Unfortunately the Congress and the President seem H**l bent to pass a bill that the majority of Americans oppose, and this blogger thinks will be the Death Knell for the Republican Party.
The Heritage foundation studies on the causes of the 13% percent of Americans who live below the established poverty line in the United States is among other things caused by immigration.
"The conservative Heritage Foundation speculates that immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.[11] Unfavorable economic conditions
Mental illness and disability
Lack of educational attainment and skill
Substance abuse
Birth of a child
Domestic abuse
Natural or other disasters
Crime
The preceding is a quote from Wikapedia research:
Their research also revealed the following facts:
The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements
A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.
According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV."
You may suspect the last statements as having some bias in the reporting, and it could be considered anticdotatal. But the one thing you cannot ignore or push out of an educated mind, is that the American taxpayer, the middle class person who is already the ignored taxpayer who does all the work and receives the least rewards from our government. Will be confiscated more of his earned income to pay the massive welfare bill that the 12-20 million illegals(aka under documented Americans per Sen. Reid) will get in benefits from the Federal government.
The list of most of the benefits that the new Citizens will get are as follows:
*Social Security and supplemental income benefit
*Medicaid and free prescription drugs including viagra
*Unearned income or sash assistance from the working taxpayers
*Housing supplements and public housing where available
* Food stamps
The Century foundation studies back in 2001 found that 116,ooo legal immigrants were eligible for public (taxpayer) assistance. It is impossible to estimate the millions of non-English speaking illegals who will become citizens that are unemployable at anything but menial jobs, who have families, will become eligible. But get ready for a huge cut in your paycheck to pay for this outrage!
Posts
1 comment:
"The Senate is telling the American people that illegal aliens wouldn't be able to collect Social Security benefits under this immigration deal, and that is flat wrong," says Shannon Benton, executive director of TREA Senior Citizens League. "The truth is that illegal aliens would receive more than double in Social Security benefits what American taxpayers have spent so far on the war in Iraq."
According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be completely exhausted by 2041.
NewsMax asked League spokesman Brad Phillips to get into the fine print.
NewsMax: What is the exact language in the proposed immigration bill that is problematic?
Phillips: The original Section 607 of the immigration bill would prevent individuals receiving a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years. But that doesn't preclude those who received a Social Security number PRIOR to 2007 -- including those who received these "non-work" Social Security numbers from 1974 through 2003, even if they were illegal workers -- from collecting on their illegally performed work.
NewsMax: We understand there is an amendment to 607 that may be operating here, right?
Phillips: Yes, an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., would re-write the provision to preclude Social Security credits for periods without work authorization, and reads: "Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January 1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the basis of information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was authorized to be employed in the United States during such quarter."
That's still problematic, because as you can see, it doesn't deal with any dates prior to 2004, which is the period which we are concerned with. The language would need to be amended to deal with either dates prior to 2004, or to deal with "non-work" Social Security numbers.
NewsMax: What is the status of the Hutchison amendment?
Phillips: The Hutchison amendment passed – but, unfortunately, in final form it covered only through 2004. It's still useless for the "non-work" people, since the "non-work" period was 1974-2003.
Perhaps an article in today's Houston Chronicle best explains what happened: "Hutchison sought to deny Social Security credit for all time worked under illegal status. But her amendment, accepted by the Senate during the earlier floor debate, was pared to deny work credits only to illegal immigrants who obtained legitimate Social Security numbers after January 2004. Otherwise, the amendment could have required changes in the 2004 Social Security Protection Act, triggering the opposition of powerful senators."
NewsMax: What is the arithmetic of the $966 billion? How many potential claimants are plugged into the formula?
Phillips: Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million "non-work" Social Security numbers. According to Government Accountability Office testimony, the non-work cards are for people not eligible to work in the United States. The SSA sends recipients of these SSNs a card that bears the inscription NOT VAID FOR EMPLOYMENT.
To be issued these cards, non-citizens who do not have DHS [Department of Homeland Security] permission to work must have been found eligible to receive a federally-funded benefit or are subject to a state or local law that requires them to have an SSN to get public benefits. Examples include SSI, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.
The SS numbers continue to be issued but SSA has greatly reduced the number it issues. In 2005 the number was fewer than 15,000.
NewsMax: Say, someone who worked illegally on a not valid for employment card files in the future for benefits. Why wouldn't the feds be free to simply say ‘nice try' but you weren't eligible to work in such-in-such a period, go away?
Phillips: That's the trillion dollar question. It would require a change in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004. Based on Senator Hutchison's comments, she faced stiff opposition from the other side when she tried to do so, so she had no other choice but to let it go. That's just my speculation, though.
At NewsMax's request, the League's Mary Johnson threw some more light on this nettlesome 2004 Social Security Protection Act.
She explained that according to the Congressional Research Service, the 2004 Social Security Protection Act restricts payment of Social Security benefits to certain immigrants who file an application for benefits based on a Social Security number assigned on or after January 1, 2004.
Specifically, a non-citizen who files an application for benefits based on an SSN assigned on or after January 1, 2004 is required to have work authorization at the time an SSN is assigned or at some later time, to gain insured status under Social Security.
If an individual gains work authorization at some point, Johnson adds, all of his or her earnings would count toward insured status and in figuring the initial retirement benefit, even earnings while working illegally.
"Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has opined that a non-citizen who files an application for benefits on an SSN assigned before January 1, 2004, is NOT subject to the work authorization requirement," Johnson says.
"Thus, all of the individual's Social Security covered earnings would count toward insured status REGARDLESS of his or her work authorization status. In other words, those immigrants may qualify for Social Security without ever having legally worked," Johnson concludes.
Johnson further explains that her League lobbies for the law to be changed to better protect Social Security from the costs of illegal work. "We do not know the specific reasons why members of Congress would resist Hutchinson's attempt to strengthen this aspect of law protecting Social Security and the benefits of their constituents."
This is a copy of a report in News Max that I think everyone needs to read. GWW
Post a Comment