Empowering "We the People"


Each week, thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border. Although some presumably have good intentions, at least twenty percent (20%) of southern border-crossers are known criminals, drug dealers, sex traffickers, and gang lords. (Consider that we have over 10 million illegals to which 20% is a potential of over 2 million!). Most frightening of all, mingled with those menaces are potential terrorists from countries hostile to the United States.America does not need another reminder, as we had on 9/11, that lax immigration law enforcement opens the door to our enemies. Of the 19 hijackers who attacked us that day, 3 were here illegally, and 15 were on visas that should have been revoked under immigration law. Many of the hijackers obtained fake ID’s from illegal aliens.more……
Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

A look to our Cousin Country England for a telling tale, important warning, and a stern warning.

The NWO Banksters are trying this in many European countries including USA. As the Brits would say, “Let’s show them where they get off!” — Eaglecry333…

Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

The government’s policy of mass immigration was intended to remodel the social fabric of the nation, says Janet Daley

 By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 13 Feb 2010

Open door: Labour deliberately encouraged immigration in order to transform the culture of Britain Photo: PA

So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The “open door” was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just
a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive
or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims
would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all
their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic,
cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than
in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves
and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend
to be endemic in the British class system.

But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already
been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under
Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What
it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at
least as much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration
was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the
country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the
Labour government saw itself as representing.

Tony Blair’s “forces of conservatism” speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a “young country”; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing
traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a
large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the
wholesale deconstruction of the country’s sense of its own identity.

This may all sound rather far-fetched now, but try to recall just how much hubris the New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about
“modernising” the nation’s institutions. It was, in this respect, a
prime example of the new direction which Left-wing parties were forced to take
in the wake of Marxism’s collapse. Having lost the great economic argument of
the 20th century, the Left had to switch its focus to society itself: if
humanity could not be transformed through the redistribution of wealth and the
socialist command economy, then it would have to be transfigured by altering
social relations.

The object of the exercise was still to produce, in the words of an old Left-wing protest song, a “new world” based on a “new man”. But now the new man (sorry, “person”) would be formed not by changes
in the power of capital or the ownership of the means of production, but in
cultural attitudes and behaviour. The revolution now had to be confined to what
went on in people’s heads: to their values, their assumptions and their
reactions to each other.

The phrase “altering consciousness”, which had once meant awakening the proletariat to its own economic enslavement, now referred to raising awareness of social injustices, such as intolerance of cultural
differences, social inequality, or discrimination against minorities. But the
subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton
must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the
acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to
condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the
misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the
unfortunate way they were treated by the host population.

Included in this programme for the newly constituted British psyche was a whole package of subliminal assumptions, which were adapted from the Old Left stable: international solidarity rather than national sovereignty, collective
values rather than personal conscience, and “social equality” rather
than individual achievement. It was a peculiarity of New Labour’s vanity that
it actually tried to persuade the country that, under the miraculous Blair
dispensation, it could have both sides of these dualities at the same time. But
the full consequences of the new country that it envisaged, and the role that
immigration was to play in the creation of it, broke the most basic rule of the
democratic process: the electorate was never told it was voting for that.

The goal was a social revolution abetted by the influx of a huge variety of diverse cultures, which would provide both the need and the pretext for reshaping British life. It may have been relatively new (at least in Britain) as a
specific political policy, but it was much of a piece with the conventional
objective of Left-wing political movements, which is to transform human nature.

When you decide whether to give your support to a party of the Left or of the Right, you are actually making a judgment about what you think politics is for. If you believe that it is the function of government to alter or determine
people’s perceptions and responses – their innermost feelings about themselves
and others – then you will probably opt for the Left. If you take the view that
the state should concern itself only with behaviour – with what people do,
especially insofar as it affects other people, rather than what they think or
feel – then you will be more likely to veer to the Right. So this is really a
question of whether you want politics to be concerned with what goes on in
people’s heads as much as with events in the objective world.

