Mediaboss Marketing

FAIR Take | April2023

On March 28, the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a scathing report following its audit of funds awarded under the American Rescue Plan Act. The Act, signed into law in March 2021, was one of the massive stimulus packages passed in the wake of the Covid-19 epidemic. However, tucked inside of the 243-page bill was a $110 million appropriation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by[DHS].

In short, Congress approved this money to help illegal aliens arriving at the southern border. The money was routed through FEMA so that the agency could use its long-standing Emergency Food and Shelter Program (ESFP) to manage the program. ESFP would award the $110 million in grants to nonprofits and local government agencies and those grantees would, in turn, provide food, shelter, and services to illegal aliens encountered at the southernborder.

Unfortunately, in his recent audit, the Inspector General found that these funds were mismanaged on multiple occasions. The audit scrutinized a sample of $12.9 million awarded to 18 grant recipients and found that numerous grant recipients violated the terms of the program. These violations included failing to provide receipts for reimbursements, failing to maintain logs of individuals served, or providing services for individuals who didnt even have a DHS record. Overall, the Inspector General was unable to properly account for $7.4 million, or 58% of the sample. If that pattern held for the full appropriation of $110 million, FEMA would be unable to account for nearly $64million.

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program is managed by a national board consisting of representatives from the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, the United Way, and other charities and religious organizations. The National Board establishes the programs policies, procedures and guidelines. FEMA serves as the national chair of the board. United Way is the boards fiscal agent and Secretariat in charge of collecting receipts and supporting documentation from grantees, placing it in the spotlight following this report. Ultimately, however, the Inspector General blamed FEMA for not providing sufficient oversight of the charitiesinvolved:

Theseissues occurred because FEMA did not provide sufficient oversight and relied on local boards and fiscal agents to enforce the funding and application guidance. As a result, FEMA, as National Board Chair, cannot ensure the humanitarian relief funds were used as intended by the funding and application guidance. We questioned $7.4 million in humanitarian relief fund spending by LROs because, after several attempts, we were unable to obtain the required supportingdocumentation.

The Inspector General highlighted several egregious examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in his report. One recipient was reimbursed twice for the same expenditure, pocketing nearly $80,000 when they were owed $40,000. Only when brought to their attention by the IG did they resolve it by offsetting a future payment. Separately, a contractor charged $8.9 million for labor by simply multiplying 24 hours per day per employee by the employees wage rate. When asked for documentation, they could only prove $1.5 million in actual wagespaid.

As the report further explains, the program prioritized grants for communities most impacted by the humanitarian crisis at the Southwest border. However, the Inspector General found that grantees did not always provide supporting documentation for families and individuals they assisted. This was probably because, of the sample population reviewed by the Inspector General, 24% of aliens were not eligible for the services they received. The audit found that many grantees did not have any record that the aliens they assisted had an encounter with DHS. Some of the grantees provided services to illegal aliens services before DHS encountered them. Conversely, an alien encountered in October 2017 obtained humanitarian relief services 1,235 days later, in March2021.

The IG report made two recommendations to improve oversight of the program: (1) Resolve the $7.4 million in questioned costs and change FEMAs requirements for grant applications to reduce the likelihood of future unsupported expenditures; and (2) Implement oversight measures to enforce application requirements for future appropriations, to specifically include a risk-based methodology for ongoing review ofawards.

FEMA agreed with both recommendations, updated the application requirements, and disallowed reimbursement for on call hours during which employees are not actually working. However, the IG was not entirely satisfied with their response, as they failed to adequately resolve the $7.4 million in questionable costs already identified or to identify officials responsible for implementing the recommendations. As of this writing, both recommendations remainopen.

The OIG report is all the more alarming because Congress keeps growing the program, appropriating millions more to the EFSP to provide services to illegal aliens coming across the southern border. In March 2022, Congress appropriated an additional $150 million to the EFSP to aid illegal aliens. In December 2022, Congress passed a massive omnibus spending bill that gives FEMA yet another $800 million to provide illegal aliens services through the EFSP. It also directs FEMA to transform EFSP into an entirely new program. The new program, the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), is intended to help CBP effectively manage migrant processing and prevent the overcrowding of Border Patrol facilities.Congress authorized FEMA to use part of the $800 million in the current program (EFSP), while it transforms it into the new program(SSP).

On February 28 of this year, DHS announced it would begin hosting a series of listening sessions to inform the creation of the new shelter and services program (or SSP), soliciting input from past recipients and prospective future applicants. However, it does not appear that the American people will have a seat at the table. FAIR will continue to monitor the development of this program and remain vigilant against waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayerdollars.

Excerpt from:
Inspector General Finds Abuse of Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Illegal Aliens - Federation for American Immigration Reform

While illegal aliens continue to flood Americas southern border, the Biden administration and immigration enthusiasts are working to substantially increase and accelerate the arrival of legalmigrants.

