The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement Closer To Going Before Congress

NumbersUSA ^

[Happy2BMe]

The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement

The U.S. Commissioner of Social Security signed a totalization agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004. Now that the agreement has been signed, it must be reviewed first by the State Department, and then by the White House, which will submit it to Congress. Congress will have then have 60 "legislative" days to review the agreement. During this period, current law authorizes either Chamber to pass a Resolution of Disapproval of the agreement, or it will take effect automatically at the end of the 60-day period. In addition, the Mexican Senate must affirmatively approve the totalization agreement.

"Totalization" agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and another country to coordinate their social security programs. These agreements eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries when companies in one country send workers to the other country, and they protect benefit eligibility for workers who divide their careers between the two countries. The United States currently has totalization agreements with 20 countries, including Canada, Chile, South Korea, Australia and most of Western Europe.

Social Security Benefits for Illegal Aliens

U.S. law bars aliens living here illegally from receiving social security benefits. However, until 2004, the law permitted aliens to claim credit for work performed while here illegally if the aliens either left the United States or obtained legal status in the United States. If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and dependents) would receive full benefits.

In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

This law applies to aliens of all nationalities, regardless of the existence of totalization agreements. The agreements compound the problem, however, by increasing the pool of foreign workers who can qualify for U.S. social security benefits on the basis of work performed while here illegally. Under totalization agreements:

• Foreign workers can qualify with as few as 6 quarters of work, rather than 40 quarters (benefits would be prorated to reflect only credits earned in the United States); and

• More family members of workers are entitled to benefits, because the agreement waives rules that restrict certain payments to non-citizen dependents living outside the United States. Under current law, non-citizen spouses and children must have lived in the United States for at least five years (lawfully or unlawfully), and the family relationship to the worker must have existed during that time in order for them to receive benefits while outside the United States. A totalization agreement overrides this requirement.
  

What Makes the Mexico Agreement Different from the Others?

While the text of the agreement with Mexico has not yet been made publicly available, it is likely to be virtually identical to the 20 other agreements. The impact of the Mexico agreement is likely to be significantly different, however, because there are critical differences between Mexico and the other countries with which the United States has totalization agreements, including:

1. The economic disparity between the United States and Mexico, combined with the fact that our countries share a land border, has generated migration from Mexico to the United States at levels not comparable to any of the other 20 countries; and

2. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that Mexicans represent almost 70 percent of the 10 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Among the other 20 countries, South Koreans and Canadians comprise the next largest shares - 0.07 percent each -- of the illegal population.
   

The Costs of the Mexico Agreement

The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that a totalization agreement with Mexico would:

• Result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for social security benefits during the first five years;
• Cost the U.S. social security system $525 million over the first five years;

• Cost $650 million per year by 2050;
• Have a "negligible long-range effect" on the Social Security Trust Fund; and
• Save 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first five years of the agreement

In a review requested by Congress, the GAO found that:

• SSA's cost estimate does not account for any of the millions of Mexicans living and working here illegally who may become eligible for benefits;
• SSA "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;"

• The agreement with Mexico involves "highly uncertain" costs and would affect the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund if SSA has underestimated the number of beneficiaries by more than 25 percent (or 16,000 additional beneficiaries).
  

DHS statistics show that more than 28,000 Mexicans who had entered the United States illegally at some point were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002. Another 121,000 Mexicans who were already living here were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002, despite the fact that DHS had no record of them being lawfully admitted to the country. Under current law, these immigrants can claim credit for any work they performed while here illegally, in addition to work the perform after obtaining legal status. And these numbers reflect only one year.

Can the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement Be Stopped?

Once the President submits the agreement to Congress, which was expected to happen after the elections in November (but has not yet happened), it goes into effect automatically unless the House of Representatives or the Senate adopts a resolution of disapproval within 60 legislative days. According to the Congressional Research Service, however, the resolution of disapproval mechanism currently in the Social Security Act is an unconstitutional legislative veto, based on the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha (462 U.S. 919 (1983)), in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Since Congress has never rejected a totalization agreement, the fact that the mechanism for disapproval is unconstitutional has not been an issue. Unless the law is changed, though, it is likely that passage of a resolution of disapproval would give rise to a judicial challenge, potentially resulting in a determination that the agreement is effective.