But of course, at least since the 1960s, when “raising consciousness” became the refrain of every group that sought change in any sphere, almost all parties have had to talk this way to some extent. It has
become part of the politician’s acknowledged brief to suggest ways in which the
internal lives and attitudes of voters can be influenced or directed. There is
scarcely a party leader now who would dare to say that these matters are none
of his (or any government’s) business.

Almost no one seems prepared to discuss the obvious danger: that if politics becomes a replacement for religion by taking upon itself the responsibility for transfiguring human nature then politicians, of all people, become the prophets
and the priests. Just at the moment, I can’t think of a more absurd idea.



By: Devvy Kidd

June 5, 2006

“Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.” – President Andrew Jackson

The level of anger against the counterfeit U.S. Senators who voted last week to reward criminal activity in their so-called “immigration reform bill” continues to grow. Poltroons like Teddy Chappaquidick Kennedy and John deceptive war hero McCain are still making the talking head shows trying to sell their bogus arguments about illegals and giving them a free pass. None of this is washing with Americans who respect the rule of law and who understand the dire situation on the border: terrorists crossing our borders, thousands of diseased illegals crossing over, the increasing numbers of gangs from South America and the tons of addictive narcotics (heroin and cocaine) and weapons being smuggled across. Let’s not forget the staggering number of violent sexual predators coming across the border and now out there trolling for your child:

“Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.” Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute

Going hand in hand with traitorous counterfeit senators like McCain, the border states under invasion are saddled with cowardly governors like Janet Napolitano of Arizona. While their state legislature is trying to crack down on this massive human, drug and weapons smuggling, Napolitano can’t find her backbone. At the same time, their legislature is stuck with no representation in Washington, DC. If our government were operating legally, the Arizona State Legislature could have recalled “Senator” McCain, fired his backside and replaced him with a real U.S. Senator to go back to DC and stand up for the rights of the State of Arizona.

Please allow me to explain the importance of the Seventeenth Amendment – especially as it relates to the illegals invasion. The courage and wisdom of those who birthed this Republic was nothing short of a magnificent event in the history of the world. When creating the federal government, it was imperative that the colonies (later called states) and the people be represented fairly. The method decided upon was the people would vote for their voice – a representative to serve in the House of Representatives. The states of the Union would each have an equal number of U.S. Senators (fixed at two), appointed by their state legislature to represent the interests of the state. Should that U.S. senator fail in their job, the legislature would recall them and appoint a new one. The decision to have the states appoint their U.S. senators was very calculated.

All of that changed with the fraudulent ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. 1913 was a treasonous, disastrous year for our republic with the announcement the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified (it clearly was NOT), the announcement that the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified (it clearly was NOT) and passage of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act. All in the same year. All necessary for The Destroyers to finally take control of our republic. After the fraudulent Seventeenth Amendment went into effect, U.S. senators were then elected instead of the state legislatures appointing them. The states lost their suffrage rights, they no longer had any representation in Washington, D.C., and the federal machine has walked all over them since. As we can see right now, states like Arizona and California are saddled with ‘counterfeit’ senators whose political ideology is communism, while they pass themselves off as either Republican or Democrat: McCain in Arizona and the twin evils in California, Boxer and Feinstein.

This issue is one of the most important problems facing this nation today, yet few know anything about it. Last summer, I prepared a working paper for Rep. Henry McElroy of the New Hampshire State Legislature on the history of this amendment and why it is imperative the states step forward and force a constitutional showdown. unfortunately he didn’t survive his next election. Please feel to use this paper when going after your state rep and senator. These public servants in the state house will soon realize that it’s to their utmost advantage to press this issue and for the sake of our Republic, this challenge must be made to restore the balance between the states and the people. America is not a democracy of mob rule, but that’s exactly what has happened with the election of U.S. senators. For those who might knee jerk this would cause constitutional chaos, I can’t highly recommend enough Judge Andrew Napolitano’s excellent book, “Constitutional Chaos.” We’re already in constitutional chaos on a hundred issues and the situation will only continue to deteriorate without immediate action.

