Posted on 10/11/2004 10:29:04 AM PDT by EagleUSA
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger terminated the latest version of the license bill, AB2895, yesterday. It was Schwarzenegger’s twenty-second veto since entering office last year. In a simple statement that read more like a condolence than a mandate, the Republican governor said he could not sign the bill because it would make California too vulnerable.
“One of the most important duties of the Governor of a state is to protect its citizens. Determining the true identity and history of an individual is a key component of that protection,” the governor wrote. “This bill does not adequately address the security concerns that my Department of Homeland Security and I have and I cannot support it.”
A similar bill was sign by former Gov. Gray Davis before his removal from office. Schwarzenegger repealed that law, written by State Senator Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, after the October recall election. Upon rescinding the bill, however, Schwarzenegger said he would work to develop another law to serve the needs of the illegal immigrant population.
Prior to 1994, illegal immigrants driving without licenses were a low law enforcement priority in California. Laws similar to the one just vetoed by the governor exist in 10 other states.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacunion.com ...
"Still others may have worked under false identities and may not be able to prove that they have the necessary coverage credits to be entitled to benefits. "
Isn't this what you are worried about ? the illegal workers ? Looks like they don't get anything...
The only sticking spot is ones who were legal at one time, yet worked after becoming illegal ( overstaying their visas ) I would think that would be a bigger problem with other countries that we have allready worked out agreements with.
This is what I'm worried about:
"We have seen an earlier draft of this agreement that omits any mention or discussion of segregating earnings from Mexican or American wage earners working legally versus those working illegally."
And this:
"For example, a non-citizen retired or disabled worker may receive payments outside the United States (including benefits based on unauthorized work in the United States) if he/she is a citizen of a country that has a social insurance system that pays benefits to eligible U.S. citizens residing outside that country, which Mexico does."
And this:
"A totalization agreement overrides benefit restrictions to non-citizen spouses and children. 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."
And this:
"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."
And this:
"Even Mexican citizens who are not lawfully present in this country can receive social security benefits earned through unauthorized employment if they later return to live in Mexico. Similarly, under current law, noncitizen dependents and survivors can also receive social security benefits under some circumstances."
Looks like the illegals do get something after all.
You don't see any problems paying SS benefits to the wives and children of the illegal receiving benefits even if they've never stepped foot in the US?
This is already a problem with other countries, which is why section 211 was added to Social Security Protection Act.
"Looks like the illegals do get something after all."
Yes, if they have their own social security number and paid into it... Remember, these have to be ones that were legally here to begin with.
It's a flaw in the system that allows them to pay into it,( maybe the INS should be looking into SS records for overstayed visas ? ) but they are getting what they paid into, not something for nothing.
"You don't see any problems paying SS benefits to the wives and children of the illegal receiving benefits even if they've never stepped foot in the US? "
You keep ignoring the fact that the only illegal who gets anything is the one who was here legally at one time.
I would bet that the overwhelming majority of this type are NOT Mexicans... most of them are never here legally so they loose it all if they had put any in under a bogus SSN.
As far as them never stepping foot ? So what, all the other countries we have basically the same agreements with will never set foot either...
You still believe the brain-mush propaganda that driving is a privilege?
We have the RIGHT to free movement throughout the U.S., without the ability to travel freely (Drive) that right is certainly very limited.
Please do not accept as fact mere propaganda designed to overwhelm your ability and willingness to defend your constitutional rights.
Except for the poor spelling I agree with the balance of your post.
Please notice the use of the oxymoron, "illegal immigrants" in place of the truthful description, Invading Illegal Aliens!
Yes.
"The Feds have no power over State laws, if the States press it..."
Oh really?
Take a moment to look back on all the laws the Fed. have blackmailed several states into adopting!
National speed limits, DUI thresholds, age of consent, and more!
We let the Fed. get away with this, and we let "Our" state government cave in to them for fear of "losing" Fed. tax money that came FROM US to begin with!
If I am, then so is the GAO, the Judiciary Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
"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."
And...
"Even Mexican citizens who are not lawfully present in this country can receive social security benefits earned through unauthorized employment if they later return to live in Mexico. Similarly, under current law, noncitizen dependents and survivors can also receive social security benefits under some circumstances."
As far as them never stepping foot ? So what, all the other countries we have basically the same agreements with will never set foot either...
No, you aren't reading the material I'm posting.
Federal law says that spouses and dependants must have been here at least five years. The totalization agreement overrides this restriction.
"A totalization agreement overrides benefit restrictions to non-citizen spouses and children. 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."
And...
"Totalization agreements generally expand benefits to both authorized and unauthorized workers and create new groups of beneficiaries. This would be the case for a totalization agreement with Mexico if it follows the same pattern as all prior totalization agreements. Mexican citizens with fewer than 40 coverage credits will be permitted to combine their annual earnings under their home country’s social security program with their annual earnings under the U.S. Social Security program to meet the 40-credit requirement.3 In addition, more family members of covered workers will qualify for dependent and survivor benefits. Totalization agreements generally override Social Security Act provisions that prohibit benefit payments to noncitizens’ dependents and survivors who reside outside the United States for more than 6 months, unless they can prove that they lived in the United States for 5 years in a close family relationship with the covered worker. If a totalization agreement with Mexico is structured like others already in force, the 5-year rule for dependents and survivors will be waived."
