I sure that this will make no difference to you and many others here because CIS tells you what you wany to hear.
..........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
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.