This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Social Security, Illegal Immigration and Ben
It would be correct to say:
“What is good for Social Security is good for America”.
Some of the variables include:
-Rising GDP
-Modest inflation
-Expanding employment (low unemployment)
-Worker productivity
-Innovation
-Rising population
SSA evaluates the prospects for the variables and produces a forecast.
They create three alternative cases. They call them the Intermediate and
the High/Low cost assumptions. That’s a bit murky. A better description
might be:
Intermediate = What we are hoping/assuming will happen.
High Cost = Bad News!
Low Cost = Break out the Champagne!
Now consider how SSA looks at the highly emotive issue of illegal
immigration/undocumented workers. SSA refers to this group in the PC way
as “others”. This from the SSA 2010 report to Congress, page 84.
Note that the “What We’re Expecting” case has illegal immigration at 400,000 per year for the next decade. The “Let’s Party!” case has the average over 500k. Heaven forbid that illegal workers fall to only 200k per year. That would be the “Worst Case”
outcome. Looking at this one has to wonder what would happen if illegal
immigration fell to zero. Clearly if 550k is the good news then zero
must be very bad news.
So it is not always correct that what is good for SSA is good for the
USA. It makes me wonder about those other categories where the interests
appear to line up but actually to do not.
As a mature economy we can only achieve high rates of growth with
significant expansion of debt at every level. Consumers, corporations,
cities, towns, states and of course the Feds all have to borrow and
spend more if we are going to have the growth that SSA (and all other
public and private entitlements) so desperately needs.
Debt = Growth
Growth = Good, therefore,
Debt = Good
Our dependence on illegal immigration to sustain growth is not unlike
our need for debt to fire the engines. But like illegal immigration,
debt/growth has a dark side to it. If you want evidence of that fact
just consider what Bernanke is going to unleash on us. Yes he might
achieve some growth with his QE-2. But what is the real cost for that
growth?
»
- advertisements -
Thanks Bruce, I know they can. I think it needs to end ASAP. I was born here and have been paying in since I was 14 in 1974. I doubt I will see much of what I paid in.
If they go through the process to gain citizenship then they should be paid. The question in my mind is if the wages & payroll withholdings paid before they are citizens, especially if they filed fraudulent W4, I9's should be included in the payout calc? I think no.
Sorry about the caps in my 11:19 post. I was drinking or something.
luv the rants. i'm tough
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/18/20060518-114132-2456r/
They do too get to collect SS. Congress passed the law in 2006. We just have to send their check to Mexico for them!
Or they rout it right through Western Union for them. Thank you senor!!!!!!
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS. ESPECIALLY THE FILTH THAT HAS ALLOWED FRAUDULENT WORKERS TO COLLECT A DIME FROM SS OR MEDICARE.
VOTE THEM ALL OUT FOR THE NEXT 5 GENERAL ELECTION CYCLES. ALL MUST BE GONE ! ALL !
that is the wrong link, it ended up going through in an act. I'll find it.....
Lucky,
This story hit a nerve with you? Thanks for the comments. If you find that link post it here and send it to me?
bkrasting@gmail.com
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-03-03-23053.pdf
top of page 8
With so much debate on this topic, I feel the need to throw in my two cents.
What I see here is a situation best explained by imagining someone attempting to pour a gallon of liquid into a shot glass. In the long run, you have nothing but a big mess.
The one thing Americans won't seem to ask anyone is why the damn shot glass is so small in the first place. Listen, I am all for obeying the laws and being a moral person, but when a law is obviously doing such a horrendous job, shouldn't we at least take it out and glance at it? Just to see if it makes sense in the first place?
So I google, "history of immigration laws".
A brief history of immigration law in the United States:
1790 - Congress establishes a process enabling people born abroad to become U.S. citizens.
1875 - Congress passes its first restrictive immigration law. It prohibits the immigration of criminals and prostitutes.
1882 - Congress passes the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibits Chinese laborers from coming to the U.S. It is repealed in 1943. Congress expands its list of unacceptable immigrants to include "convicts, lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges."
1913 - California's Alien Land Law prohibits "aliens ineligible for citizenship," which at the time included Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrants, from owning property in the state. Ten other states follow with similar laws over the next decade. In 1952, the California Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional.
1917 - Congress expands the 1882 list of unacceptable immigrants to also cover alcoholics, beggars, criminals and the "mentally and physically defective." It also establishes a literacy test for immigrants and bars people living in most of eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands from immigrating to the U.S.
1921 - Congress creates a quota system for visas based on an individual's country of birth. It limits the number of annual immigrants from Europe to 3 percent of the number of foreign-born members of that same nationality in the U.S. during the 1910 census.
