Posted on 12/08/2005 6:54:56 AM PST by jackbenimble
(CNSNews.com) - Illegal aliens who work under borrowed, stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers could collect retirement benefits based on their illegal earnings as the result of a Bush administration plan. Critics charge the federal government has grossly underestimated the cost of the proposal, which they believe could run be billions of dollars per year.
Congress is expected to vote on some combination of proposed changes to immigration laws as early as next week, according to sources working with the House Homeland Security and Judiciary committees. While members have not been able to reach agreement on the details of a temporary or "guest worker" program advocated by President Bush, the White House might use the legislative opportunity to seek approval for an International Social Security Agreement with Mexico, something it has wanted for more than two years.
Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Cybercast News Service that the arrangements, usually called "totalization agreements," with industrialized countries like Canada, the United Kingdom and even France are beneficial. But those benefits, he argued, would not come from an agreement with Mexico.
"The point to a totalization agreement is for two advanced countries that occasionally send corporate transferees from one country to the next for a two or three year stint to be able to reconcile their respective retirement systems," Kirkorian said. "It's not for a third world country that sends millions of peasants into a developed country to take advantage of; there's a complete mismatch, an imbalance."
Kirkorian points out a number of differences between the U.S. and Mexican Social Security systems including:
Workers are vested in the U.S. system in 10 years versus 24 years in Mexico;
The U.S. pays greater benefits to lower income workers whereas Mexico pays out only the premiums paid in, plus accrued interest; and
Most Mexican workers avoid their country's Social Security system by working in the "underground economy," while most U.S. workers have Social Security taxes automatically collected from their wages.
The U.S. has entered into totalization agreements with 20 countries since 1978. The Social Security Administration (SSA) describes the arrangements on its website:
"[These] agreements have two main purposes. First, they eliminate dual Social Security taxation -- the situation that occurs when a worker from one country works in another country and is required to pay Social Security taxes to both countries on the same earnings," the SSA site explains. "Second, the agreements help fill gaps in benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country."
Congress does not have to give approval for the totalization agreements, but lawmakers are given the opportunity to vote them down. SSA Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart explained the benefits of totalization for U.S. employers and employees during her Sept. 11, 2003 testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.
"Without totalization the combined Social Security tax rate that U.S. employers and employees working in foreign countries must pay often approaches 40 percent or more of total payroll," Barnhart testified.
In March of 2003, the SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that a totalization agreement with Mexico would cost the U.S. $78 million in the first year, growing to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) by 2050. That determination assumed that the initial number of newly eligible Mexican recipients would be equal to the 50,000 beneficiaries then living in Mexico, and that the eligible number would grow to only 300,000 over the next 48 years.
But the agency now known as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) GAO report disputed that estimate.
"[T]his 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 GAO determined. "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."
Kirkorian believes those would be the unintended consequences of the president's proposed "guest worker" program.
"If the president gets his way and [those illegal aliens are] legalized, and he submits this totalization agreement to Congress," Kirkorian warned, "then all of the illegal aliens who get this 'amnesty' that he wants, get to count all of their Social Security payments when they were illegal toward their eventual retirement."
Barnhart told the congressional subcommittee that such an outcome could not happen.
"As is the case with our existing agreements, a totalization agreement with Mexico would not alter current law on this issue," Barnhart testified. "Totalization agreements do not have any effect on the prohibition against payment of benefits to illegal aliens in the United States."
But if Congress approves the president's "guest worker" plan, the "adjusted" status of previously illegal employees would mean that they would no longer be excluded from eligibility for Social Security payments.
"What they want is for illegal aliens who 'adjust' to some kind of legal status to be able to count their illegal work toward Social Security," Kirkorian said. "That's not up for contention, that's just a fact. The Social Security Administration negotiated the agreement, already, with Mexico."
A March 2003 report by the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General (SSA-OIG) validates Kirkorian's concern.
"SSA's practice allows non-citizens to work illegally in the U.S. economy for a number of years, eventually acquire a valid SSN and have these earnings posted to their valid SSNs, and then receive [Social Security] benefits as a result of those earnings," the inspector general reported. "SSA does not consider the work-authorization status of the individual when they earned the wages; it only considers whether the individual can prove he or she paid Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes as part of this work."
Data from the 2000 Census indicate that 9.1 million Mexican citizens are living in the United States, 4.8 million of them illegally. The SSA-OIG report speculated about the impact that those illegal aliens could have if they became eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits.
"If these Mexican non-citizens are also working in the United States illegally, and an amnesty and/or totalization agreement occurs," the report warned, "SSA potentially may need to reinstate a large volume of [Social Security taxes paid under false or fraudulent account numbers] based on earlier unauthorized work."
Marti Dinerstein, president of Immigration Matters, also criticized the SSA in a September 2004 report entitled "Social Security 'Totalization' - Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico," for using Canada as the model for its Mexican totalization cost estimates.
"The estimated number of Canadians living in the United States is 820,000," Dinerstein wrote. "Given the fact that a totalization agreement would cover not just Mexican workers but also their spouses and dependents, it is highly likely that over time, potentially millions of people would receive U.S. Social Security benefits and the cost would be in the billions of dollars."
"It's pretty ludicrous, frankly," Kirkorian concluded. "Mexico is just not the kind of country that you should be having this kind of agreement with."
The White House did not return calls seeking comment for this article.
..........CIS is not a credible source. There are credible sources that contradict CIS.......
