Social Security for Immigrants!

[Habermill]

How many US citizens know about this?

Social Security for Immigrants

By R. Cort Kirkwood

When Social Security was created in the 1930s, intelligent observers said it would fail. Its first recipient, Ida Fuller, contributed less than $25. After 35 years of retirement, Fuller died, having pocketed nearly $25,000. Not a bad return. At the program’s inception, numerous workers paid into the program compared to the number of people receiving benefits. That’s the situation no longer. With baby boomers retiring soon and the so-called trust fund filled with IOUs, the Social Security system is headed for disaster.

Now President Bush wants to add a few million people to the rolls of Social Security. Adding more Americans would be bad enough. But Presidente Arbusto wants to bring Mexican citizens onto its rolls, most of them now illegal aliens.

The president’s position is hardly surprising, given his amnesty plan for illegals and the not-so-secret blueprint for melding the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union that would erase American citizenship and sovereignty. But perhaps the effrontery of the idea, which slaps the face of every real American who involuntarily contributes to Social Security, will sink this ship before it sails.

“Totalization”
Illegal aliens would receive Social Security under an agreement hatched in 2004, awaiting the signature of Bush, similar to agreements the United States has signed with many countries. These pacts, all of them unconstitutional, of course, are called “totalization agreements.” They permit an American living abroad, or foreign worker living here, to escape the double taxation that would occur if he paid into each country’s government retirement plan. As well, the agreement permits a person to “totalize” his social security payments into each country’s program if he never worked in one country long enough to qualify for benefits from either.

The United States maintains totalization agreements with many countries, almost all of them European. Now, the president wants to sign a totalization agreement with Mexico. Problem is, the relationship between the United States and Mexico is of a different breed than that between the United States and Europe.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the idea of giving Social Security to illegal immigrants is not new; the totalization agreement would merely escalate the giveaway to a grand scale. Social Security already views some illegal aliens as it does any other American, as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports. The Social Security Administration “permits foreign nationals to work many years illegally with one or more fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers, acquire legal status (e.g. through an amnesty or marriage to a U.S. citizen), obtain a valid SSN, and then request that his or her prior earnings credits be moved to the new number.” Prior to 2004, before Congress banned the practice, illegals could return home and collect Social Security legally.

Totalization would undermine that ban, immigration analyst Ed Rubenstein reported, because the 2004 law contains a loophole for illegals from countries with which the United States has totalization agreements. Those illegals could collect Social Security, which offers one reason the elites want the agreement: they can skirt the congressional ban. But again, illegals from other countries differ markedly from Mexico’s in important respects: millions of militant Finns, Swedes, and Germans are neither here illegally nor agitating for permission to come here; and European countries have social security plans on par with ours, unlike Mexico — meaning we get to foot Mexico’s retirement bills.

As for the agreement itself, a pact with Mexico undermines even the concept of totalization, which assumes that a foreign corporation sends a worker to the United States, and that the foreign corporation and workers have contributed to the person’s home-country social security account. “After working a limited number of years abroad,” CIS observes, “workers return to their home country and resume paying social security taxes, eventually vesting for benefits based upon their combined work history in both countries. In almost all of the existing totalization agreements, U.S. workers and their employers benefit as much or more than those in the counterpart nation.”

This wouldn’t be true with Mexico. Most Mexicans came here illegally on their own. A company did not send them. They don’t go home voluntarily, and the federal government won’t deport them. And, CIS reports, the poverty-stricken Mexicans here never paid into their social security system, which does not, in any case, cover most Mexicans. About 40 percent of Mexicans participate. For all intents and purposes, this means Mexicans would receive nearly 100 percent of their social security benefits from the United States because “workers vest for Social Security in the United States after working only 10 years (40 quarters), while it takes fully 24 years to vest in the Mexican program.” And some would qualify after working just a few years.

Yet another significant difference between Mexican and American social security is that Mexico’s plan pays out only what a worker contributes; the American system pays until a person dies. Remember Ida Fuller. Again, even without a totalization agreement, Social Security is a magnet for illegal aliens. The agreement would strengthen that magnet.

And this raises the question of numbers. Ten percent of Mexico’s population lives in the United States, almost all of them illegal. Estimates of the number of illegal aliens range from 12 million to 20 million, so amnesty or guest-worker programs mean adding millions of new customers to our bankrupt federal retirement program.

In other words, all the benefits of totalization accrue to Mexicans. And that means illegal aliens.

