Social Security benefits for illegal aliens?

[peejay 327]

Totalization is a Bad Idea

January 8, 2007

US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Through a Freedom of Information Act Request, a private group recently obtained a copy of a 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to receive Social Security benefits.

The agreement creates a so-called “totalization” plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.

Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.

It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work.

There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousand of noncitizens to the Social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.

Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it’s unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.

Also, totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits-- especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst010807.htm

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits.

If the argument is that foreign citizens (for example, US green card holders who did not naturalize) should be required to maintain longer residency before they are eligible for bennies, I don't have issue with that. But if the argument is that foreign citizens should not be eligible at all, that I have a huge problem with. We have plenty of green card holders who do not naturalize, who contribute throughout their career to SS. It would be wrong to tell them they don't see any of the money just because they chose not to take the oath.

[almaty 19]

i agree...know a lady retired that is 72...is from england ..spouse from america..never took the oath and kept her green card..paid for many yeears into ss system and deserves the bennies

[Arazia 0]

Sometimes, when reading confusing stuff like this, I become quite glad I don't pay into social security (yay for railroad retirement).

Edited January 9, 2007 by Arazia

[peejay 327]

The problem I have is no Congressional oversight and debate on the issue. Not to mention that the agreement gives Mexicans bennies that US citizens must work longer to qualify for. Not to mention that people in the USA illegally shouldn't be rewarded for that fact. There is a lot wrong with this totalization agreement and I just don't trust Bush.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

And peejay is right, it is outrageous for the President to sidestep the legislative branch in this manner on an issue of such magnitude. Here he runs around telling the people how SS is going bancrupt and there he signs contracts extending benefits to illegals? #######? This guy is nuts!

[peejay 327]

i agree...know a lady retired that is 72...is from england ..spouse from america..never took the oath and kept her green card..paid for many yeears into ss system and deserves the bennies.

In her case we have a totalization agreement with UK since 1985. But I believe LPR's already are eligible for Social Security if they work enough quarters in the USA to qualify.

Here is a list of countries we have agreements with:

http://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html

[Alex+R 0]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

[Alex+R 0]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

So...doesn't that punish babies for their parents immigration? In your scenario, it is better for a mom to let her baby die than bring it to the doctor in the U.S.? This is also taking into account it's not easy to travel with a sick baby, if you're going to say she should take it back to El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

So...doesn't that punish babies for their parents immigration? In your scenario, it is better for a mom to let her baby die than bring it to the doctor in the U.S.? This is also taking into account it's not easy to travel with a sick baby, if you're going to say she should take it back to El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.

why should my taxes subsidize an illegal's baby?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

So...doesn't that punish babies for their parents immigration? In your scenario, it is better for a mom to let her baby die than bring it to the doctor in the U.S.? This is also taking into account it's not easy to travel with a sick baby, if you're going to say she should take it back to El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.

why should my taxes subsidize an illegal's baby?

The baby is not illegal. The parent is.

[Alex+R 0]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

So...doesn't that punish babies for their parents immigration? In your scenario, it is better for a mom to let her baby die than bring it to the doctor in the U.S.? This is also taking into account it's not easy to travel with a sick baby, if you're going to say she should take it back to El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.

why should my taxes subsidize an illegal's baby?

The baby is not illegal. The parent is.

Even if it's an older kid, and it IS illegal, Charles, your attitude honestly made my stomach turn. I never thought anyone would take it this far.

And babies of illegal parents will be refused care now until their parents can provide their birth certificates, which many illegal people are afraid to obtain or have never registered, since they are afraid that entering those government buildings will get them deported.

I never thought people would encourage allowing children to remain sick or even die, but I learn something new on VJ every time I log in.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Anyone living and / or working in the US illegally should not ever be entitled to any benefit whatsoever. Period. Legal immigrants and legally employed and contributing non-immigrants ought to have their entitlements based on their contributions just like any US citizen. Anything else is #######.

What about their children? Should people working in the US illegally be eligible for neonatal care, for example?

So...doesn't that punish babies for their parents immigration? In your scenario, it is better for a mom to let her baby die than bring it to the doctor in the U.S.? This is also taking into account it's not easy to travel with a sick baby, if you're going to say she should take it back to El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.

why should my taxes subsidize an illegal's baby?

The baby is not illegal. The parent is.

provided the kid was born here. the way it was worded, the kid could have come to the states with the illegal parents.

[Ban Hammer 13,133]

Even if it's an older kid, and it IS illegal, Charles, your attitude honestly made my stomach turn. I never thought anyone would take it this far.

not my mission to save the world and collect the whole set alex. kids die everywhere. why aren't you out collecting money for those in africa? if such turns your stomach, it sucks to be you.

I never thought people would encourage allowing children to remain sick or even die, but I learn something new on VJ every time I log in.

again, why are the kids of illegals my problem?

i think we would do much better by taking care of the legal kids of legal parents here