of his little signing statements and executive orders to finaly see the light of day.

    what worries me most of this upcoming “merger”, is that it will in all probabilty fall under the umbrella of the new international court system rather than our own. Already being used to solve disputes over property with regard to NAFTA super highway.

    me thinks that the uncertainty of the status to this monstrosity has or is very close to bringing us to the edge of the abyss.

    normally i only like cliff hangers in my clancy books…this one is scaring the crap out of me.

    Comment by alan1111 | July 13, 2008 1:23 pm | Reply

  7. OK, OK, OK….we’re scared. So, what do we do about it?

    Comment by freedom | July 13, 2008 2:47 pm | Reply

  8. I’ll be getting to that in future posts, freedom. At the moment the most important thing is that people become aware that this is NOT “paranoid conspiracy theory.” It’s very much a result of an ever shrinking world with instantaneous electronic communication where the concept of globalization has become considerably more than merely a “gleam in the eye” of those who dream of achieving ultimate power.

    Comment by AWCheney | July 14, 2008 6:02 am | Reply

  9. If I could make a recommendation it would be this. Get hold of Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D, book entitled THE LATE GREAT U.S.A The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. I saw an interview with Mr. Corsi a year ago and it brought me to high alert and sought out his book and others, like Dangerous Diplomacy by Joel Mowbray. Then begin to educate and inform those around you.

    Comment by linda | July 17, 2008 12:10 am | Reply

  10. http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/mexico.html

    This Administrative Arrangement shall enter into force on the same date as the Agreement and shall remain in force as long as the Agreement. Any modifications to this Administrative Arrangement shall be carried out under the terms of Article 19 of the Agreement.

    SIGNED at Guadalajara on June 29, 2004, in duplicate in the English and Spanish languages, both texts being equally authentic.

    FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

    Jo Anne B. Barnhart

    FOR THE MEXICAN SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE
    OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES:

    Santiago Levy Algazi

    Comment by Catherine | March 21, 2009 8:01 pm | Reply

  11. Jan 6, 2009
    Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2009 BILL # S. 42:S.

    A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American workers and to help ensure greater congressional oversight of the Social Security system by requiring that both Houses of Congress approve a totalization agreement before the agreement, giving foreign workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect
    111th Congress, PENDING

    Status: Introduced Jan 6, 2009
    Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
    Reported by Committee (pending)
    Voted on in Senate (pending)
    Voted on in House (pending)
    Signed by President (pending)

    1/6/2009–Introduced.
    Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2009 or STAR Act – Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to provide that any agreement to establish a totalization arrangement which is entered into with another country shall enter into force with respect to the United States if (and only if): (1) the President, at least 90 calendar days before the date on which he enters into the agreement, notifies each House of Congress of his intention to enter into it, and promply thereafter publishes notice of such intention in the Federal Register; (2) he transmits the text of such agreement to each House of the Congress; and (3) a joint resolution regarding such agreement has passed both Houses of Congress and been enacted into federal law.
    Sets forth procedures for the consideration of such a joint resolution.

    2009-2010 Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2009
    111th CongressThis is a bill in the U.S. Congress

    A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American workers and to help ensure greater congressional oversight of the Social Security system by

    requiring that both Houses of Congress approve a totalization agreement before the agreement, giving FOREIGN WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, can go into effect

    Sponsor: Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]
    Cosponsors [as of 2009-03-07]
    Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
    Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]
    Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
    Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
    Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
    Sen. Richard Burr [R-NC]
    Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
    Sen. John Isakson [R-GA]

    originating in the Senate (“S.”). A bill must be passed by both the Senate and House and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

    Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 111th Congress, in 2009-2010.

    The titles of bills are written by the bill’s sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.

    2009-2010 Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2009

    Comment by Catherine | March 21, 2009 8:27 pm | Reply

  12. Thank you for the update Catherine. Thank God that there are some in Congress paying attention.

    Comment by AWCheney | March 22, 2009 3:33 am | Reply

  13. Just released 4/17/09 by the Associated Press, the very real fall out from this peice of legeslation that has not been sent to congress yet.

    IRS allowed foreigners improper tax credits
    Nearly $7 billion in child tax credits improperly claimed from 2004 to 2007, report says.
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Friday, April 17, 2009
    WASHINGTON — The IRS allowed foreign workers, many of them in the U.S. illegally, to improperly claim nearly $7 billion in child tax credits from 2004 to 2007, a government investigator said Thursday.
    Most of the credits went to workers who didn’t make enough money to pay any federal income taxes, according to a report by J. Russell George, the treasury inspector general for tax administration. In those cases, the workers received payments from the Internal Revenue Service after filing income tax returns.
    The IRS allowed the tax credits even though the workers didn’t provide Social Security numbers on their tax returns, the report said.
    Instead, the workers used government-issued tax identification numbers, which are available to immigrants for certain tax filing purposes — regardless of their legal status — but aren’t valid for employment in the United States.
    The issue highlights a weakness in current law, according to the report. Federal law doesn’t require a Social Security number to receive the $1,000 child tax credit. But a Social Security number is required to work and earn wages in the U.S., the report said.
    “As it now stands, the payment of federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside and work in the U.S. without authorization, which contradicts federal law and policy to remove such incentives,” the report said.

