Social Security payments to new immigrants

I'm trying to confirm something that was mentioned to me.... I can't beleive it .... but it's so far fetched that it must be true.

Can someone tell me if this is right:

An immigrant is allowed to collect social security as soon as they
come to this country if they qualify? SS is not just retirement benefits.

For example: A (legal) immigrant family moves here and brings their parents who are elderly. This family can apply for and receive $ to take
care of the parents and possibly the kids. So just move here and we'll give you $$. Is this true?

:) Funny you should ask. I just got a letter last week from the White House on the subject. "United States law permits non-American citizens who are lawfully in the United States to qualify for Social Security benefits based on credits earned while working in the United States. However, Social Security benefits cannot be paid to a person who is illegally residing in the United States at the time." "A totalization agreement would not change this provision of the law."

:? Notice - "illegally residing in the United States at the time." Kind of left 'hanging' there, isnt it? Why cant people just say what they mean, and quit spinning it all over the place? :x

Rather long, but for anyone not familiar with the Totalization agreement signed with Mexico, this is a must read!


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back904.html

Social Security 'Totalization'
Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico
September 2004
By Marti Dinerstein
Download the .pdf version
Read the panel discussion transcript
________________________________________
Executive Summary
Since the late 1970s, the United States has entered into a series of bilateral “totalization� agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries. To date, 20 such agreements are in force. They have been financially beneficial to U.S. workers and their employers and the associated social security payments to foreign nationals have been reasonable. As such, totalization agreements have been non-controversial. Congress has never voted to disapprove one.
But the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is profoundly different from prior agreements in four important ways:

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:
• Provide only modest tax savings for American workers and their employers compared to other totalization agreements.

• 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. 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.

• 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.

• Permit partial Social Security benefits to be paid to those who worked in the United States as little as 18 months (six quarters).

• 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.

• 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.
________________________________________
In testimony to Congress, the Commissioner of Social Security defined the dual purpose of
totalization agreements:
• Eliminate double Social Security taxation of citizens of one country who are sent by their employer to temporarily work in another country.

• Protect the benefits of workers who pay into the social security systems of two countries but do not earn sufficient credits to receive full benefits from one or both countries. Workers are deemed eligible for pro-rated benefits based on the amount of contributions made to the system of each country.1
Goals not applicable to Mexico. Neither of these stated purposes generally apply when speaking about Mexico. Only a tiny fraction of the 9.2 million Mexicans living in the United States were sent by a Mexican employer. Most workers independently migrate to the United States in search of a better life. Most enter the country illegally and, if their status is “adjusted� (because of an amnesty, marriage to an American citizen, etc.), they may sponsor family members in Mexico to join them.
Few ever paid into the Mexican social security system prior to arriving in the United States. Many lived in poor rural areas where jobs are scarce. They were part of Mexico’s vast “informal� (off-the-books) economy.
In this regard, Mexican workers stand in sharp contrast to those from the 20 existing totalization countries. In those countriesâ€â€

I just read in a forum that airtraffic has grown moreso in Latin America that any other region last year. However, this traffic is not between Latin countries BUT you guessed it, the USA! So, when I read above what you say about Mexico trying to send as many people here as it can I am not surprised. It is working too obviously!

BTW I understand that the Social Security Administration is going to open an office in Mexico City? I probably could not get a job there even though I speak Spanish cause they will want to hire more Mexicans just like the State Department does overseas! The US government is NOT an equal opportunity employer! They play games just like any other economic entity!

FYI, my wife is a LEGAL immigrant and has a social security card. NO she is NOT a citizen yet and it amazes me how so many people think the day a foreign national marries a citizen that they become a citizen automatically. Boy that would save me a few bucks if it were the case.
My wife does have a SS card but she has not worked here. If I were to die she would be however entitled to survivor benefits as would my daughters.

My wife is my financial responsibility as she should be. If we were to divorce she gets half if not more.

The problem with so called guest worker programs is that they are a wolf in sheep's clothing as they say. A guest comes for a while then goes home. Bush's idea does just the opposite and let's them stay.

I favor a true Bracero program which I understand we had in the US in the 50's and 60's. Men came and worked and went back to Mexico! Now the women and kiddies are all here too and why?

I do believe that workers are needed to work in farm fields and only in farm fields. I do not believe that they are needed in construction, yard work, packing plants, restaurants, or any other industry. We are not a true capitalistic country when government allows foreign nationals to tip the economic balance downward by letting wages be lowered by letting illegal workers into the country. In a true capitalistic society when labor shortages are present wages should RISE to attract labor and LOCAL labor
at that. Washington, is doing the opposite by failing to secure the border.

All of our social programs are at risk because of illegal immigration and rising population in general. Too bad there are not more Tancredo's out there!

8) MANY illegals come to the U.S. on a visitors visa. They just stay. This is a HUGE problem. We are actually getting a lot of illegals who are "well to do" in their own countries, and they "take a vacation" to America for a couple of years. They rent out their houses back home while they do it.

They usually buy a new (or almost new) vehicle soon after their arrival. So many of the "new cars" you see, are actually wealthier illegals, who buy a nice new car, believing they have less likelihood of being stopped by police. They believe the new car makes them look "legit".

knowing this should help you to sleep better tonight. :wink:

It has been said that actually 50% of the illegals here came in legally! Remember those 20 hijcakers on 9-11? Many got their forms at travel agencies in the Middle East to start the process to get here! How many were legally here? Washington is supposed to screen LEGAL immigrants and they can't although they want you to think they can!

The State department has a section called the Consular Affairs section you know that deals in VISAS all over the world at the US Embassy or consulate in each country. The lines are long long long each day at many of these places. (There was apoll conducted in Peru awhile back and something like 78% said they would leave the country if they could!) Many of the employees working there in YOUR embassy are Foreign Nationals did you know this? Some of these Foreign employees have been convicted of granting visas illegally! (State Department website talks of a mexican woman convicted in Mexico City of granting Colombians visas somehow through Mexico!?) The State Department is a snobby elitist organization that only hires Americans it chooses to create a snobby elitist organization. In Colombia, if you go to get a visa as I did for my then fiance, you may not even see an American State department employee the whole time you are there! The Colombian employees man the bank teller type windows and the State Department officials are in the very back out of sight! The place is like a prision in that private Colombian security forces patrol the outside on foot with dogs and on horseback!

How many foreign students do we have in the United States and why? How many are here on US government scholarships? The State Department has a program where they take your tax dollars and they give them to foreign students to come here and study! USAID runs the program. Your kid can't get any scholarships but a foreignor can on your dollar? YEP! The Universities don't care it is just money to them!
Catholic schools recruit foreign students! University of Denver has lots of Chinese students! How many go home when it is time to go home?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ it is all about $ and who has it and who doesn't and politics!