The Seventeenth Amendment was never properly ratified. I have seen the proof with my own eyes at the National Archives and from the documents obtained by Bill Benson from all 48 state legislatures in his work, “Proof the 17th Amendment Was Not Ratified.” I also collected court certified documents on this from the bowels of the California State Archives. They are incontrovertible and prove without question that Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, on May 31, 1913, knowingly and willfully issued a memo declaring the Seventeenth Amendment ratified even though he knew the required number of states did not ratify it.

The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have been very specific on the rigid requirements for ratification. There can be no mistake fraud was committed and that every U.S. senator since 1913 sits in office under a law that does not exist. U.S. senators ratify treaties, confirm federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court justices and hold impeachment trials. Legally, our participation in the United Nations, every destructive trade treaty, i.e., NAFTA, GATT, Roe v. Wade and any other legislative acts committed by U.S. senators these past 93 years are invalid.

The courts refuse to touch this issue because they don’t have the backbone. While several states have introduced resolutions to nix the Seventeenth Amendment (introduced by patriotic representatives and killed by Republicans in every instance), realistically, there’s no question this current crop of Congress will never do the right thing. Therefore, it is up to the people and the States of the Union. One thing that doesn’t help the situation is so-called constitutionalists running for the U.S. Senate who refuse to pursue the path of integrity. Over the past decade I have been contacted by many candidates running for the U.S. Senate on ‘alternative party’ tickets asking for my endorsement and support. When I tell them about the Seventeenth Amendment and the fact that they are running for office under a law that doesn’t exist, they don’t care and give me all kinds of excuses, i.e., “After I’m elected, I’ll bring this out.” No. You don’t rob a bank and say, “Gee, after I’m done using the money for a good reason, I’ll put it back.” Are we a nation of laws or lies?

The people must get the proof and begin a systematic assault (non violent, of course) on their state legislatures to appoint two U.S. senators to represent them and send them to Washington, D.C. This will force the issue into a court of law where it should have gone decades ago. Is there any chance this can be accomplished? Not unless hundreds of thousands of Americans climb in the face of their state legislators and those elected public servants do what’s right by making this a hot issue in their state house. You have to build a bond fire, just like The Minutemen have done on the illegals invasion and the Seventeenth Amendment IS critically important.

Let me give you an example of what happens when there isn’t mass publicity to get a bill passed. Our hopes were recently dashed by the cowardice of senators in the New Hampshire State Senate who killed HB 1592 to stop the draconian ‘National ID. While America goes to Hell, the New Hampshire state senators put this critical bill into a study committee! In March, the House side of the New Hampshire General Court overwhelmingly passed it because they fully understand what this Nazi style “National ID” is really all about. New Hampshire is the only state left with an honest ballot box. It would be fabulous if the people booted out every state senator who voted the wrong way on the National ID issue in the next election. Of course, without a massive public campaign throughout the state to get those good folks to understand just what these senators did, chances are these turn coat senators won’t be held accountable.

Without question this is a Herculean task, but it can be done – especially if it’s a small state like Idaho, Montana or Iowa. The one thing it would take is massive public saturation on the fraud of the Seventeenth Amendment and why it’s imperative the states step up to the plate and regain their rightful power. It is my personal opinion that right along with the illegals invasion, these unconstitutional wars and the building of a massive police state, exposing the fraud of the Seventeenth Amendment is of paramount importance. Make a commitment to oust any state legislator or senator who refuses to undertake this fight. I know a lot of folks are strapped for money, but if you can, get Bill Benson’s Proof the Seventeenth Amendment Was Never Ratified by sending him $20.00 (includes postage) to: Bill Benson, P.O. Box 550, South Holland, Illinois 60473. I have given a dozen copies to state legislators over the years, but due to lack of massive heat by the people, not a single state has taken the courageous step to get back their rights. The result is the states are being bankrupted by the illegals invasion and they’re sticking you with the bill in higher taxes. It will only get a far, far worse if the House of Representatives “compromises” and gives the U.S. Senate what they want: amnesty and legalizing criminal behavior for some 15 MILLION illegals and that will be just the beginning of the flood gates opening.

