Skip to comments.Siphoning off Social Security
Posted on 01/08/2003 10:10:08 PM PST by kattracksEdited on 07/12/2004 4:00:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If top officials at the State Department and Social Security Administration have their way, up to $345 billion
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Although the White House would no doubt love to shower Mexico with affection, officials there are not aware of the true size and scope of the agreement nor is Congress, which has the final say.
Call your Congressman.
"illegal aliens from Mexico would also become eligible for Social Security benefits."
"someone can receive benefits based on work performed while in the country illegally."
"The Totalization Agreement with Mexico, however, would make illegal aliens from that country eligible for the same treatment under Social Security as U.S. citizens, without ever becoming legal residents or citizens."
"government sources familiar with the negotiations say that there has been agreement on most significant issues, including the expansion of eligibility for illegal aliens."
"An internal SSA memo also indicates that the pact will allow illegal aliens to qualify for Social Security benefits: "Mexican nationals working illegally in the U.S. can currently become entitled to benefits if they have made payments to the Trust Fund that meet the vesting requirements. The Totalization Agreement would include this population of Mexican workers within the overall population of workers covered by this agreement."
INS Fails to Enforce Employer Sanctions
By Matt Hayes
Thursday, January 09, 2003
The 2002 year-end INS employer sanctions figures are out. If you don't know what these are, you shouldn't worry. The sanctions penalize employers who hire new aliens who entered the U.S. without authorization. They don't cause markets to rise or fall.
Employer sanctions might have a greater impact on the citizenry if the INS enforced them, but right now, they are so uncommon and so random that one almost feels sorry for the employers that are caught.
To end peaking illegal immigration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which provided an amnesty for illegal aliens and sanctions for employers who continued to hire them. While many have debated which of the two was most important, it's clear that Congress wished to wipe the illegal immigration slate clean and remove any commercial incentive for further illegal immigration. The act's sponsors promised, correctly, that only legislation including employer sanctions could deter illegal immigration. Since 1986, immigration lawyers have predicted that employer sanctions are set to become the next lucrative practice area. The INS disappoints them year after year.
In 2002, the INS fined 320 U.S. employers for hiring illegal aliens. The fines totaled $5.3 million, though only $2.6 million was collected. The INS was unable to collect a dime from 73 of those employers, some of which were fined as much as $77,000. The greatest assessment, $1 million, was made against a New York-based office cleaning company, which was able, perhaps not surprisingly, to write a check.
This might seem like a good thing until you stop for a moment and consider the extent of the problem that the employer sanction was legislated to fix: There are over 8,700,000 illegal aliens in the U.S., according to a January 2002 estimate by the Census Bureau. They can't all be employed by the 320 entities fined by the INS last year.
Sixteen years after the passage of the IRCA, employer sanctions are basically unenforced.
So it was a little disingenuous to see the Bush administration sweating it out New Year's Eve over five men who might have driven across the Canadian border into New York just after Christmas. They admittedly knew nothing about these men, except their probable origin in the Middle East. The president highlighted his concern when he spoke about them to reporters, assuring us that an intense search was underway. The comments made evident that border control is still a front in the war on terrorism, but they also made clear that after 15 months of effort, we lack either the will or the manpower to have borders that can actually prevent people from entering our country.
The story has since been revealed as a hoax, further exposing the lack of knowledge and control the government ever had over the situation, proving again the nation's dangerous weakness in this area.
This makes even more troubling the administration's devotion to some form of amnesty for nationals of Mexico. At a moment when we are trying to make our airports and other points of entry safer through uniform enforcement efforts, President Bush seems prepared, where our southern border is concerned, to give up the ghost. To be fair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, at a November meeting with Mexican representatives, said illegal immigration from Mexico presented "difficult issues," but Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Mexicans living in the U.S., have never retreated from a demand for complete amnesty.
Such an amnesty would not just represent an abandonment of our southern border and the people who have spent their careers trying to maintain it. It would vindicate U.S. employers that conduct their business by disregarding immigration laws.
It would also almost certainly require the federal government to resume payment of certain forms of public assistance to illegal aliens, from which it freed itself through the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Between 1982 and 1995, the number of non-citizens receiving welfare increased 500 percent. By 1996 non-citizens, though less than six percent of America's population, received more than 50 percent of cash payments made by the SSI program about $8 billion a year. Much of this increase can be attributed to the cost of assimilating illegal aliens who had been amnestied in 1986 under the IRCA, a cost the Center for Immigration Studies pegged at $78.7 billion.
With the Welfare Act of 1996, only citizens, qualifying legal residents and refugees could receive federal public assistance. While the terms of any future amnesty are unclear, the minute an illegal immigrant is granted amnesty, he becomes legal. It's doubtful that in legalizing a group as large as the Mexican illegal immigrant population is presumed to be, our government would leave it unable to qualify for public assistance.
Consider that the total number of illegal immigrants amnestied in 1986 was 2.7 million. In 2000, the Census Bureau estimated the number of Mexican illegals in the U.S. was more than 3.8 million. If that population has similar effects on public resources, we can expect a net cost to taxpayers of at least $110 billion.
If this amnesty of illegal Mexicans is passed, the INS must do a much better job of enforcing employer sanctions so that the incentives for illegal border crossings jobs is seriously reduced. If not, then this initiative will be as effective as the 1986 Act which is, not at all.
Matt Hayes began practicing immigration law shortly after graduating from Pace University School of Law in 1994, representing new immigrants in civil and criminal matters. He recently left the New York City law practice he founded in 1997 for the "more normal life" of insurance defense, and is author of The New Immigration Law and Practice, a textbook to be pubished by West Legal Publications in October, 2003.
1. Social Security Reform: Give Illegal Aliens Money.
2. Surplus: There never was a surplus.
3. Let you: He's going to let you invest your money.
The toothpaste of the past three generations of Democrat ponzi-scheme operation can't be put back in the tube. I like to explain the "trust fund" swindle by pointing out that you can write yourself an IOU for $200 billion, any day of the week--but that wouldn't make you richer than Bill Gates because it would be just as much a liability as it would be an asset. And the Social Security "Trust Fund" is, by law, "safely invested" in bonds backed exclusively by the taxing power of the government.
So the "Trust Fund," containing only IOUs which the taxpayer must redeem, can never be of any help to our grandchildren when they face the task of covering the negative Social Security cash flow implied in the demographics of baby boom retirement. The IOUs in that "fund" are simply instructions to make the taxpayer ante up, or face worse inflation than we had in the 1970s.
GWB knows that. The only way that the current-accounts positive cash flow of Social Security could possibly be put in a "lockbox" which would be useful to our grandchildren's funding of Social Security would be to invest the money in the real economy rather than in government debt. And that means "privatizing" the investment--or else instituting socialism by having the government become the majority shareholder of U.S. corporations.
"Privatizing Social Security" is a poor substitute for going back in time to 1928 and electing someone who wouldn't establish the preconditions for the New Deal and the Roosevelt Administration, as Hoover did. But once the Social Security genie is out of the bottle, privatizing (making real) the Trust Fund is the least worst thing I know to do. To base present policy on complaints about poor historical choices, and the non-existence of money that is gone forever, is infantile. At this point Social Security can be mended but little--and it cannot be ended.
And as usual, it will be millions more than estimated who'll get in on it. There will be millions of Mexicans claiming to have worked illegally in the US who never stepped foot here and how can anyone prove they didn't?
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.