The Cost
Even worse, the federal General Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Social Security Administration calculated the wisdom of signing a totalization agreement with Mexico, figuratively speaking, on the back of an envelope. American officials were clueless about and never seriously evaluated the Mexican social security system to determine how it functions or even whether it was solvent.

GAO estimated that totalization would cost $78 million its first year and $650 million annually by 2050, but CIS warned that GAO’s estimates were flawed because the agency used the figures from Canada’s totalization agreement with the United States to forecast the cost of an agreement with Mexico. Problem is, most Canadians are not here illegally, and 10 percent of Canada’s population does not live here.

Reported CIS, “The SSA did not take into account the millions of unauthorized Mexican workers currently in the United States who could gain legal status through an amnesty. Not only they but their families — who may never have lived in the United States — could be eligible to receive U.S. Social Security benefits after the worker returned to Mexico. Nor did SSA factor in the possibility that the promise of Social Security benefits would lure even more Mexicans to enter the United States illegally.” Those Mexicans, of course, would smuggle in their families.

No wonder so many congressmen and senators oppose totalization, and no wonder the Social Security Administration refused to release the agreement for three years until a senior-citizens group forced it to do so using the Freedom of Information Act. This last fact should tell Americans everything they need to know.

If Bush signs the totalization agreement with Mexico and his amnesty or guest-worker plans go through, illegal aliens would claim as much as they can through work done illegally but suddenly “legalized,” then pack their families across the border to latch on to the taxpayers’ teat. Others would jump the border to feed at the trough. But that’s exactly what the political elites want.

[run4it]

A few questions:

1) how would you qualify if you don't have a social security or tax ID number?

2) if you have a social security number, you're not an illegal worker. You're, de facto, a recognized worker and are paying taxes into the system.

3) if you retain a fraudulent id number, then of course you SHOULDN'T qualify. This is what we have auditors for

4) to my knowledge, even if you do work illegally, the years worked without a valid tax id number with applicable taxes paid can't apply to the 10 year tenure required (see definition: undocumented).

5) In all fairness, I don't see why those who work legally and pay taxes, including social security, shouldn't reap some of the benefits. Depriving of such seems like it would amount to a lack of substantive due process, if not plain questionable moral practices.

Essentially, what this article suggests that if you legally work in and contribute to our society (including taxes and economy-driving labor and consumer spending), you shouldn't automatically be eligible to take part of our society's benefits. I'll acknowledge that there's an argument to be made for some circumstances. I just find the general lacking of principles of fairness to be objectionable.

[run4it]

By the way Haber, do you think you might be able to post something that isn't reprinted directly from some knee-jerk reactionary conservative/Republican commentary?

[Timmy]

A few years ago Bush was telling us we didnt have enough money for existing (social security and medicare) recipients.

But we have enough money for Afghanistan, Iraq and legalizing illegal immigrants

then a few years they will tell us once again they dont have money for Social Security and medicare and medicaid and all the other programs....yet no one ever says....but hey you found the money for Israel, you found the money for an overseas war, you found the money for an immigration amnesty bill that added millions of committments to the program...

[Habermill]

By the way Haber, do you think you might be able to post something that isn't reprinted directly from some knee-jerk reactionary conservative/Republican commentary?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything of merit written by the Environmental Wacko Peacenik Democratic Left to cut and paste. Instead of being indignant (or jealous), why don't you post something of merit from the far left. (If you can't find anything, ask Linda_D.--she is a self proclaimed expert on all things left including turns.).

[Mr. Lackawanna]

By the way Haber, do you think you might be able to post something that isn't reprinted directly from some knee-jerk reactionary conservative/Republican commentary?

What Liberal propaganda rags do you recommend we get our news from?

[run4it]

What Liberal propaganda rags do you recommend we get our news from?

None. You've never seen me cite Move-on, Daily Kos, and I don't think Media Matters (though they're at least factual, albeit to a liberal bent). I'd suggest wire services: AP, Knight Ridder, etc. NPR does a fairly decent job (if the announcer's voice doesn't put you to sleep, 'all things considered'). Unforunately, the cable news channels do very little news anymore...it's mostly commentary on the news. I think CNN does a little bit of actual coverage, but that's about it.

[raoul duke]

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Steven Colbert

[FisherRd]

These so called "North American Union" "conservatives" are akin to the "911 conspiracy theory libs", the "I hate america lib", and the "I hate the military lib".
They should be ignored or at the very least, pointed at and laughed at.