The American people have to get out to these town hall meetings and get in the face of your state legislators on the stump for reelection. Candidates for the state legislatures need to make this a top issue. If you serve in a state legislature and want to see your state get back its rightful power, you have to spend the money to conduct a massive public relations campaign in your district to shove this in the people’s face in a way they will embrace it and demand the situation be corrected. There is a mass awakening going on from border to border, coast to coast, but we need to get everyone on the same page of constitutional government.

The destiny of this Republic lies in the hands of we the people. Time grows short.

Related Article:
Border Partol Agents: Senator McCain Sells us Out, Again



Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty, which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Your complimentary copy of the 32-page report may be obtained from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for

Devvy’s website:

E-mail is:

Mar 17, 2010 | Mike M. Ahlers

Secure Border Initiative to undergo overhaul

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday she will take $50 million in federal stimulus money away from the Secure Border Initiative, also known as SBInet, and spend it on proven, off-the-shelf technology to protect U.S. borders.

Mar 15, 2010 | Judson Berger

With Money on the Line, Local Governments Urge Illegal Immigrants to Fill Out Census

Cities, counties and states that haven’t been very kind to illegal immigrants over the years are suddenly dusting off their welcome mats. With the 2010 census about to get under way, those undocumented residents will be worth a lot of money for the next few weeks.

Mar 12, 2010 | Nicholas Johnston

Obama Says He Backs New Push to Overhaul U.S. Immigration Laws

Obama said his “commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering.” Wants to resolve the status of the estimated 12 million immigrants in the country illegally.


Judge mulls sanctions against Ariz. sheriff office

A federal judge will decide whether to impose sanctions against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for its acknowledged destruction of police records in a lawsuit that accuses deputies of racially profiling countless Hispanics in immigration sweeps.

Feb 5, 2010 | Stephanie Condon

Illegal Immigrant Census Count Stirs Debate

Even as the controversial immigration debate boils over to this year’s census, one congressman said today that 2010 will be the year for comprehensive immigration reform.

Feb 5, 2010 | Associated Press

Immigrant smuggling raids hit Texas bus companies

Federal agents have raided more than a dozen bus companies in Houston they say dispersed illegal immigrants across the U.S. in wide-reaching smuggling networks.

Jan 26, 2010 | PAUL FRASNELLI

Illegal immigration is costing taxpayers billions

New Jersey elected a new governor and some state legislators; yet, there is little discussion concerning ways to reduce the stress of overburdened taxpayers. Illegal immigrant services cost New Jersey more than $2 billion/year.

Jan 20, 2010 | Stephen Wall

One California county spent millions on welfare for illegal immigrants’ American children

Illegal immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare. But their citizen children are. San Bernardino County spent nearly $64 million in state and federal money last year to provide welfare benefits to the American-born children of illegal immigrants.

Jan 20, 2010 | MMD Newswire

Brown Wins: Victory May Stop Comprehensive Amnesty Legislation

Martha Coakley gave voters a clear contrast on the issue as she indicated her support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty, which most people in the nation consider a sneaky form of Amnesty dubbed Shamnesty. Coakley also admitted that she created a sanctuary state in Massachusetts by turning a blind eye to the immigration status of those charged with crimes in her state, while she served as attorney general.

Jan 4, 2010 | Howard Mintz

Feds charge record number of immigration crimes

More than ever, federal prosecutors are using felony charges and the threat of serious federal prison time to make lawbreakers think twice before making another trip across the border.

~ ~ ~

TALKING POINTS – Health Care for Illegal Immigrants

  1. 1 H.R. 3962 does not seek to deter or prevent illegal immigration, but rather to support and subsidize it. It would deliberately permit illegal aliens to participate in the government health insurance exchange and in the public option insurance program.
  2. 2 Illegal immigrants are nominally barred from receiving health care “affordability credits” and most regular Medicaid benefits, but verification procedures are weak and subject to fraud.
  3. 3 Nearly 400,000 illegal immigrant women give birth inside the U.S. each year; under H.R. 3962, many of these births would be fully covered by U.S. taxpayers through the Medicaid program.
  4. 4 All limitations on benefits provided to illegal immigrants under health care reform legislation are deceptive. The President and the congressional leadership clearly intend these limits to be only temporary, to be overturned by amnesty or “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation to be introduced next spring.