    *************
    Consider this: these “refunds” have not been credited against the Earnings Suspense File (ESF)which is where the SSA puts all of the payroll taxes collected from synthetic and stolen Social Security Numbers. Thus, illegal alliens who have effectively ZEROed out all of their tax liabilities due to the payroll taxes, will be able to collect money that they have already been reimbursed through the ITIN program with the IRS. If you haven’t written your Congressperson about this, you need to make your voice known. After all American Citizens are slapped with an AMT in order to limit their ability to effectively zero out their tax liabilities through the use of unlimited deductions and yet illegal aliens get to zero out their tax liablities through the use of unlimited DEPENDENTS. The key in the US-Mexico Totalization Treaty is that for illegal aliens it strips the requirement that a person claiming a dependent actually has that dependent living with them at the time they make the claim.

    Aren’t you curious why your elected officials value illegal aliens more than they do your vote that they are paying illegal aliens to work in this country with your tax dollars? Every dollar that they don’t pay is an extra burden on you to make up for the gap. Mad yet?

    Comment by LLW | April 18, 2009 2:42 pm | Reply

  14. Thank you for the information, LLW. As this particular piece is still attracting a lot of interest, I am moving it to the top of the blog posts.

    I am still not in any shape to continue, right at the moment at least, with my blogging (a great deal of time and intensive research has gone into almost all of my posts), but I do hope to be able to continue in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the updates and information provided by my readers in the comments column are greatly appreciated. I thank you all.

    Comment by AWCheney | April 18, 2009 6:28 pm | Reply

  15. The biggest reason our congressmen and women as well as these inate Senators is that Social Security doesn’t apply to them therefore they really don’t give a hoot. Only glad handing and public views they seek but behind closed doors they perform a different instrument and tune. IF they had any reason to losse any of their benefits because of these tyrant acts, they would do something about it. What have they got to loose? Nothing! Put them on the roles of receiving SS benefits only, do you think they would act differently?

    Comment by Ted | August 4, 2009 11:21 am | Reply

  16. Ted, you need to get up to date, Congress has contributed to SS since the early 80’s.

    http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=21

    Comment by Jim Norlon | October 2, 2009 9:34 am | Reply

  17. Can you keep us posted? I just received a request from Georgetown Texas area “complaint petition” to Retirement Petitions Processing Dept. The petition is addressed to Kay Bailey Hutchinson John Cornyn and John Carter to form a legal complaint against the treaty. But it was introduced by La. senator Vitter.I do not if he did it before or after the visit with the prostitute but anything he proposes i question.

    Comment by Enrique J Elizondo | February 28, 2010 3:12 pm | Reply

  18. Of course, what a splendid blog and revealing posts, I definitely will bookmark your blog.Best Regards!

    Comment by Sharlene Bowron | February 9, 2011 11:02 am | Reply

  19. Good to be visiting your weblog again, it may be months for me. Well this article that i’ve been waited for so long. I need this post to total my assignment in the college, and it has same topic with your post. Many thanks, excellent share.

    Comment by Andrew Joseph | February 23, 2011 6:41 am | Reply

  20. Definitely agree with what you stated. Your explanation was certainly the easiest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irked when folks discuss issues that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail correct on the head and explained out everything without having complication. Perhaps, individuals can take a signal. Will most likely be back to get more. Thanks

    Comment by Andrew Joseph | February 24, 2011 11:58 am | Reply

  21. I was lucky to find your scheney.wordpress.com website. I feel that you are a pro at your occupation! I am starting a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me. Thank you for the excellent work and wishing you the success in your business.

    Comment by kryptonite | May 3, 2011 12:57 am | Reply

  22. What I would like to Know is if Bush sign this S.S. Totalization Treaty with Mexico or not, and is it a law or not?

    Comment by Robert Hanna | July 6, 2011 5:12 pm | Reply

  23. I think this is among the most important information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things, The site style is great, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers

    Comment by Tobias Racilis | August 11, 2011 10:53 pm | Reply

  24. Ya i gotta agree i, good one. I bookmarked you on Digg under “Social Security Totalization Treaty With Mexico AWCheney’s Forum On Immigration”. Thanks.

    Comment by Willena la varicose | December 29, 2011 9:43 am | Reply

  25. Do you mind if I post your article on my Wiki Site? I think your topic suits my audience perfectly. Well, thanks for writing this.

    Comment by Magento | December 30, 2011 11:15 pm | Reply

  26. I’m impressed, I have to say. Actually rarely do I encounter a weblog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me let you know, you might have hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the difficulty is one thing that not sufficient individuals are speaking intelligently about. I’m very blissful that I stumbled across this in my seek for something referring to this.

    Comment by Precious Araujo | January 4, 2012 6:34 am | Reply

  27. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon! I’ll surely come back and check for new input! Greetz

    Comment by Emogene Grafik | January 4, 2012 5:56 pm | Reply

  28. I have been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this kind of house . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this website. Reading this info So i’m satisfied to exhibit that I have an incredibly good uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed. I most indisputably will make sure to don?t put out of your mind this web site and provides it a glance on a relentless basis.

    Comment by check this | September 20, 2012 2:13 pm | Reply

  29. Hello, this weekend is fastidious for me, as this occasion i am reading this wonderful informative paragraph here
    at my home.

    Comment by Home Page | July 20, 2013 9:50 am | Reply

  30. Very good web site you’ve got here.

    Comment by Find Out More | August 15, 2013 7:18 pm | Reply

  31. Eventually! Someone understands what they are referring to.
    Many thanks for revealing this!

    Comment by josie maran argan oil acne scars | June 6, 2014 9:13 pm | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s