Social Security for illegal aliens

Washington Times ^ | Jan. 04, 2007 | Stephen Dinan

[Aria]

i think we'd be better off if we'd just take over Mexico. We'd get the oil, other natural resources, increased income from taxes - especially the rich people who are sending their poor to us to get them off their backs - and get great beaches.

[milwguy]

Forgot to mention that little fact. Thanks for reminding me. This will be a giveaway of unprecendented proportions. Once we allow the illegals a 'path to citizenship', we have to expect they will import their families, especially the elderly, who will soon be defrauding the system and collecting medicare/medicaid, etc to pay their medical bills as well as a number who will try to collect SS disability payments by claiming they had worked here previously. Hell, the market for counterfeit SS cards is already booming, as is the fraud at Driver's License DMV's across the country. The amount of fraud being committed already will be multiplied 100fold if this is put in place.

[milwguy]

We also have seperate plans for gov't employees, and many large companies have their own plans. The net result will be a flood of applicants for OUR SS benefits which will drain the system in no time flat.

[sheana]

a number who will try to collect SS disability payments by claiming they had worked here previously

They don't have to have ever paid a dime in to get a form of ss disability. Part of the disability program is nothing more than a welfare program.

[Centurion2000]

An agreement the Bush administration reached with Mexico on Social Security benefits would allow illegal aliens granted amnesty in the future to claim credit for the time they worked illegally

If this passes I will stop paying taxes. This is a d#$%ed sellout of EVERYTHING we have worked for.

[janetgreen]

Mr. Bush has forcibly shoved Mexico's illegal aliens down our throats every chance he could. Americans mean nothing to him - he has made that clear.

I believe he should be removed from office for dereliction of duty to America.

[TheCrusader]

"At least with the Democrats we know they are going to set it up to steal our money, but when one of our own does it, well, what can you do?"

You can stop decieving yourself that he's "one of your own", for starters. Bush is the type of man who could pass for either a liberal democrat on many issues, or a 'moderate' Republican on some other issues. In other words, he's just another untrustworthy, typical career politician.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

Here is an explanation why we get stuck with "untrustworthy, typical, career politicians" by Professor Hans Hoppe. The last paragraph explains the SS giveaway attempt by Bush (and other politicians):

Why Bad Men Rule
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

One of the most widely accepted propositions among political economists is the following: Every monopoly is bad from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is understood in its classical sense to be an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, i.e., as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production. In other words, only one agency, A, may produce a given good, x. Any such monopolist is bad for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his area of production, the price of the monopolist’s product x will be higher and the quality of x lower than otherwise.

This elementary truth has frequently been invoked as an argument in favor of democratic government as opposed to classical, monarchical or princely government. This is because under democracy entry into the governmental apparatus is free – anyone can become prime minister or president – whereas under monarchy it is restricted to the king and his heir.

However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good. Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. So what sort of "business" is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers. Rather, it is a "business" engaged in theft and expropriation – by means of taxes and counterfeiting – and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil.

---

Since man is as man is, in every society people who covet others’ property exist. Some people are more afflicted by this sentiment than others, but individuals usually learn not to act on such feelings or even feel ashamed for entertaining them. Generally only a few individuals are unable to successfully suppress their desire for others’ property, and they are treated as criminals by their fellow men and repressed by the threat of physical punishment. Under princely government, only one single person – the prince – can legally act on the desire for another man’s property, and it is this which makes him a potential danger and a "bad."

However, a prince is restricted in his redistributive desires because all members of society have learned to regard the taking and redistributing of another man’s property as shameful and immoral. Accordingly, they watch a prince’s every action with utmost suspicion. In distinct contrast, by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others’ property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else’s property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another’s property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat.

Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man’s property is systematically strengthened. Every demand is legitimate if it is proclaimed publicly under the special protection of "freedom of speech." Everything can be said and claimed, and everything is up for grabs. Not even the seemingly most secure private property right is exempt from redistributive demands. Worse, subject to mass elections, those members of society with little or no inhibitions against taking another man’s property, that is, habitual a-moralists who are most talented in assembling majorities from a multitude of morally uninhibited and mutually incompatible popular demands (efficient demagogues) will tend to gain entrance in and rise to the top of government. Hence, a bad situation becomes even worse.