Providing Health Care for Illegal Immigrants: Understanding the House Health Care Bill

Published on November 23, 2009 by Robert Rector

Abstract: H.R. 3962 would deliberately permit illegal aliens to participate in the government health insurance exchange and in the public option insurance program. It would nominally bar them from receiving health care “affordability credits” and most regular Medicaid benefits, but verification procedures are weak and subject to fraud. Moreover, any limitations on benefits provided to illegal immigrants under the House bill are deceptive. The President and the congressional leadership clearly intend that these limits will be only temporary, to be overturned by amnesty or “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation that will be introduced next spring.

The issue of illegal immigrants and health care reform has drawn considerable attention. During his September 9 address to Congress on health care, President Barack Obama famously declared that “[t]here are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms–the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”[1] The White House subsequently amplified this point, asserting that “[u]ndocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the [health insurance] exchange.”[2]

The health care bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3962) clearly and directly contradicts the President’s declarations and promises. Under H.R. 3962:

  • Illegal immigrants are clearly permitted to purchase health insurance under the government health insurance exchange created by the bill.
  • Illegal immigrants are permitted to receive coverage under the “public health insurance option” created in the bill.
  • Illegal immigrants are ostensibly barred from receiving taxpayer-funded “affordability credits” to subsidize their health care, but the verification procedures used to determine the legal status of those who receive credits are weak and subject to fraud.
  • The bill expands the Medicaid program. Illegal immigrants are nominally barred from receiving most Medicaid services, but the verification procedures used to determine the legal status of those who receive credits are also weak and subject to fraud.
  • All illegal immigrant women who do not have private health insurance and who give birth inside the United States will have the full cost of childbirth paid by the U.S. taxpayers. There will be no effort to have the mother repay any of the cost. Given the fact that nearly 400,000 children are born inside the U.S. each year to illegal immigrant women, these costs could be quite large.
  • The bill will provide tax credits to small businesses to subsidize the purchase of health insurance for illegal immigrant employees. Under H.R. 3962, small businesses will be given tax credits to encourage them to purchase health coverage for employees; because firms are not required to verify the legal status of subsidized employees, both legal and illegal employees will receive taxpayer support.
  • Illegal immigrants will continue to receive so-called emergency medical services under the Medicaid program.

Finally, any restrictions on giving taxpayer-funded health care benefits contained in the House or Senate health care bills are, in fact, irrelevant because President Obama and the current House and Senate leadership have promised to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Amnesty would provide legal permanent residence, and eventually citizenship, to some 10 million to 20 million illegal immigrants and their dependents. Amnesty would inevitably make illegal immigrants eligible for government health care insurance and credits, Medicaid, and all other welfare programs. (For example, the amnesty bills debated in Congress in 2006 and 2007 made amnesty recipients eligible, after a short delay, for the full range of U.S. welfare and entitlement programs.)

Granting illegal immigrants access to government health care and welfare would be enormously expensive for the U.S. taxpayer. The health care bills currently being debated in Congress would only increase those costs.

Any restrictions on providing government health care to illegal immigrants in the House or Senate health care bills are deliberately deceptive. Such restrictions are intended to be merely temporary; President Obama and the congressional leadership intend to nullify them with amnesty or “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation as soon as possible.

H.R. 3962 and Illegal Immigrants

President Obama has publicly proclaimed that health care reform would not “insure illegal immigrants.” H.R. 3962 deliberately violates the President’s pledge. The bill would provide government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded health care coverage to illegal immigrants in a number of ways.

