U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-25-2007, 10:44 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,435 posts, read 15,946,342 times
Reputation: 5224

Advertisements

I've worked for many years with people who are on Medicare. Some of them qualify for medicaid, which acts as a supplemental coverage to Medicare. They also qualify for SSI (supplemental security income) which brings the amount of their monthly check "up to" the federal poverty level. I find that people that have qualified for these perks have been immigrants who worked very little in this country or even worse older medicare-SSI qualified people that have been "sponsored" by their immigrant children, but have not worked AT ALL in this country. There are many american citizens who do not qualify for these perks at all of just barely miss it b/c their income may be a little too high. They are the ones that must pay their own way.

I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and wonder how this influx of legalized illegals will affect the already troubled social security/medicare systems. Does anyone not think that the illegals will start DEMANDING Medicare, Social SEcurity and SSI benefits when they are old? While it may be true that they have contributed, they almost certainly have not been FORCED to contribute since they were 15 years old to age 65 or 70+. I frankly can't see anything but chaos when the boomers are retiring. Even if you use the argument that the younger workers will pay into the system and contribute while the boomers are retiring, what about all of the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS that they will receive?, thus depleting even more from the Treasury.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2007, 10:55 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,689,216 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
I've worked for many years with people who are on Medicare. Some of them qualify for medicaid, which acts as a supplemental coverage to Medicare. They also qualify for SSI (supplemental security income) which brings the amount of their monthly check "up to" the federal poverty level. I find that people that have qualified for these perks have been immigrants who worked very little in this country or even worse older medicare-SSI qualified people that have been "sponsored" by their immigrant children, but have not worked AT ALL in this country. There are many american citizens who do not qualify for these perks at all of just barely miss it b/c their income may be a little too high. They are the ones that must pay their own way.

I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and wonder how this influx of legalized illegals will affect the already troubled social security/medicare systems. Does anyone not think that the illegals will start DEMANDING Medicare, Social SEcurity and SSI benefits when they are old? While it may be true that they have contributed, they almost certainly have not been FORCED to contribute since they were 15 years old to age 65 or 70+. I frankly can't see anything but chaos when the boomers are retiring. Even if you use the argument that the younger workers will pay into the system and contribute while the boomers are retiring, what about all of the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS that they will receive?, thus depleting even more from the Treasury.
It will be bankrupt before we're old enough to collect. Part of Senate bill S.1348 gives our SS benefits to illegal aliens.

If that ticks you off, start contacting your elected representation and encouraging everyone you know to do the same.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2007, 11:21 PM
 
451 posts, read 1,016,167 times
Reputation: 342
The info you seek...

Quote:
Study: Social Security ‘Totalization’ Agreement with Mexico to Cost U.S. $207 Billion

The Social Security "Totalization Agreement" between the U.S. and Mexico, which has already been signed between the two nations and is awaiting the President’s signature, would cost the United States an estimated $207 billion through 2040, according to a new study conducted by TREA Senior Citizens League.

The Totalization Agreement could make as many as 1.6 million Mexican workers and dependents eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits by 2040. Dependent family members could be eligible for benefits without having ever worked in — or even having visited — the United States.

The majority of Social Security benefits would go to Mexicans who performed illegal work in the United States. However, their dependents — possibly including a spouse, divorced spouse, widows or widowers, minor and disabled adult children, and dependent parents — are also eligible for benefits, and could increase the cost of totalized retiree benefits by as much as 50 percent.

In December 2006, TREA Senior Citizens League received the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement, 3 1/2 years after its initial request under the Freedom of Information Act.

A Totalization Agreement is intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. Under the U.S.-Mexico agreement, a Mexican worker would be able to receive "totalized" Social Security benefits with as little as 18 months of work; American workers must work at least 10 years to qualify for benefits.
Continues,
http://wehategringos.com/whg/?p=1770 (broken link)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2007, 12:02 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Since 1978, the US has entered into Totalization Agreements with Italy, Portugal, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Canada, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Greece, Sweden, South Korea, Spain, Chile, France, and Australia. To wit, they are a simple part of the rationalization necessary between economies that are signifcantly based on international trade. Mexico is our second largest trading partner. Canada is first.

According to the actuaries at SSA, there is neglibile impact upon the Social Security Trust Fund. Their cost estimates for the Mexican agreement are $105 million (not billion) per year. In 2002, the Canadian Totalization agreement cost $197 million. The SSTF balance at the end of 2006 was approximately $2,048,100 million.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2007, 12:53 PM
 
2,432 posts, read 6,004,847 times
Reputation: 1009
The agreement with Mexico should not go forward. It will bankrupt the Social Security system.


Numbers USA (http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/totalization.htm - broken link)

Totalization - Social Security for
Illegal Aliens

The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement



January 2007:

On June 29, 2004, the U.S. Commissioner of Social Security and the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute signed a "totalization" agreement which would coordinate the Social Security programs of both countries. No further action has been taken to finalize the agreement during the intervening 2 years.

Totalization agreements eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries when companies in one country send workers to the other country, and they protect benefit eligibility for workers who divide their careers between the two countries. The United States currently has totalization agreements with 20 countries, including Canada, Chile, South Korea, Australia and most of Western Europe.