1924 - Congress reduces the limits to 2 percent of the number of foreign-born members of each nationality in the U.S. during the 1890 census, favoring immigrants from northwestern Europe, which had higher numbers based on the earlier census, further discriminating against the newer immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and barring immigrants from the Far East, which had no representation in the 1890 census.
1930-1939 - A joint local and federal effort called Mexican Repatriation includes raids, roundups and the denial of jobs to Mexicans. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, return to Mexico either forcibly or on their own.
1942-1964 - The Bracero program allows Mexican nationals to legally come to the U.S. for temporary agricultural work.
1952 - Congress makes some tweaks to the quota system and abolishes remaining exclusions against Asians.
1954 - A joint local and federal effort called Operation Wetback includes raids and identification checks. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, return to Mexico either forcibly or on their own.
1965 - Congress replaces the quota system with one that gives preference to individuals who have either special skills or relatives who are U.S. citizens.
1986 - Congress makes it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants, grants amnesty to certain immigrants who entered the U.S. before 1982 and creates a citizenship path for certain agricultural workers.
1994 - California voters enact Proposition 187, which prohibits providing of public educational, welfare, and health services to undocumented immigrants. The courts later declare the law unconstitutional.
In reading brief descriptions of these laws they, almost without exception, scream of the prevalent racial over-tones of the day, not sound immigration law. Other than mentioning the occasional convict or crazy person, these laws were almost to a one, written to establish some kind of racial balance that was desired by the culture of the time. So here we are, decades later, yelling and screaming at each other about enforcing laws that may be no more relevant to today than the laws written to limit the size of the stick with which you could beat your wife.
When immigration policy is so clearly a failure, shouldn't we first ask, "Why?" ?
how do you "outlaw the immigration of prostitutes"?
Where we are:
"1930-1939 - A joint local and federal effort called Mexican Repatriation includes raids, roundups and the denial of jobs to Mexicans. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, return to Mexico either forcibly or on their own."
Where we're headed:
"1942-1964 - The Bracero program allows Mexican nationals to legally come to the U.S. for temporary agricultural work. "
Doomed to repeat, like some cosmic washerwoman...
This was an excellent post. It really puts things in perspective. The type of polemic degenerative mess that this conversation always devolves into is enough to make you just throw your hands up and walk away. I have to admit that I usually don't help in this respect at all, but like everyone else, I have my biases.
However, I do want to thank you for your very clear and very level-headed post on this subject. Thank you for asking the right question for a change.
I don't have a problem with legal immigration, and it may be that immigration of the legal type is used to address some of our current and incipient structural fiscal/demographich problems.
However the question "When immigration policy is so clearly a failure, shouldn't we first ask, "Why?" ?" is an excellent one. From my viewpoint, prior Democratic administrations had little incentive to enforce immigration laws as they saw potenial future voters who would be sympathetic to their cause, allowing illegals to stay was an extention of their "let's save the world" with American resources agenda, and because it wasn't PC to "discriminate" (ok, I oversimplify, but it catches the essence). Republican administrations largely turned blind eye as illegal workers helped their profit margins considerably, damn the consequences. And all of us probably know at least one illegal immigrant who would make a great citizen. From my perspective, enforcement of immigration policies over the last 2- 3 decade has been haphazard at best - virtually an intentional failure. Perhaps the question to ask is why weren't our immigration laws enforced, and would it have worked if people had actually made serious effort to enforce it?
I'm tired of seeing states like Arizona vilified for stepping into the breach as they are reeling from the severe side effects from this lack of enforcing immigration policy over the last several decades.
Agriculture is had put to replace the Mexican worker. As a young salesman in Southern California, I would make it a part of my week to go watch the field workers stooped over picking strawberries or what ever was in season for at least an hour. Having done a little farm work and oil field work, this was always a fire in my belly experience. Show me a white,black,yellow that will do this work and I will show you one hell of a man or woman.
How ever DO they manage to feed themselves in Germany, France, etc. where there are no illegal Mexicans, then?
Hint: automation negates the need for low-skilled labor.
yes, because in Germany there are robot busboys and dishwashers
Actually, they hire Poles, Russians, etc. from the former east to do the shit-work the locals don't want to do, but while there are many doing the work illegally, there is little to no government encouragement of that reality with the net result that illegal workers as a percentage of the overall population is much lower and the resulting problems of large illegal populations are less prevalent. You deport a few Roma, however, and everyone has a cow.
yep, in Europe don't forget the moroccans and turks who do all the shitty work for low pay.