1. Illegal immigrants would participate in the health insurance exchange.

Section 301 of H.R. 3962 creates the government health insurance exchange, and Section 302 specifies that “all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage” through the exchange unless they are enrolled in another qualified health care plan such as Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care, or some employer-provided coverage.[3] No requirement limits participation in the plan to citizens and lawful residents; the bill makes illegal immigrants fully eligible to participate and purchase insurance through the government exchange.

In addition, certain employers are permitted to purchase health insurance for their employees through the exchange. There is no requirement that such covered employees be citizens or legal residents; illegal immigrant employees are clearly eligible.

These provisions directly contradict the promises made by the Obama White House that under any proposal supported by the President, “undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the [health insurance] exchange.” The White House has further stated that under the Obama health care reform, “Verification [of legal status] will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange.”[4] The House bill deliberately contradicts the President’s proclamations.

2. Illegal immigrants would be beneficiaries of the public option.

Title III, Subtitle B of the House bill creates the “public health insurance option,” a government health care plan. All individuals and employers that are eligible to participate in the “health insurance exchange” are eligible to purchase coverage through the public plan option; there are no restrictions on illegal immigrants participating in the plan either as employees or as individuals.

Section 322 suggests that the public option plan will be largely self-funded by means of premiums paid by participants. Section 322(b)(3), for example, states that there will be no taxpayer “bailouts” of the public option plan in the future. This provision is meaningless and can be overridden by Congress at any time. It is very likely that Congress will provide the “public option” health care plan with extensive taxpayer subsidies in the future; all illegal immigrants participating in the plan would benefit from those subsidies.

The deliberate inclusion of illegal immigrants in both the proposed health insurance exchange and the public option program sends a clear and alarming message: Illegal immigrants are to be welcomed and encouraged to live in the U.S. The aim of the authors of H.R. 3962 is not to deter or reduce illegal immigration, but to support and subsidize it.

3. Illegal immigrants would not be eligible for affordability credits, but verification is weak.

The House bill provides “affordability credits” to subsidize the purchase of health insurance offered on the health insurance exchange. Families with incomes below 400 percent of poverty (around $88,000 per year for a family of four) will be eligible for some level of affordability credit.

Section 342(a)(i) states that affordability credits shall be available only to those who are “lawfully present in a state in the United States.” This would include citizens and lawful immigrants who have legal permanent residence; non-immigrant tourists are excluded. Section 347 repeats this point, stating that “nothing in this sub-title shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Identity Verification Under H.R. 3962.The original House health care bill (H.R. 3200) had similar provisions excluding illegal immigrants but lacked a mechanism to verify whether an individual was lawfully present in the U.S. H.R. 3962 contains verification provisions that are an improvement on the original bill, but they remain highly vulnerable to identity theft and fraud.

Verification of an Applicant Claiming Citizenship. Verification procedures for an applicant for affordability credits who attests citizenship are provided in Section 342(b)(4)(C) of the House bill.[5] In this situation, verification would involve five steps.

  • Applicants who self-assert they are citizens are not required to provide any physical documentation demonstrating citizenship.
  • An applicant attesting citizenship will submit his name and Social Security number to the Health Care Commissioner.
  • The name and Social Security number will then be sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to be cross-checked against the numident files kept by that agency. If the name and Social Security number match data in the numident files, the individual is deemed to be an eligible participant. (Income eligibility will subsequently be determined based on IRS data.)
  • If the information submitted fails to match Social Security Administration data, the applicant will be given the opportunity to double-check the information submitted for clerical errors and to correct and resubmit erroneous data. The applicant will also be given the opportunity to update or correct information in the SSA database if it is out of date or inaccurate. (For example, the SSA database may have a woman listed by her maiden rather than a married name.)
  • If the applicant is still unable to offer a name and Social Security number that matches SSA files, the applicant will have four months to resolve the discrepancy. The applicant will remain eligible for affordability credits during the four-month period.

Verification for Immigrants Claiming Legal Permanent Residence. Verification procedures for applicants claiming they are non-citizen immigrants with legal permanent residence are provided in Section 342(b)(4)(D) of the House bill.[6] These procedures are similar to those for citizen applicants except that immigrant applicants are required to provide documentation or other proof of immigrant registration.