[Happy2BMe]

Main Entry: ¹to·tal
Pronunciation: 'tO-t^&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin totalis, from Latin totus whole, entire

1 : comprising or constituting a whole : ENTIRE <the total amount>
2 : ABSOLUTE, UTTER <a total failure>
3 : involving a complete and unified effort especially to achieve a desired effect <total war> <total theater>

[clee1]

These politicians and bureaucrats should be tried for treason!

[Happy2BMe]

Another 'agreement' comin' atcha . .

(How many more of these will it take to get the job done right?)

=====================================

The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that a totalization agreement with Mexico would:

• Result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for social security benefits during the first five years;
• Cost the U.S. social security system $525 million over the first five years;

• Cost $650 million per year by 2050;
• Have a "negligible long-range effect" on the Social Security Trust Fund; and
• Save 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first five years of the agreement

[gubamyster]

ping

[MRMEAN]

If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and their whole villages of dependents) would receive full benefits.

[Kuehn12]

What is our social security programs have to do with other countries social security programs? Lets get our noses out foreign powers social policy. These totalization agreements sound like a step toward a world government. I am sicken by these continuing foreign entanglements.

[adam_az]

Someone please tell me when it's OK to start using the word "treason" without being jumped on and told to go to DU.

[adam_az]

you are gonna gag.

[AirBorn]

I am going to start either running for office somewhere--or begin a Crime Spree just robbing Senators and Congressman of everything they have since they are selling the country down the tubes!!

President Bush is screwing this up big time--was getting elected to take a chance at ensuring peace in the Middle east worth NOT getting a Republican elected in 08'???

Do they think they REALLY will get some kind of BENIFIT from illegals somehere??

I don't think so. Someone from EARTH better talk to them--I accidentally went on some west/mid-west Republican sites and THEY are PISSING MAD about this whole thing!! Illinois was one of them too!

Can you say " President Hillary Clinton?? ARRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!

[politicalwit]

"Someone please tell me when it's OK to start using the word "treason" without being jumped on and told to go to DU. "

Go right ahead. The word of the day is "TREASON". I've long said that GWB is a greater threat to America than terrorists. The SOB is giving away the country without a shot being fired.

[BIRDS]

I'm going out on a limb here and just wondering if but what this measure would provide Bush with added incentive to get the privatization of Social Security that he's been pushing for. I don't disagree with it but I'm just saying, it might be incentive to deliver before the country an even more certain indication that SS as it exists now will be bankrupt and even earlier by admitting countless more millions to the benefit-ready.

Just saying, seems likely. But I feel very compromised, I don't mind saying.

It just irritates me and many people to no end that so many millions for mostly Mexico can appear to use the country so easily without any reprimand and now even benefit for the usery. It's cheating, and it cheats everyone else who has arrived in the country the legal way. I just dislike this Totalization Agreement on principle because of, predominantly, the denigration to our immigration laws by, again, mostly people from Mexico.

Those are just the facts: most illegal immigration originates in Mexico and has for a long while now. It's not like everyone here hasn't been patient for a long time now, either. Now, people are really out of patience with the joke that our borders and immigration requirements are to so many from south of our border.

[FBD]

>"...Cost the U.S. Social Security system $525 million over the first five years; Cost $650 million per year by 2050..."

---

yes...Further increasing the Social Security debt will only help to bankrupt it sooner. Another reason for me to leave the Republican party.
5 years of Republicans controlling all three branches of the Federal govt, and this is what we get:
Same ol' status quo of IRS, continued progressive income taxes; a bigger and bigger federal government, a huge deficit, increased spending for every alphabet soup federal agency, and now: giving away Social Security benefits to millions of Mexicans, so they can return to Mexico, and retire on U.S Social Security benefits, on the backs of U.S. citizens.

GOODBYE to the Republican party. You will not get one more dime of support from me...EVER.

[BIRDS]

Yeah, THAT's the predictable outcome for the current struckdumb response from Washington Republicans about this issue. The few stories I've been reading today and yesterday about various raids at poultry plants and such, I think it's just 'token raiding' to try to placate the many millions of U.S. citizens who want an effective and immediate secure border.

Hillary Clinton is going to use this issue and use it and use it and make it a mantra along with Bill's big ole' Bible and then we'll have eight more years of bog while the borders remain underfunded, forlorn, and overrun.

