I fully agree with and count myself among those who object in the strongest possible terms to criminals (and make no mistake about it, that is exactly what illegal aliens are) gaining access to US taxpayer funded programs intended to benefit taxpaying citizens. Schools, welfare, and social security are all high on the list of item off-limits to illegals.
But I wonder if the totalization agreement might be misrepresented or misunderstood.
Let me tell you my experience. In 1995 I went to Korea on an assignment for my long-term US employer. During the first few years I was in Korea, my employer deducted and paid my SS-OA and SS-HI, AND enrolled me in the Korean pension system as well, as was required by law.
In 1999 or 2000 a totalization agreement went into effect between the US and Korea. The effect of this was that my US employer no longer had to deduct and pay into the Korean National Pension plan on my behalf, ending the double taxation.
Similarly, Korean employees of Hyundai or Samsung working in the US no longer needed to contribute to the US Social Security system. Instead, their employers simply keep up their contributions to their home country retirement system.
Of course, those individuals are not entitled to get benefits fromt he US Social Security System any more.
So, I wonder what is different about the Mexico case. It seems to me that under a totalization agreement, LEGAL Mexicans working in the US for Mexican companies would contribute to the Mexican system, whatever that is, and NOT the US Social Security system. Of course, if they are working for AMERICAN companies, then obviously they would be covered just as an American would be, and under all the same rules.
ILLEGAL aliens, i.e. criminal violators of our borders shold be elegible for nothing whatsoever.
I can't quite fathom where the huge additional monetary obligation comes from. Of course, if a MExican or any other national were to leave the US before qualifying for benefits, they shouldn't get any. After all Americans who fail to qualify under the rules don't get anything. Why should foreigners?
Your post is logical, too bad you don't work for the SSA!
"After all Americans who fail to qualify under the rules don't get anything. Why should foreigners? "
This is a hard one to swallow and there are going to be a lot of shocked people, but here's another sad fact of the SSA. Say you are 45 years old. Paid into SSA for 30 years. Your parents are sick and old, so you take 5 years off to care for them. Boom!! Hit by a bus, crippled for life. Guess what......ONLY approximately the last 5 years (NOT the last 5 years worked....the last few years period ), count toward disability benefits....NONE of that 30 years count. NONE of it.
The Mexican pension plan is out of money --- it's probably gone into the pockets of some very corrupt, very wealthy officials but it's bankrupt.
I think what our government may be doing is using what's left of our social security system to try to buy off the revolution which is likely to happen in Mexico. We give the peasants our retirement, maybe they won't get too mad.
"So, I wonder what is different about the Mexico case. It seems to me that under a totalization agreement, LEGAL Mexicans working in the US for Mexican companies would contribute to the Mexican system, whatever that is, and NOT the US Social Security system. Of course, if they are working for AMERICAN companies, then obviously they would be covered just as an American would be, and under all the same rules."
If that was the only way totalization worked there would be no harm done. The problem is, there is another part to the totalization process that would suck the trust funds dry.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10180.html
Payment Of Benefits
U.S. Social Security agreements also help people who have worked in both the United States and an agreement country, but who have not worked long enough in one country or the other to qualify for Social Security retirement, disability or survivor benefits. Under an agreement, each country can count your work credits in the other country if this will help you qualify for benefits.
For example, if you have earned some Social Security credits in the United States, but not enough to qualify for a benefit, we can count your credits in an agreement country to make up the difference. If you meet the minimum eligibility requirements based on combined credits from both countries, you will receive a partial U.S. benefit that is proportional to the number of credits you earned in the United States. The other country also can use your U.S. credits to help you meet the eligibility requirements for foreign Social Security benefits.
Although each country may count your work credits in the other country, your credits are not actually transferred from one country to the other. They remain on your record in the country where they were earned. It is therefore possible for a person to qualify for a separate benefit payment from each country.
Makes sense, but the Mexican workers would shudder at the American company giving money directly to the IMSS (Mexican Institute of Social Security) because they'll probably never see it.
Kind of like all the payments made through the bracero program to Wells Fargo bank. The bank forwarded the funds to the Mexican government, and now the elderly "beneficiaries" of that program living in Mexico (and some in the US) are wondering where their benefits are. The government says it doesn't know where the money is, but Wells Fargo clearly sent the payment.