The immigrant’s name and admission number or alien file number are submitted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rather than the SSA for verification. If the name and number submitted correspond to the name and number of an immigrant with lawful permanent status in the DHS files, the applicant is deemed eligible for credits. If there is a discrepancy between the information the applicant submits and DHS records, the applicant is given an opportunity to resolve it.

Problems with Identity Verification in H.R. 3962. While the verification system proposed in H.R. 3962 can determine whether the name and Social Security number submitted by an applicant correspond to an actual name and Social Security number in the Social Security database (or to a name and immigrant admission number in the DHS database), the system cannot determine whether the applicant is actually the individual he purports to be. The system is thus vulnerable to identity theft in which one person assumes the identity of another.[7]

For example, an illegal immigrant could easily apply for government aid using the name and Social Security number of a lawful citizen. The proposed system would conclude that the illegal immigrant was eligible for aid.

The verification procedures for individuals applying for Medicaid are similar to those outlined above.[8] Although the procedures may generally stop individuals from obtaining aid by using bogus Social Security numbers, they could not prevent illegal access to benefits by way of identity theft or fraud.

Principles of an Effective Verification System. An effective verification system must prevent three types of abuse:

  • Unlawful receipt of benefits by use of a fictitious or made-up Social Security number and identity;
  • Unlawful receipt of benefits by means of identity theft or sale (using the identifying information of a lawful eligible individual); and
  • Unlawful receipt of benefits by lawful residents who are otherwise ineligible for assistance (for example, receipt of affordability credits by an individual who is ineligible because he or she has an offer of employer-provided coverage).

To prevent these types of abuse, an effective verification system should require the following:

  • All applicants should be required to provide valid physical identification documents showing citizenship or lawful residence. Such documents alone will not prevent fraud, but they will make identity theft more difficult.
  • All applicants should be required to provide name, Social Security number (or immigrant admission number), and date of birth. This information should be electronically checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases. The inclusion of date of birth would make identity theft more difficult.
  • Identifying information of applicants should be cross-checked electronically against information concerning concurrent Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, or employer-provided health insurance coverage. Situations where multiple concurrent coverage appears for a single individual could be examined for potential fraud or identity theft.

The House health care bill does not provide an effective verification system either for Medicaid or for affordability credits. For example, the bill does not even provide a mechanism to prevent multiple affordability credits from being provided under a single Social Security number.

H.R. 3962’s weak verification system leaves many of its other provisions unenforceable. For example, Section 342(b)(1) contains an anti- crowd out provision stipulating that an individual who has an offer of qualified health care coverage from an employer cannot receive affordability credits, but it creates no mechanism to enforce this provision.

One way to enforce this provision would be to include health insurance information in the current wage reporting system. To reduce fraud in welfare programs, employers are already required (under U.S.C. 12320b-7) to provide quarterly information on employee wages. Anti-crowd out provisions could be enforced by having employers also provide simple information on health insurance offers and coverage to employees. The federal government could use this information to determine whether an individual was actually eligible for affordability credits. This information could also help to prevent identity theft by identifying cases of potential multiple coverage.

4. All births to uninsured illegal immigrant women would be covered by Medicaid.

Section 305(d) of the House bill gives automatic Medicaid coverage to all newborn children who do not have other insurance coverage, irrespective of the income of the child’s family. As part of this coverage, Medicaid would pay for the cost of the childbirth. There would be no effort to have the mother repay any of the cost.

This provision differs from existing Medicaid policy, which covers only lower-income children. Each year, nearly 400,000 illegal immigrant women give birth in the U.S. [9] Most of these mothers lack health insurance. H.R. 3962 formally and explicitly transfers the cost of these births to U.S. taxpayers. The policy seems to create incentives for even greater illegal immigration in the future.

5. Tax credits would be provided to small businesses to purchase health care for illegal employees.

Section 521 of H.R. 3962 provides tax credits to small businesses equal to 50 percent of the cost of providing health coverage to employees. These credits would be available to firms with fewer than 25 employees, and firms could receive them for a maximum of two years.