North American Union my ass...I stopped reading the article once I saw that crapola.

[Mr. Lackawanna]

None. You've never seen me cite Move-on, Daily Kos, and I don't think Media Matters (though they're at least factual, albeit to a liberal bent). I'd suggest wire services: AP, Knight Ridder, etc. NPR does a fairly decent job (if the announcer's voice doesn't put you to sleep, 'all things considered'). Unforunately, the cable news channels do very little news anymore...it's mostly commentary on the news. I think CNN does a little bit of actual coverage, but that's about it.

I subscribe to Time, Newsweek, U.S.News and Buffalo News and I feel the print media that I get, all have there biased opinions. Which more often than not I don't agree with and sometimes doubt their truthfulness.

I use Google to look up a news story and try to find out what is the truth. An example would be our Senator from New York State Ms Clinton, in some of Google references her star doesn't shine to bright.

[run4it]

I subscribe to Time, Newsweek, U.S.News and Buffalo News and I feel the print media that I get, all have there biased opinions. Which more often than not I don't agree with and sometimes doubt their truthfulness.

I use Google to look up a news story and try to find out what is the truth. An example would be our Senator from New York State Ms Clinton, in some of Google references her star doesn't shine to bright.

You seriously believe random websites more than the publications you mentioned? woooowwww.......

And again, don't confuse commentary with reporting. They're quite frequently mixed in mass media publications, which is why i suggested going straight to the wire sources.

For conservative commentaries, I recommend Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. They come across as being fair and honest, just naturally conservative. I can respect that quite a bit.

[raoul duke]

For conservative commentaries, I recommend Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. They come across as being fair and honest, just naturally conservative. I can respect that quite a bit.

fwiw, there is almost nothing naturally conservative about scarborough or carlson. talking points are one thing, policy endorsements and actions are another. hell i can spew enough talking points to make those guys look like hippies, but it wouldn't make me a conservative.

imo, a real conervative voice would be pat buchanan (inane, racist and xenophobic beliefs aside) or william buckley. those guys were conservative long before it was a powerhouse movement and learned their beliefs by reading, studying and contributing to the actual theories behind the conservative movement and not by having a man-crush on ronald reagan during the 1980's.

i think it was peter veireck (another brilliant conservative you will never hear about) who considered the carlson's, scarborough's and their ilk self-hating liberals that refused to explore what it was about themselves they hated. so they became "conservative" so they could openly criticize what they disliked about themselves. (note - that was, in part, his reasoning to kristol, irv or bill i forget, who said "neo-conservatives were liberals mugged by reality" and i'm paraphrasing viereck)

[FisherRd]

For conservative commentaries, I recommend Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. They come across as being fair and honest, just naturally conservative. I can respect that quite a bit.

Carlson is too much of a weenie. His points are weak (and I'm on the right side of the aisle). Scarborough isn't bad although I doubt he held himself to the same standard as he's holding the guys currently doing his old job. He also relies too heavily on Buchanon.

Laugh all you want, but I love watching Brit Humes "roundtable". He's got the mega conservatives opinions and then Jaun Williams and Mora (NPR lady...Eliasan?) to represent the left/moderate opinion. I just like the way they debate and counter eachother in a conversational tone, no shouting, no over the top arguing, just a valid debate.

[Habermill]

These so called "North American Union" "conservatives" are akin to the "911 conspiracy theory libs", the "I hate america lib", and the "I hate the military lib".
They should be ignored or at the very least, pointed at and laughed at.

North American Union my ass...I stopped reading the article once I saw that crapola.

Check out this link:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...a-e5d34d6e4a96

Sort of blows a whole in your assessment. I would research first before I make such a statement. Your post illustrates your personal bias on the actual issue without posting facts to contradict it.

[run4it]

Check out this link:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...a-e5d34d6e4a96

Sort of blows a whole in your assessment. I would research first before I make such a statement. Your post illustrates your personal bias on the actual issue without posting facts to contradict it.

The article you linked to cited what the critics have said about the bill, not what the bill actually says. I can go to most any commentary site and see the soundbites. Think you might want to actually address the issues, as opposed to what others think of the issues?

And Haber, you haven't really posted any facts yourself at all. You've posted someone else's views, and that's about it. Your political bias is blinding! Before you go pointing that same finger back at me, try answering the original questions I posed. I'd honestly like answers...and I would hope you want them too before forming a horribly uninformed opinion. So please, prove that you know more than how to cut and paste.