Current law requires the White House to review totalization agreements and forward them to Congress upon approval. Congress will then have 60 "legislative" days for its review. During this period, current law authorizes either Chamber to pass a Resolution of Disapproval regarding the agreement, or it will take effect automatically at the end of the 60-day period. In addition, the Mexican Senate must affirmatively approve the totalization agreement.

Social Security Benefits for Illegal Aliens


U.S. law bars aliens living here illegally from receiving social security benefits. However, until 2004, the law permitted aliens to claim credit for work performed while here illegally if the aliens either left the United States or obtained legal status in the United States. If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and dependents) would receive full benefits.

In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

This law applies to aliens of all nationalities, regardless of the existence of totalization agreements. The agreements compound the problem, however, by increasing the pool of foreign workers who can qualify for U.S. social security benefits on the basis of work performed while here illegally. Under totalization agreements:

Foreign workers can qualify with as few as 6 quarters of work, rather than 40 quarters (benefits would be prorated to reflect only credits earned in the United States); and
More family members of workers are entitled to benefits, because the agreement waives rules that restrict certain payments to non-citizen dependents living outside the United States. Under current law, non-citizen spouses and children must have lived in the United States for at least five years (lawfully or unlawfully), and the family relationship to the worker must have existed during that time in order for them to receive benefits while outside the United States. A totalization agreement overrides this requirement.

What Makes the Mexico Agreement Different from the Others?


While the text of the agreement with Mexico has not yet been made publicly available, it is likely to be virtually identical to the 20 other agreements. The impact of the Mexico agreement is likely to be significantly different, however, because there are critical differences between Mexico and the other countries with which the United States has totalization agreements, including:

The economic disparity between the United States and Mexico, combined with the fact that our countries share a land border, has generated migration from Mexico to the United States at levels not comparable to any of the other 20 countries; and
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that Mexicans represent almost 70 percent of the 10 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Among the other 20 countries, South Koreans and Canadians comprise the next largest shares - 0.07 percent each -- of the illegal population

The Costs of the Mexico Agreement


The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that a totalization agreement with Mexico would:


Result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for social security benefits during the first five years;
Cost the U.S. social security system $525 million over the first five years;
Cost $650 million per year by 2050;
Have a "negligible long-range effect" on the Social Security Trust Fund; and
Save 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first five years of the agreement
In a review requested by Congress, the GAO found that :

SSA's cost estimate does not account for any of the millions of Mexicans living and working here illegally who may become eligible for benefits;
SSA "assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States;"
The agreement with Mexico involves "highly uncertain" costs and would affect the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund if SSA has underestimated the number of beneficiaries by more than 25 percent (or 16,000 additional beneficiaries).
DHS statistics show that more than 28,000 Mexicans who had entered the United States illegally at some point were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002. Another 121,000 Mexicans who were already living here were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002, despite the fact that DHS had no record of them being lawfully admitted to the country. Under current law, these immigrants can claim credit for any work they performed while here illegally, in addition to work the perform after obtaining legal status. And these numbers reflect only one year.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2007, 03:37 PM
 
3,712 posts, read 5,710,869 times
Reputation: 1285
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Since 1978, the US has entered into Totalization Agreements with Italy, Portugal, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Canada, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Greece, Sweden, South Korea, Spain, Chile, France, and Australia. To wit, they are a simple part of the rationalization necessary between economies that are signifcantly based on international trade. Mexico is our second largest trading partner. Canada is first.

According to the actuaries at SSA, there is neglibile impact upon the Social Security Trust Fund. Their cost estimates for the Mexican agreement are $105 million (not billion) per year. In 2002, the Canadian Totalization agreement cost $197 million. The SSTF balance at the end of 2006 was approximately $2,048,100 million.
To the best of my knowledge there are not 12+ million Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Belgians, Finns, Norwegians, Irish, Canadians, Luxembourg people, UK chaps, Greeks, Swedes, South Koreans, Spanish, Chileans, French and Australians here illegally hoping to claim SS funds. Why anyone would enter into an agreement like this with Mexico is a mystery to me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2007, 04:43 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48 View Post
The agreement with Mexico should not go forward. It will bankrupt the Social Security system.
Well, it's been languishing for almost three years in any case. According to the Bushies, SS is bankrupt in any case. So what are you so upset about? Or would I be correct in assuming that you and folks like numbersusa are simply engaging in another round of baseless, attack-dog, Mexico-bashing?

Like it or not, totalization agreements do help foster enhanced diplomatic relations and provide beneficial business, tax, and other incentives to both employers and employees in countries joining in such agreements. We have not engaged in the process of negotiating these agreements over some three decades for no reason other than to keep a bunch of bureaucrats busy. There is one and only one reason to be concerned over the Mexican agreement, and that is that it would cover a far larger cohort of employers and employees than do any of the prior agreements. This is a cautionary. Extra care must be taken and contingencies must be considered and planned for. A reasonable case could be made that the 2001-04 considerations were either not sufficiently broad to begin with or have become out of date in the interval since and should be redone before the agreement is given further consideration. But reasonableness is not a consideration to an attack-dog. So we get claims and complaints that are of a different nature altogether.