The bill does not require that the employees whose health care is subsidized through these credits be citizens or lawful immigrants, and firms are not required to check and verify the legal status of their employees as a condition of receiving the subsidies. Since there is no limit on the type of employees whose health insurance can be subsidized by the credit, it seems clear that at least part of the credits would be used to subsidize the employment of illegal immigrants.

Amnesty and Health Care Reform

While H.R. 3962 fails to uphold President Obama’s promise to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under health care reform, it does provide some restrictions on illegal immigrant access to affordability credits and expanded Medicaid. However, even these imperfect restrictions (along with similar limitations in the Senate health care bill) are meaningless because both the President and the congressional leadership plan to override them with amnesty legislation next spring.[10]

President Obama understands that giving illegal immigrants full access to government health care benefits would doom the current health care reform legislation politically. He has therefore devised a two-stage strategy for providing government-funded health care to illegals.

First, he plans to establish the new health care benefit system with massive subsidies but seeks to exclude illegal aliens temporarily from receiving some or all of these benefits.

Second, after creating the new system, Obama plans, no later than next spring, to enact an amnesty bill that, among other things, would give current illegal aliens full access to the newly created health care benefits.

Any “comprehensive immigration reform” or amnesty bill will inherently confer legal permanent residence and then citizenship on current illegal aliens. This change in status will automatically grant illegal immigrants access to government programs and entitlements, including expanded Medicaid and the new affordability health credits. (It is unconstitutional to deny any government benefit to naturalized citizens that is available to native-born citizens.)

For example, both amnesty bills advanced in Congress in recent years–the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348)–would have given all illegal immigrants receiving amnesty access to all government means-tested welfare programs, albeit with slight delays in obtaining eligibility. Obama’s amnesty plan will inevitably follow the same course. It may try to reduce obvious short-term fiscal costs by delaying the time when amnesty recipients can obtain some government benefits, but ultimately, all will become eligible.

Over time, Obama’s planned amnesty will give some 10 million to 20 million illegal immigrants not merely health care benefits, but full access to the massive U.S. welfare system comprising over 70 separate aid programs at a cost of around $700 billion per year. Total welfare costs will hit $10.3 trillion over the next decade.[11] Lower-skill immigrants will already receive around $1.5 trillion per year in means-tested welfare aid over the next decade; health care reform and amnesty will substantially raise these costs.

Between 50 percent and 60 percent of illegal immigrants are high school dropouts, so granting them full access to the U.S. welfare system will be extremely expensive for taxpayers. The typical high school dropout immigrant receives over $10,000 per household in means-tested welfare benefits each year throughout his lifetime.[12] While some will argue that recipients of amnesty will pay taxes to offset welfare costs, lower-skill immigrants will receive on average $3 in overall government benefitsfor each dollar paid in taxes. The proposed health care reform legislation will increase these costs.

Overall, the debate concerning providing government health benefits to illegal immigrants in health care reform legislation is a deceptive charade. Any limitations on health care benefits for illegal immigrants that are contained in such reform legislation are meaningless, because both the President and the congressional leadership plan to jettison those limits shortly after enactment.


H.R. 3962 does not seek to deter or prevent illegal immigration, but rather to support and subsidize it. The bill would deliberately permit illegal aliens to participate in the government health insurance exchange and in the public option insurance program.

Illegal immigrants are nominally barred from receiving health care “affordability credits” and most regular Medicaid benefits, but the verification procedures to enforce these limitations are weak and subject to fraud. Nearly 400,000 illegal immigrant women give birth inside the U.S. each year; under H.R. 3962, many of these births would be fully covered by U.S. taxpayers through the Medicaid program.

Finally, all limitations on benefits provided to illegal immigrants under health care reform legislation are deceptive. The President and the congressional leadership clearly intend that these limits will be only temporary, to be overturned by amnesty or “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation that will be introduced next spring.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

%d bloggers like this: