Good or bad? Rep. Rohrabacher Introduces No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act ?
Do you agree with this act?
Do you believe this will draw illegals out?
Will this stop illegals from trying to draw Social Security?
How will employers explain not paying Social Security for employees?
US Fed News
May 12, 2009 Tuesday 3:26 PM EST
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, has introduced the No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2009 (H.R. 2287), legislation that would "amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude from creditable wages and self-employment income wages earned for services by aliens illegally performed in the United States and self-employment income derived from a trade or business illegally conducted in the U.S."
The bill, introduced on May 6, has 16 co-sponsors. It was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. A copy of the full-text of the legislation follows: No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2009 H.R. 2287 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude from creditable wages and self-employment income wages earned for services by aliens illegally performed in the United States and self-employment income derived from a trade or business illegally conducted in the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2009'. SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT FROM EMPLOYMENT UPON WHICH CREDITABLE WAGES MAY BE BASED. Section 210(a)(19) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(a)(19)) is amended-- (1) by striking `(19) Service' and inserting the following: `(19)(A) Service performed by an alien while employed in the United States for any period during which the alien is not authorized to be so employed. `(B) Service'. SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF UNAUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES FROM TRADE OR BUSINESS FROM WHICH CREDITABLE SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME MAY BE DERIVED. Section 211(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 411(c)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (5), by striking `or' at the end; (2) in paragraph (6), by striking `him.' and inserting `him; or'; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph: `(7) The performance of a function or service in the United States by an alien during any period for which the alien is not authorized to perform such function or service in the United States.'. SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to wages earned, and self-employment income derived, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding section 215(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(f)(1)), as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute all primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to carry out such amendments. Such amendments shall affect benefits only for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.For more information about US Fed News contract awards please contact: Sarabjit Jagirdar, US Fed News, Email:- email@example.com
- StoneColdLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes I do agree. That is the price they pay for coming here illegally.
Illegals Granted Social Security
Excerpt: "Recent studies have completely debunked the theory that these Mexican workers are coming to the United States because they have no work in their homeland. In fact, there is much more that is drawing Mexican workers to the United States, and it includes better health care (funded mostly by U.S. taxpayers), superior education for their children, and the ultimate jackpot: Social Security benefits.
The biggest threat to the long-term security of our Social Security Trust Fund really isn’t personal accounts – despite the raging political debate where some critics of personal accounts claim allowing individual control of retirement accounts will bankrupt Social Security. In fact, the most significant threat to seniors receiving their monthly Social Security checks in the future is actually a normally non-controversial treaty arrangement presently sitting on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s desk between the United States and Mexico, called a “totalization agreement.”
These totalization agreements, of which there are currently 20 in place, have traditionally protected both U.S. workers assigned to work in other countries, and foreign workers with similar work assignments in the United States, from unreasonable requirements to pay into two government mandated retirement systems. Until now, totalization agreements have been non-controversial, and none of those sent to Congress for approval have been rejected.
But the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico has drawn the scrutiny of many in Congress, and significant problems with this agreement have been uncovered that document the proposed Mexico totalization agreement will likely provide a financial jackpot for currently illegal Mexican workers in the United States, and create a huge incentive for millions more to come to the United States to work.
The Center for Immigration Studies, an independent, non-partisan research organization that analyzes the impact of immigration on the United States, issued a report on the proposed Mexico Totalization Agreement that found four significant problems with the agreement:
1. One-sided. Unlike the 20 existing agreements, a totalization agreement with Mexico would be one-sided. Its beneficial effects to U.S. workers would be miniscule compared to those received by potentially millions of Mexicans. It is expected that the totalization agreement with Mexico would:
A. Provide only modest tax savings for American workers and their employers compared to other totalization agreements.
B. Entice Mexicans to remain in the United States for the 10 years it takes to vest for U.S. Social Security (versus 24 in Mexico) in order to maximize their retirement income. Under totalization agreement provisions, illegal Mexican workers could vest for benefits after just 6 quarters, or 18 months. The United States pays out far more to low-wage workers than they contribute to the system. In contrast, Mexico only pays out what was contributed, plus accrued interest.