People don't want to do the work and enjoy the low cost services, but complain about the other costs of illegals. Can't have it both ways.
California, the 8th largest economy in the world would have a shock if they cut off illegals. As teenagers we would pick pears to earn some extra cash. No white adults were any where near the fields.....now stop whining so I can enjoy my $3 bottle of Merlot.
Unless you take welfare away, why would they?
Give the illegals citizenship and they won't have to either!!!!!
And if law enforcement does its job and man-handles or raids their illegal rentals, the ACLU will be there in a heartbeat to sue the pants off of those who are "victimizing" them. Our amigos Jose and Jos"b" need to find legal employment in their own countries or come back as "H2A" legal workers: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6080
Indeed, we have to have SS reform, before we attack election fraud. Furthermore, fixing election fraud will allow politicians to take on immigration reform.
Talk about lining up ducks in a row. Fat chance that happens anytime soon.
gs_
How about we attack both simultaneously?????? I like being an overachiever.
Then let's put an end to corporate political donations (Roberts, fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on) and ALL LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. The way to do this is outlaw all of it, full disclosure under penalty of insanely high fines and long jail terms for "the influencers".
Anyone with a better idea, plaese post it.
i concur with your sentiments. However, good luck getting that past current congressional session or next. you honestly think they are going to cut off the preverbal hand, of the fists full of corporate dollars coming at them. Campaign finance reform is dead on arrival.
Get out your pitch fork and torch, because that's the only way that will ever happen.
Often wonder what an 85% voter turn out might trigger in the way of altered behaviors?
But "Dancing With The Stars" is on and KFC has put coupons in the paper...................
How about all money collected for a specific election be put in a pot and divided equally for campaign spending? That way its not about money anymore. That would take care of the special interests wouldn't it?
No need to give the fuckers any money @ all. Let them hash it out on PBS which we already pay for. Every person in America has a tv & you can pick up PBS on an antenna. Take money totally out of the equation . No lobbyist, earmarks,etc...
Because the stakes are high right now, 60% of the ads airing on TV around the news are political attack ads with questionable basis in any facts. I for one AM FUCKING SICK OF THIS FILTHY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right, then the job would go to whoever had the most money.
A very good solution.
I am so pissed off and outraged about the bribery that has gone on for the past 40 + years, I still want jail time and fines. Perhaps in time I will get over it.
I'm pissed too, but wouldn't be entertaining to watch the mass exodus out of DC? Those left would definitely demand a raise!
Then set up machine gun and RPG positions along the exit rout. A dead parisite can't return in 6 months with a new scam to defraud the taxpayers.
Without their powerful vote/money bartering system they won't be beating the door down! They'll have to work directly in banking vs indirectly.
The municipalities know they cannot continue to absorb the SSC's back of envelope wishlist.
The water systems can't take it, the health systems can't take it, and the labor market certainly can't take it.
The nearby schools construct "temp" classrooms in the playground to deal with the overflow. Shadow planning with bandaids takes the place of real planning.
It is interesting that all these unsustainable things are all tied together at the hip.
Lets ask the CBO to give us a cost analysis on the illegal aliens, LOL! They did such a superb job on the health care bill.
Actually, you made me realise we should replace the CBO staff and SecTreas Timmy with illegal Mexican labourers. They're bound to be much cheaper, and the quality of work can't be that much worse.
AS IF these illegal immigrants are paying taxes of any kind and not sapping every other societal structure? (sewers, hospitals, schools, police, transit, etc.).
They Western Union (telegraph -'member?) most of their money back across the border.
Saying that illegal immigration is good for a nation is like saying tapeworms are good for a person because they keep their weight down.
You speak as if they get an 8% sales tax discount on items purchased from the convenience store, or as if it was the case that corporations don't deduct the requisite transfers from their paychecks.
I am not stating that illegal immigration is good for the nation. I just like to stay as honest as I can with this hot button issue.
How good is it for housing and related since they tend to have multiple families living under the same roof and the lack of jobs causes college grads to move back home as well?
From the prospective of a homeowner (which I don't have), I would say that immigration is a good thing because it creates more potential buyers in the market, which would help to stabalize the price of housing as demand is stimulated. That is true no matter how many families are living under one roof on average.
What is the average number of families living under one roof nationwide? How about among illegal immigrants, or legal immigrants?
Is it 3.5? 2.1? 1.01?
Where are you getting the information that lends to the view that, 'they tend to have multiple families living under the same roof'. Is there somewhere I can verify that, or was that just an emotionally charged statement?
Who made up the rule about 1 family to 1 house?
Also, when you say "they" do you mean Mexicans?