And of course we also get the usual dose of disinformation on the side...

In a review requested by Congress, the GAO found that :

SSA's cost estimate does not account for any of the millions of Mexicans living and working here illegally who may become eligible for benefits;


Would this be because such illegals may become elgible for benefits whether the totalization agreement is moved forward or not?

SSA "assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States;

There is such an incentive and it's tiny, primarily affecting those who could return to the US illegally after adoption of the agreement and complete 40 quarters of covered employment under their original false identities.

The agreement with Mexico involves "highly uncertain" costs and would affect the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund if SSA has underestimated the number of beneficiaries by more than 25 percent (or 16,000 additional beneficiaries).

No. This section of the report analyzes the SSA conclusion of negligible effect on the SSTF, concluding that a measureable effect could occur if there were an underestimate of 25%, while noting that no error of that magnitude has been observed in more than fifteen years.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2007, 05:44 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,741,368 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreabeth View Post
To the best of my knowledge there are not 12+ million Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Belgians, Finns, Norwegians, Irish, Canadians, Luxembourg people, UK chaps, Greeks, Swedes, South Koreans, Spanish, Chileans, French and Australians here illegally hoping to claim SS funds. Why anyone would enter into an agreement like this with Mexico is a mystery to me.
Your complaint at least arises from a reasonable basis, that of relative size. But one does not merely show up and 'claim' Social Security benefits. One must be qualified for them, and SSA is the one that determines whether one is qualified and for what. The dog ate my homework is not going to fly here. This is one reason why financial planners encourage their clients to apply periodically to SSA for a statement of earnings and benefits to be sure that all covered employment has in fact been accurately reported and credited. Meanwhile there are significant benefits from unifying the treatment of and accounting for workers who are employed for significant periods of time in the economies of more than one country where each has a comparable national retirement system in place. And this would apply to Americans working in Mexico as well as to Mexicans working in the US. It helps to assure that taxes that should not be paid are not collected, and that benefits that have not been earned are not disbursed. It further helps to assure that taxes that should be paid are in fact collected, and that benefits that have in fact been earned are in fact disbursed. I assume here that most at least would agree that the US should pay benefits that have been earned to the people who have earned them, even if those people happen to be Mexicans. But perhaps I go too far there...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2008, 09:19 PM
 
57 posts, read 270,165 times
Reputation: 26
While being illegal, it is much harder to collect SSI and MediCal.
However, as soon as they are made legal in probably early 2009 by any of the 3 Top Candidates, they will immediately qualify for SSI and MediCal.
Right now, only those here with a Sponsor can qualify.
It is still much more difficult for them. Soon in early 09' though there will be lines around the block at every Social Security Office.
Also they can own a home of any value and collect, pay absolutely no taxes, cannot have the SSI check attached, like if you are ran into by an SSI, you can sue them, win, but you cannot collect, not on an SSI check.
SSDI, Social Security Retirement all pay taxes out of those checks, not SSI though, and like I said, you cannot attach a SSI check. Very hard to collect on a real estate lien for an SSI person as well, they claim undue hardship with their Low Income Free Legal Defense Attorney and Legal Services.
They also get Low Income Homeowners and Renters assistance rebate checks at the end of the year as well.
I would imagine that all the 'hard working' illegals that will see that they can collect, for their WHOLE family for that matter, a check each month, will go for the check.
Their whole family will collect. Even if they are just Depressed. Mental 'Other' is the largest part of SSI right now. More and more added each year for Mental 'Other'.
So, expect very long, blocks long, lines in a year or so, then No More Money for any Social Security.
Same for the other Entitlements. CalWorks, TANF, SSI, SSDI, IHSS, EBT, then the retired will get nothing either.
Maybe that's what the Mayan Calendar means, 2012, I might need to change my date!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2008, 09:30 PM
 
Location: California
1,268 posts, read 817,960 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
I've worked for many years with people who are on Medicare. Some of them qualify for medicaid, which acts as a supplemental coverage to Medicare. They also qualify for SSI (supplemental security income) which brings the amount of their monthly check "up to" the federal poverty level. I find that people that have qualified for these perks have been immigrants who worked very little in this country or even worse older medicare-SSI qualified people that have been "sponsored" by their immigrant children, but have not worked AT ALL in this country. There are many american citizens who do not qualify for these perks at all of just barely miss it b/c their income may be a little too high. They are the ones that must pay their own way.

I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and wonder how this influx of legalized illegals will affect the already troubled social security/medicare systems. Does anyone not think that the illegals will start DEMANDING Medicare, Social SEcurity and SSI benefits when they are old? While it may be true that they have contributed, they almost certainly have not been FORCED to contribute since they were 15 years old to age 65 or 70+. I frankly can't see anything but chaos when the boomers are retiring. Even if you use the argument that the younger workers will pay into the system and contribute while the boomers are retiring, what about all of the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDITS that they will receive?, thus depleting even more from the Treasury.
What? Legalized Illegals? Isn't someone who is legally illegal a citizen?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top