C. Permit Mexicans to return home and have their spouses and dependents receive U.S. Social Security benefits they would not have been entitled to without a totalization agreement.
D. Permit partial Social Security benefits to be paid to those who worked in the United States as little as 18 months (six quarters).
E. Eventually compel the United States to pay out billions in retirement benefits to Mexicans for credits they acquired while using fraudulent Social Security numbers prior to obtaining legal status.
F. Lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hopes they would obtain amnesty, thereby making themselves and their families eligible to receive U.S. Social Security benefits once the worker returned to Mexico and reached retirement age.
2. Perversion of original concept. The anticipated totalization agreement with Mexico is a perversion of prior agreements, calling into question the appropriateness of such a pact. The norm in existing bilateral totalization agreements assumes employees of corporations are asked by their employers to transfer to the other country for a specified period of time. Employees and employers in both countries have been contributing to their respective social security systems. The dual objectives of existing totalization agreements were to secure tax savings for the employees and employers of both nations by eliminating double taxation and to guarantee an old age pension to those who contributed to both social security systems by “totalizing” the years worked in both countries. Employees legally enter the partner nation with documents verifying they are authorized to work.
Virtually all of the existing 20 totalization agreements are with developed nations whose social security retirement benefits are at parity with those in the United States, providing no incentive to stay and vest for U.S. social security. In contrast, most Mexican workers entered the United States illegally, were not affiliated with a corporation, previously lived in poverty, and paid no social security taxes in Mexico. There is no benefit parity for American workers in Mexico as it takes more than twice as long to vest for Mexican social security (24 years vs. 10 years in United States) and the benefits are far less generous than those in the United States.
3. Most Mexicans here illegally. None of the existing totalization countries accounts for even 1 percent of the U.S. illegal population and jointly comprise only 4 percent of the total number of illegals. In contrast, over half of the Mexicans living in the United States are illegal aliens. The size of the illegal population from Mexico more than doubled in the last decade and now accounts for 69 percent of the U.S. illegal population. To adopt a totalization agreement with Mexico would put the United States in the ludicrous position of offering Social Security benefits to potentially millions of Mexican workers who showed contempt for our laws by illegally crossing our border and by fraudulently obtaining the Social Security numbers (SSNs) needed to qualify for old age and disability benefits.
4. Huge costs. It is extremely difficult to estimate the potential long-term drain of a Mexican totalization agreement on the U.S. Social Security trust fund, but it has the potential to dwarf all the other agreements combined. Serious questions have been raised about the assumptions made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the rigor of its analysis. Inexplicably, SSA projected its estimates based on the totalization experience with Canada. The estimated number of Canadians living in the United States is 820,000 (vs. 9.2 million Mexicans). Given the fact that a totalization agreement would cover not just Mexican workers but also their spouses and dependents, it is highly likely that over time, potentially millions of people would receive U.S. Social Security benefits and the cost would be in the billions of dollars.
Given these damning indictments of an apparently deeply flawed Mexican Totalization proposal, it is astounding that this agreement is being pursued at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, and by many in the U.S. Congress. Advocates for this Agreement, that include the Social Security Administration Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart, provided testimony before the Congress that claimed the Mexico agreement would have a “negligible long-range effect on the Social Security Trust Fund” and estimated the costs to be about $105 million per year over the first five years.
The General Accountability Office (GAO), that acts as the public watchdog over government, was asked by the Chairmen of the House Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees to provide a report on how the proposed Mexican Totalization Agreement might impact the payment of Social Security benefits to potentially millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and their families and any impacts such payments would have on the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. The GAO report directly contradicted the assumptions used by SSA in formulating their rosy financial projections and called into question whether any parts of the SSA analysis could be relied upon to support approval of the Mexican Totalization Agreement.
The hidden fatal bullet for the fiscal integrity of the Trust Fund in this calculation is the number of Mexicans who will flood into the United States in order to qualify for social security benefits. The Mexican government is actively encouraging it, and they know that two significant advantages accrue for every Mexican citizen who is able to qualify under the United States social security system. First, the Mexican social security system will not have to pay out any benefits to those workers. Second, the Mexican workers will return home to retire and the flow of money from the United States to Mexican retirees will be a huge boon to Mexico’s economy.