Well, the added demand might pump up the price of the first house in the neighbourhood sold to an illegal "family," but when people see the 20 or 30 itinerant workers coming and going each day, or when M13 opens its local meth-lab next door, it will do wonders for the value of the rest of the hood.
Campesino peasants are going to increase aggregate demand on the property that I actually own and not just run down rental properties? For real?
No, not just Mexicans. The reason illegal immigrants can live in our country and afford to send money home is because they cut their costs by living together. A lot of different nationalities do this when they are here illegally. Its just easier to get here from our southern border than from across the ocean. Its just math, not racism.
I get that. I don't get how this is personally hurting you.
"A lot of different nationalities do this when they are here illegally"
Poor people do this everywhere, all the time. It is called getting by...
I don't know what you're even getting at here...
What I'm getting at is that I want both my kids and their kids to be able to move out and take care of themselves. If we continue to allow millions of human beings to flood into our country and offer their services for less than one could afford to make and still raise a family, this will never happen. Mexico is dangerous and corrupt and all will move here instead of staying and fighting for their own country.
If you are for open borders then how do you feel about the US invading Mexico, abolishing its government and making it part of the US? Lets just clean it up and give it our laws and I'll move there myself!!!!!!
First of all I will respond to your question. It is unfair to assert that opening boarders to newcomers and aggressively invading a country is the same thing. I believe we should address the economic issues that allow a man to make 15 bucks an hour in the US, but maybe only a tenth of that in their native country. As long as this is the case, it doesn't matter what laws you pass. As long as this is true, there will be no shortage of people who say, 'well, I like believe in following the law, but for that wage, I can put my beliefs on the sidelines for awhile".
If you really want to teach your kids something, teach them how to be innovative and productive workers who can compete with anyone from any country. Either stop complaining about immigration, or do something to fix it. If you want the economy in Ecuador to thrive, spend your money on Ecuadorian goods.
Also, to take your concerns to their conclusion, if we do keep letting millions of humans flood into this country, then through heavy competition, overcrowding, and labor saturation, the quality of life will decline until nobody wants to move to the US anymore. That would sure fix the immigration problem.
Check out:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/03/immigration-isnt-the-problem
No, the country will merely dissolve after decades of capital flight.
Right. And then nobody would come here anymore.
People in the US have this mythical vision of what the country should be. Every version of the vision is different.
This is a complex problem with no single solution. I am obviously biased in this discussion, and I don't have all of the answers, even to my own questions.
I would suggest letting each state deal with the problem as they see fit. Simply send the federal funds used for ICE and naturalization services, etc, to the states, and let them figure out what to do with it.
Generally, people have the ability to govern themselves and make the country what it would be. South Korean people have made South Korea, well, South Korea.
You are very unimpressive. It's all math, and not the fuzzy kind that this administration tries to pull off either. Taxes collected from citizens are for the citizens. You can let them all in if you want, just allow anyone who opposes to opt out of paying taxes. How about letting the homeless move into your house. After all, its not fair that you have a roof over your head and they don't! I need to save my money to take care of me and mine in the FUTURE. If I don't want to share, I don't have to. THOSE ARE THE RULES. Bending them creates dependence, unfairness and resentment!
+++ LG, i gotta go with you on the sharing thing.
<rant>
i *do* share, but it's by friggin choice... then when i utter complaints about being *forced* to share, the black-whities all assume that i don't share, and that i'm some selfish neo-con racist bastard. well fuck you guys. you're wrong. again.
disliking maobama doesn't make me like "w" - get it? let me try again: hating being forced to give doesn't make me hate giving. hating illegal immigration doesn't make me hate immigration. process, laws, and borders do matter. when laws break and become convenient suggestions, the culture breaks. and we are fucking broken.
any of this getting through those lefty skulls yet?
the problem isn't the sharing, it's being friggin *forced* to!
i'm looking for the 'leave me the fuck alone' party. where i pay for roads with gas taxes, and pay for education with tuition, and pay milk and penicillin/viagra with cash.
and i don't pay for any-fucking-body-else's health-care unless i fucking want to. and nobody pays for my fucking health-care... and i fucking die if i cannot afford it.
and i don't want to have to believe in any of your fucking gods.
we *are* born with these rights, and maybe someday we'll die with these rights still intact.
what's so fucking hard to understand about this?
(maybe i should edit the dirty words and see if i can make the same point to these dolts by being nice and civilized about it all... nah. never-fucking-mind - they don't want to hear the truth, it makes them uncomfortable, and there are laws against teasing on the playground.)
</rant>
i don't know where that came from, but it sure felt good. y'all should try it.
oh yeah, and i still like a lot of what Glen Beck says. so there.