You keep assuming that the illegal alien had to have been here legally at some point in order to receive a valid SSN and thus receive benefits for work performed illegally in the US.
This is incorrect. The SSA performs no test for legality.
I quote:
"However, most aliens working illegally in the U.S. meet the documentation requirement of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act by presenting their employers with bogus Social Security numbers or steal the identities (and Social Security numbers) of work-authorized individuals. Such an alien (or his or her spouse or children) may approach SSA and seek to receive benefits based on work in the U.S. performed on the bogus or stolen numbers. As you know, if the applicant qualifies for benefits, the SSA will then issue a valid Social Security number."
"Such an alien (or his or her spouse or children) may approach SSA and seek to receive benefits based on work in the U.S. performed on the bogus or stolen numbers. As you know, if the applicant qualifies for benefits, the SSA will then issue a valid Social Security number."
Is this not a test for legality ?
Are there any figures for the number of illegals going to the SS and saying " I've used this bogus/stolen number for years - give me credit for it " ?
Such an alien MAY approach .... I'd need to see numbers on how many do, and how many and why they would be granted before I get too upset about it.
It is not. I quote:
"Under U.S. law, immigrants may not work in the United States unless specifically authorized. Nevertheless, immigrants often do work without authorization and pay social security taxes. Under the Social Security Act, all earnings from covered 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 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 they are either legally present in the United States or living in a country where SSA is authorized to pay them their benefits. Mexico is such a country."
Are there any figures for the number of illegals going to the SS and saying " I've used this bogus/stolen number for years - give me credit for it " ?
In tax year 2001, the SSA sent 944,000 “non-match” notices to employers, but this has been scaled back, supposedly for cost reasons. More than 500,000 people with non-valid SSN’s paid into the trust fund in 2000, according to testimony by the Senior Citizens League on September 11, 2003. It was not until September 2002 that the SSA began verifying non-citizen immigration documents prior to issuing an SSN, according to SSA testimony on September 9, 2003.
Note that these figures do not include the number of illegal aliens who presented bogus or stolen SSNs to the SSA and were subsequently issued valid SSNs as described in my last post.
Referring back to the links I posted:
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.
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) by 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 could 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. Although the actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would not generate a measurable long-term impact on the actuarial balance of the trust funds, a subsequent sensitivity analysis performed at GAO’s request shows that a measurable impact would occur with an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent, even in cases where uncertainties about the number of unauthorized workers were less prevalent. Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed totalization agreement is even more uncertain than in prior agreements. millions of unauthorized workers present in the United States, a totalization agreement with Mexico has raised concerns that they would become newly eligible for social security benefits.
I still don't really see where you are going - They can only collect if they put money in, and have some way of proving it.
I asked - "Are there any figures for the number of illegals going to the SS and saying " I've used this bogus/stolen number for years - give me credit for it " ?"
You gave me numbers for missmatched SSN's but nothing about how many people attempt to, or succeed in proving that they are due the benefits.
Who is they? Proving what?
You gave me numbers for missmatched SSN's but nothing about how many people attempt to, or succeed in proving that they are due the benefits.
What was the purpose of the Judiciary Committee letter to Barnhart?
What was the purpose of the Ways and Means Fact Sheet on the Totalization Agreement?
What was the purpose of the GAO report on the SSA Totalization Agreement with Mexico?
"Who is they? Proving what? "
They is anyone... proving that "they" don't get something for nothing. You don't put in, or can't prove that you put it in, you don't take out.
"What was the purpose....?"
Why don't you tell me ? They don't come to any conclusions.
Who is the 'they' and what is the 'it' that was put in that 'they' are trying to take out?
Why don't you tell me ? They don't come to any conclusions.
Of course they do.
For example, the GAO report has a section called, "Conclusions".
"Who is the 'they' and what is the 'it' that was put in that 'they' are trying to take out? "
They is anyone -- it is money
"For example, the GAO report has a section called, "Conclusions"."
And their conclusion is ....
"Thus, for the Mexican agreement, additional analyses to assess risks and costs may be called for."
That's a conclusion ?
We don't know and we MAY need to study it some more ?
If you found some other "conclusion" there I'd be interested in hearing it.
LOL!
Are you referring to 5 year-olds in Madison, WI who on their birthday get $10 from their Grandmother?
Or was there someone else to which you were referring?
That's a conclusion ?
LOL! No, not quite. They had a reason for creating these documents. Try again.
If you found some other "conclusion" there I'd be interested in hearing it.
I did.
I know you couldn't find the section labeled "Conclusions" in the GAO report until I pointed it out to you, so why don't you go back and re-read these documents and see if you can find the authors' conclusions for yourself instead of relying on me to interpret them for you.
Once you've read the documents and think you understand their contents, let me know and we'll discuss the matter further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.