[BIRDS]

Well, I'm not jumping ship yet because I regard the DNC as the shark in the water over the railing.

The biggest change is a beginning of change away from a "high central" federal control to more respect for state-determination, state level determinations. Which is a good thing (we really need to get the Supreme Court away from making legislation and back to ensuring Constitutional respect, and the Democrats are fighting that change tooth and nail, to put it mildly and any Democrat control will again set the S.C. back to legislating from the bench via extremely liberal perspectives).

Thus, if the Republican control has accomplished anything of value, it's that we'll have two more S.C. moderates in place by 2008 and hopefully, some sort of change to the U.N., if only to identify more clearly the dishonesty there.

It's gotten to where either party has to boil everything down to some centrist jello that everyone will still barely agree upon and we're left with not so much innovation and leadership as a group in D.C. who, who...who disappoint me with every passing day.

I can't stand the idea of Hillary Clinton with Bill back in the White House becaus as bad as things are now, they'll be far worse if she lands there in 2008. However, we need a strong RNC candidate and soon. Frist is out, McCain is out, Rice is not likely to win over Hillary (so is not a good candidate to my view for many reasons and not because she isn't capable but because she won't win over Hillary if they run against one another)...so we need someone and soon to disallow this maudlin defeatism from setting in. I feel it beginning to, is my point, among conservatives, largely based upon a lot of disappointments about the immigration issues.

[NRA2BFree]

We've already added a lot of India's employees to our Social Security rolls. Looks like we are heading to a one world government! Now that we have CAFTA, I'm sure those countries will be in line for our social security too.

If this isn't treason, I'd like to know what it.

[NRA2BFree]

Someone please tell me when it's OK to start using the word "treason" without being jumped on and told to go to DU.

TREASON

How's that? LOL We're on the same side so IF you get in trouble for saying it, then I will get in a lot more trouble.

[Borax Queen]

It seems like they are trying to speed things up toward the one-world socialist Utopia - since so many of us are catching on to their plans. Soon, it will be illegal to discuss such matters (because we are such racist vigilantes), and they can figure out via the Internet which ones used the word "treason."

[Borax Queen]

Luckily, they haven't had as much luck pushing their "illegal aliens are good for you" agenda as they have things like "diversity" and "multiculturalism."

[LT2AHOTLZ]

Sir,
Welcome to the Corporate States of America! Your government has, for a long tome now, been for sale to the highest bidder.
This was recently codified by the supreme court in the opinion which classified money as "speech" and therefore protected by the first amendment. At that instant some voices in this country got alot louder than others. Is it possible that there are those who have a vested interest in leaving our borders unprotected? Who would benefit from a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor while maintaining downward pressure on wages for legal citizens of the country?
What if some terrorists come across with the flood? No worries, a few more limitations on our freedoms ala the "patriot" act will do the trick.
Wake up America!!! You are under attack by religions extremists. Those who worship the god of murder and hatred, as well as those who worship money above all else.
The democrats and republicans are too busy whoring after contributions to keep themselves in power to worry about your security social or otherwise.
We look at ten million illegal immigrants and see lower wages, social security bankrupt, and the future of America as a third world country. The politicians see the fastest growing demographic in the nation. Make them legal and they will vote for you. Viva El Presidente Bush!

[FBD]

>"The biggest change is a beginning of change away from a "high central" federal control to more respect for state-determination, state level determinations."<

I don't know...the Real ID Act seemed like a good idea, but it appears to be a national ID, that will require another bureaucracy to administer the data base. It hardly seems like a decentralizing act...

>"It's gotten to where either party has to boil everything down to some centrist jello that everyone will still barely agree upon and we're left with not so much innovation and leadership as a group in D.C. who, who...who disappoint me with every passing day."<

Well said.

"I can't stand the idea of Hillary Clinton with Bill back in the White House becaus as bad as things are now, they'll be far worse if she lands there in 2008."

I too, could not stand the idea of Hillary Clinton as President. But that will only happen if Republican party continues to veer left, in search of a bigger and bigger tent.

I'll still vote for solid conservative Republicans, but the party will not get any more financial support from me, and I have already registered as an independent. It's my way of protesting this b.s.

regards