The Mexican social security system takes much longer to vest into, and the payments are far less than the guaranteed minimum benefit provided for under the United States social security program. It is literally a financial bonanza for Mexican workers who can work the required number of quarters to be vested into our system – even if they do so illegally and under a fraudulent social security number.
There aren’t many occasions when a United States Senator and a local City Councilman are voting on the same issue, but it’s happening virtually every day as Americans attempt to cope with the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States. For illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are Mexican citizens seeking a better life, the economic and lifestyle advantages are
- SasoriLv 61 decade ago
I know the person who drafted this meant well, but forged documents are so prevalent the system of validating these papers would have to be very thorough or it would not do any good. It would be business as usual.
Illegals are the highest number of users of fake and stolen social security numbers. Illegals are circumventing the law by stating they did not realize the number belonged to anyone so they didn't know anyone was being harmed.
- Greg NLv 61 decade ago
The bill is useless. Not only is access to SS funds limited to illegal aliens, if not unavailable altogether, causing the bill to simply duplicate existing law, but it will have no net effect on the overall problem of how to handle immigration.
If you have a dam, and there are lots of holes in the dam and you pass a law to patch up one hole in the dam, a whole that happens to be mostly patched up anyway, you haven't really solved a dam thing! All you're doing is acting like you care and taking action for purely political reasons.
Immigration, to include illegal entry, aliens presently in the United States, and visa issuance, is a problem that must be addressed holistically.
- ChristineLv 44 years ago
The illegal's are not the problem with Social In-Security. The problem is that our Government keeps robbing the fund and moving it to the General Fund.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It is a great idea but it is also redundant. If they are illegal then they should not be working or living here in the first place.
What should be addressed is how to get rid of illegals in the most humane way. You do not need a new law for that. It is up to local law enforcement and ICE to do their jobs.Source(s): Law
- busseysmomLv 41 decade ago
Good, no contest.
When most Americans will have worked for nearly 60 years by the time they can retire, and when they're telling us that the Soc. Sec. system will be bankrupt by then, there's something tragically wrong with the system. Something like, oh.... too many immigrants (legal and illegal) who are pulling out of it without ever having put in??? No, this is not racist-- this is called fairness and justice.Source(s): numbersusa.com capsweb.org
- 1 decade ago
and this is what we pay these losers for?To try to put into act,no ss for illegals.WTF they shouldn't be here they are illegal.God we have some real brains up there in Washington.Only one act should be voted on by these so called citizens and Representatives of our states and counties is When are we going to deport these illegals do we start next month or tomorrow?
- ShaneLv 71 decade ago
It is an excellent idea! Why should people who are in violation of our nation's immigration law, as well as other laws, be allowed to benefit from the SS system? No way, Jose.
Another needed bill is The Border Sovereignty Protection Act, HR 2083, would offer genuine border security!
While amnesty apologists present various versions of their "comprehensive" immigration reform, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) has introduced a true comprehensive border enforcement bill. The Border Sovereignty and Protection Act, HR 2083, offers an inclusive package to tackle many of the challenges along the U.S.-Mexico border.
We harbor no illusions about the chances for success of this measure in the current political climate, but it is important to express your support to your elected Representative. It is another way of saying "no" to the various amnesty proposals, and it shows there is an enforcement alternative to our immigration mess.
- aLv 41 decade ago
I totally agree with it. it is fair to exclude people who never contribute to the system. esp that by 2020 SS will give out more than it will take in,if the current trend continues.
- 1 decade ago
I agree with it totally.
No I do not believe it will draw illegals out
No it will cause a secondary business of producing illegal documents or increase the ones already in business to provide these documents so illegals can gain SS.
If they are not hiring illegals than they will not have to worry about this point.
- 1 decade ago
its a nice effort. he will surely be attacked by La Raza and the Mexican legal defense fund ,and lets not forget, the ACLU. these three organizations terrorize politicians who try to implement anti illegal immigration legislation. this Patriotic politician will need our help soon. keep an eye out for his re election. he'll need our votes to reward him for his courage