Historically, the selection of a prince was through the accident of his noble birth, and his only personal qualification was typically his upbringing as a future prince and preserver of the dynasty, its status, and its possessions. This did not assure that a prince would not be bad and dangerous, of course. However, it is worth remembering that any prince who failed in his primary duty of preserving the dynasty – who ruined the country, caused civil unrest, turmoil and strife, or otherwise endangered the position of the dynasty – faced the immediate risk either of being neutralized or assassinated by another member of his own family. In any case, however, even if the accident of birth and his upbringing did not preclude that a prince might be bad and dangerous, at the same time the accident of a noble birth and a princely education also did not preclude that he might be a harmless dilettante or even a good and moral person.

In contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

One can do no better than quote H.L. Mencken in this connection. "Politicians," he notes with his characteristic wit, "seldom if ever get [into public office] by merit alone, at least in democratic states. Sometimes, to be sure, it happens, but only by a kind of miracle. They are chosen normally for quite different reasons, the chief of which is simply their power to impress and enchant the intellectually underprivileged….Will any of them venture to tell the plain truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the situation of the country, foreign or domestic? Will any of them refrain from promises that he knows he can’t fulfill – that no human being could fulfill? Will any of them utter a word, however obvious, that will alarm or alienate any of the huge pack of morons who cluster at the public trough, wallowing in the pap that grows thinner and thinner, hoping against hope? Answer: may be for a few weeks at the start…. But not after the issue is fairly joined, and the struggle is on in earnest…. They will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable. They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money no one will have to earn. When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, n. In brief, they will divest themselves from their character as sensible, candid and truthful men, and simply become candidates for office, bent only on collaring votes. They will all know by then, even supposing that some of them don’t know it now, that votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense, and they will apply themselves to the job with a hearty yo-heave-ho. Most of them, before the uproar is over, will actually convince themselves. The winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything."

November 8, 2004

[janetgreen]

In contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top.

That glaring, disgusting truth has become obvious, and the "elite" will continue as "leaders", no matter how much they stink.

Good commentary by Professor Hoppe.

[massgopguy]

They'll be coming after the 401k's next. Google "Mrs. Tyson's Fried Economics."

[mikeybaby]

I worked with a Heavy Duty truck distributor in CA who had one person on staff devoted to rooting out disability fraud.
This was 10 years ago.
I can't imagine the problem has gotten any better.

[HarleyLady27]

What happened to the garbage talk that SS had to reformed or it would be broke in 2 years????

And now we're going to give it to Mexicans????? I didn't know we had changed from the United States of America to United States of Mexico.....

[Kimberly GG]

Those stats are pretty common knowledge, however, I don't see anything mentioned about illegal aliens from any of those countries working in the United States with fraudulent or stolen social security numbers being rewarded with $ from our Social Security System?

Any stats on that?

[Kimberly GG]

I guess the OBL will get us one way or the other, eh?

Under Senate Bill 2611, illegal aliens will collect Social Security benefits based on past work, regardless of their ability to demonstrate what, if any, payments they had made into the system and even if they did so using a stolen Social Security number.

Under Senate Bill 2611, illegal aliens will be forgiven their Social Security fraud, even though such fraud is normally punishable by fines of up to $500,000 and five years in prison for American citizens.

Under the provisions of S. 2611, illegal aliens would become indemnified in our nation's Social Security program, and be guaranteed to receive Social Security benefits as long as they live, even if they return to their home country.

[Lijahsbubbe]

If bank robbers are granted amnesty, will they be able to collect back-interest on their illegal loot?

[WatchingInAmazement]

If bank robbers are granted amnesty, will they be able to collect back-interest on their illegal loot?

Only if they are illegal alien bank robbers....

[Howlin]

I'm not posting about illegals.

I'm merely pointing out that this is nothing new.

I'm sorry if you didn't realize this is done with other countries.

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

Yes - now you know why we get to pick between Hillary, Obama, the Maccainiac, Romney and Gayliani - in a democracy, the scum rises to the top by promising free money, to cure warts, or gay marriage (?) or whatever to the pack of morons who flock to the public trough for freebies per Mencken.

There is a new movie called "Idiocracy" coming out on DVD next week about the future of the U.S. - what will life be like in the future when the Jerry Springer types take over. The future is happening faster than I like.

[Gritty]