[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: Totalization Sell-Out: What You Don't Know will Cost You [Social Security for illegals] Totalization Sell-Out: What You Don't Know will Cost You While most Americans were riveted to the hotly contested Democratic National Primary in June of 2004 and the national media speculated on Howard Dean or John Kerry, the Commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration (Jo Anne Barnhart) and her Mexican counterpart concluded the U.S.-Mexican Totalization Agreement. This agreement had to be in place prior to the administration?s second term and it?s all-out offensive for Social Security reform. What would be the potential effects of this totalization agreement with Mexico, should the president choose to move it forward? Unauthorized illegal aliens working in the U.S. could qualify for Social Security benefits with as few as six coverage credits, as opposed to the 40 now required of American workers. Additionally, illegal workers could qualify for partial benefits after only 18 months (working illegally and with a false identity), while the American worker would still have to work 10 years in order to vest in the program. Lastly, families and dependents of illegal workers would be entitled to benefits as dependents and survivors, even if not residing in the U.S. So what is a ?totalization? agreement? These are bilateral agreements between the U.S. Social Security Administration and its counterpart in foreign countries to coordinate their Social Security programs. Presently the U.S. has 20 such agreements, mostly with European nations. This overall program has been in place since the Carter Administration. However, this is the first totalization agreement between the United States and a nation responsible for nearly 70 percent of the illegal immigration into the United States. How odd it is, that amid the national debate currently raging in Washington, no mention is being made about this agreement with Mexico. This lack of debate is made all the more curious, since in September of 2003 the General Accounting Office (GAO) warned of the Social Security Trust Fund that ?? a totalization agreement with Mexico has raised concerns that many such workers would become newly eligible for social security benefits at a time when long-term solvency is threatened.? According to the GAO report, the agreement will likely increase the number of ?unauthorized? Mexican workers and their family members eligible for social security benefits. The Social Security Administration?s estimate is that only about 50,000 Mexican workers (both legal and illegal) will enter the program in its first year at a cost of $78 million. This ignores the fact that presently there are an estimated 5 to 6 million undocumented Mexicans now in the American workforce. In 2004, the SSA did a study and determined that there were up to 800,000 mis-matched social security accounts, many of which were workers using non-work social security cards, or worse, using stolen social security numbers. Meanwhile, estimates of the SSA are that by 2050 only 300,000 Mexican workers in the U.S. would be in the system at a cost projection of $650 million annually. Among its negative findings, the GAO summarized its report this way:?Under the Social Security Act, all earnings from employment in the United States count towards earning social security benefits, regardless of the lawful presence of the worker, his or her citizenship status, or country of residence. Immigrants [both legal and otherwise] become entitled to benefits from unauthorized work if they can prove that the earnings and related contributions belong to them. However, they cannot collect such benefits unless [or until] they are either legally present in the United States [hence the Administration?s Guest Worker Program], or living in a country where SSA is authorized to pay them their benefits. [Hence an SSA office in Mexico City] Mexico is such a country.? The GAO continued, ?A lack of transparency in the SSA?s processes, and the limited nature of its review of Mexico?s program, [a two-day visit] cause us to question the extent to which SSA will be positioned to respond to potential program risks should a totalization agreement with Mexico take place.? A Congressional Ways & Means Committee Fact Sheet (Sept. 22, 2004) takes note that, ?A totalization agreement with Mexico overrides restrictions to non-citizen spouses and children.? In effect, the U.S. Mexico Totalization Agreement signed June 29, 2004 allows non-citizen spouses and children residing outside of the United States to receive social security benefits. Where to from here? Although signed in June 2004, the Totalization Agreement does not go into effect until 60 legislative days following the president?s submission to Congress. Thereafter, Congress has 60 days in which to pass a resolution of disapproval to prevent the agreement from taking effect. Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-CD5) has sponsored House Resolution 20 to formally express the disapproval of Congress. Presently H. Res. 20 has 40 co-sponsors, of which the only other Arizona Congressman onboard is Rick Renzi (R-CD1). However, according to the Congressional Research Service, the resolution of disapproval mechanism currently in the Social Security Act is an unconstitutional legislative veto, this based on the Supreme Court?s decision in INS vs. Chadha (462 U.S. 919 (1983)) in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. As of now, the Administration has yet to send the U.S. Mexico Totalization Agreement to Congress for review. Perhaps they?re waiting for the approval of some form of social security reform package to emerge from the Senate? Perhaps they?re waiting for some form of Guest Worker Program to emerge from the House? In any event, enactment appears to depend on timing. For more information, contact Congressman J.D. Hayworth?s office or request GAO report #GAO-03-993, ?Social Security: Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges.?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
Those traitorous bastards.
Makes it pretty clear that we aren't bringing in masses of illegal aliens to SAVE socialist security. On the contrary, they represent an ever expanding burden upon it.
Exactly. But the bots are spinning it as showing why we need "reform" of the system. Can't they see what's happening in whatever town they dwell? We've been freaking INVADED, and now we want to reward the invaders?
#4. To: lodwick (#3)
It's the way Smirk handles logic. Instead of two negatives make a positive, it's two illegals make one legal.
Before this is all over those who live in the future Aztlan will stand by and watch their homes given away. Just like Gaza right now.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||