So post your "credible" source! I can read and make up my own mind and I find them very credible. I suppose you don't find FAIR or GAO credible either?
"GAO Tells Congress a Mexican Agreement Could Impact the Trust Fund
While the Social Security Administration (SSA) estimated that an agreement with Mexico would not make a measurable impact on the Social Security trust fund if it applied to 50,000 Mexicans — the number of current Mexican SSA beneficiaries residing in Mexico — and if that number increased to 300,000 beneficiaries by 2050[3], the General Accounting Office (GAO) disagrees.
In testimony on September 11, 2003, the GAO challenged the SSA’s methodology for estimating the costs of an agreement with Mexico. The methodology failed to take into account the estimated five million illegal alien Mexican workers in the United States, Mexicans now living in Mexico who earlier worked illegally in the United States, the fact that the agreement likely would make family members living in Mexico eligible for benefits that they are not currently entitled to, and the effects of a proposed new guest worker agreement. Also, the GAO found that there was no effort to systematically study the record keeping of the Mexican authorities who would be partners in the program to assure the validity of information received from that source.
The GAO dismissed the validity of comparing the impact of an agreement with Mexico to the one with Canada, because of the disproportionate number of illegal alien workers from Mexico. It also noted, “The cost estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change after a totalization agreement goes into effect. Under totalization, unauthorized workers could have an additional incentive to enter the United States to work and to maintain the appropriate documentation necessary to claim their earnings under a false identity.”
Given the questionable methodology used by the SSA to assess the impact of an agreement with Mexico, the GAO concluded that the SSA’s assessment that such an agreement would not have a measurable impact on the trust fund was not supported by the analysis, and, “Thus, for the Mexican agreement, additional analyses to assess risks and costs may be called for.”"
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters3acf
Guess we better move those bases then. LOL!!!
ROTHLMAO!!!
Oh yes, I'm sure this is the first thought of EVERY Illegal Alien!!!
Who put you in charge of determining which sources are credible? I find CIS to be far more credible then Tamar Jacoby at the Manhatten Institute or anything that is being published by the National Chamber of Commerce or the CATO Institute on this subject. They have a nasty habit of only telling half the story. For example, a few months ago they put out a series of articles touting the $6 billion contribution to Social Security but failed to mention the far larger costs imposed by illegals at both the Federal and State levels. If you think a deliberate attempt to mislead makes them credible, I question your qualifications for making that determination.
But I am waiting for you to post one of your credible sources that shows that this totalization deal will not impose an enormous drain on the Social Security System and American taxpayers. I watch these things closely and I have never seen anything credible or incredible for that matter (except for the posts of a few whacky open borders freepers) that made such a claim.
One of he few uses of emminent domain that I would support. We need 2 30ft walls separated by 50ft of "no mans land" across the entire border.
Yeah like Ream Field which is right next to the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station..LOL the illegals cross to the east and west of it north of the TJ sloughs and sometimes right across the airfield.
It is Mexico and Mexicans that are causing the problem. I would favor confiscating whatever land was needed starting at our border and moving South.
Another poster indicated that there was a 300 foot buffer of Federally owned land along the entire length of the border. Can anybody confirm that? Is it actual surface ownership or just a right of way or some other type of easement that allows the Border Patrol access for enforcement purposes?
How many actuaries does the CIS, Fairus, or the GAO employ?
How many actuaries does the CIS, Fairus, or the GAO employ?
Uh beats the heck out of me! Garbage in garbage oout.LOL..where are your "credible" sources?
Same thing he was thinking when he decided on unsecured Mexican borders, $15 billion to Africa, $2000 debit cards for welfare groupies in New Orleans, calling Manslaughter Ted Kennedy a "fine Senator", signing the CFR bill when he said it was unconstitutional, letting the deficit soar to $450 billion, kissing Barbara Mulkuski, and hundreds of others.
Not sure what he was thinking either, but he was thinking something.
Translation: Their facts do not support my fantasy.
CIS is probably THE MOST credible.
I'd be interested in knowing that as well.
Another poster also mentioned the posse commitatus as being something that would prevent the deployment of troops on the borders. Well, that the law has essentially been gutted by the "war on drugs" types over the past couple of decades. Also, if protecting our borders isn't a legitimate role of the military, then I don't know what is.
Not sure what he was thinking either, but he was thinking something.
----
This ONE AMERICA elitist agenda he (and his father) think they can conduct on the back of America's REAL citizens, is an atrocity. We seriously not only need a CONSERVATIVE in the White House, but an American that is not whacked out with elitism and utopian BS agendas.
You mean like the amnesty signed by President Reagan?
There is only one arbiter of who's fact are credible and who's facts are not. That is the judiciary. If policy or legislation is created based on sources of facts that are not credible, that policy or legislation could not withstand legal challenges.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner folks! This is exactly what has been done to us over the past century.
Just a couple weeks ago there were American troops on the New Mexico/Mexico border in an observation/enforcement support role. That has gone on sporadically for a long time. They rotate in for occassional training missions. I'm sure there were threads on Free Republic about it and I know it was discussed on Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes and elsewhere in the media. That argument is largely a canard. A fundamental mission of our military is to protect our borders.
Your argument is that not only is Bush, Congress, the UN, and Presidente Fox involved in this plot to destroy Social Security and the Nation but the the GS12 number crunchers are in on it also.
like i said garbage in garbage out actuaries are only as good as the info they work with see my post 121 above.
There are no revelations in #121. It is common knowledge.
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.