Aimed at filling U.S. jobs with foreign labor, a series of new executive actions is percolating in Washington. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ur Jaddou let the mask slip this week when she cited a critical need for more lower-wageworkers.

The push for more foreign workers is predicated on lower U.S. unemployment rates (as though this were a problem that needs to be fixed). But this ignores some keymetrics.

In addition to 5.9 million jobless workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) counted 4.9 million working-age Americans sitting outside the labor pool last month. These discouraged workers are not included because they were not actively seeking employment during the four weeks preceding thesurvey.

BLS also revealed that hirings continue to trend downward, with the March figure the lowest since President Biden took office. Hourly wages declined, too, as did the average number of hoursworked.

The Economic Policy Institute reports that the 30 largest Silicon Valley tech corporations are continuingmass layoffs in the U.S. as they import more than 34,000 lower-paid H-1B visaworkers.

Jaddou boasts that her agency issued record numbers of work visas last year, and, going forward, she is pursuing administrative schemes that would eliminate barriers to entry. Among them: an expedited petitioning process to admit foreign nationals independent of labor markettests.

Expansion of the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), imposed in the last days of the Obama administration, is one way around labor market evaluations (which are rarely applied anyway). Ostensibly created to provide a significant public benefit, IER has no statutory or regulatory definition ofthat.

Despite slackening labor market conditions, Jaddou and her mass immigration allies want to expand work visas to include working spouses while extending stays of temporary workers. USCIS, she proudly proclaims, doubled the number of green cards issued before the COVID-19pandemic.

Meantime, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), where Jaddou made her comments, is pushing a smorgasbord of 21 administrative fixes,including:

Theres a problem with all of this. The barriers that Jaddou wants to take down are founded on laws duly enacted by Congress and deliberately put in place to protect American workers. This administration, on track to issue more executive orders than any in U.S. history, considers such laws subject to its politicalmachinations.

MPI policy analyst Kate Hooper correctly notes that there must be a balance between [immigration] access and oversight. With Jaddou and her cohorts at the wheel, oversight is taking a backseat in a reckless drive to increase the flow of foreign nationals by anymeans.

Original post:
Dismissing American Workers, USCIS Boss Takes Liberties to Boost 'Legal' Immigration - Federation for American Immigration Reform

Opinion

By Peter Reinharz and Andrew Stein

April 10, 2023 | 8:54pm

Migrants lined up for immigration court in Manhattan on March 6, 2023.Robert Mecea

No one is above the law. But is the slogan applied as universally as its uttered? Or are the words selectively aimed at ideological opponents on an as-needed basis?

One need look no further than our immigration chaos to understand that, in fact, millions of people have had the privilege of being placed above the law.

As our southern border has become a highway to havens, state and local authorities have chosen to ignore the immigration violations of our newest arrivals.

We designated our city a sanctuary out of compassion.

We are, historically, a city of immigrants, and we empathize with many of the new arrivals.

But our compassion is being tested by unprecedented numbers of newcomers accompanied by unparalleled costs our leaders call unsustainable.

Before New York crumbles under the weight of endless immigration, we need to end our sanctuary city policy.

Sanctuary cities like New York refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and share citizenship status, arrest data and addresses.

Local officials often smugly flaunt their right to do so. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in August 2018 during his re-election campaign, declared, New York state is the state that said we will not cooperate with ICE, theyre a bunch of thugs.

With federal authorities pursuing a virtual open border policy, plainly some offenders are above the law.

Federal law makes clear an alien who has illegally entered America (or is violating any US law) is deportable. Illegal entrants and immigration violators are ineligible for visas or admission.

Even where the officer initially believes the person may have a legitimate asylum claim, he or she still is required to be detained for further proceedings.

The Biden administration isnt enforcing immigration law as it should. But to be fair to the federal authorities, enforcement becomes burdensome or even impossible when state and local police wont provide ICE any information that would assist in removal.

The real wall in our immigration system has been erected between federal officials and state bureaucrats.

This impasse has taken a toll on the nation. Southern border officials had nearly 2.4 million migrant encounters in fiscal 2022 a hefty rise from 2021s 1.7 million.

And a major influx of illegal entrants has hit the Big Apple.

As buses arrived daily at Port Authority, Mayor Eric Adams said Oct. 7 that more people are arriving in New York City than we can immediately accommodate: Once the asylum seekers from todays buses are provided shelter, we would surpass the highest number of people in recorded history in our citys shelter system.

This month The Post reported the 30,000 illegal migrants housed in hotels, shelters and other facilities around the city are costing taxpayers $5 million per day.

City Emergency Management chief Zach Iscol noted the city is on the hook for $1.7 billion this year, with a two-year total of $4 billion.

An independent immigration watchdog group set the overall cost of illegal immigration here at a much higher $10 billion per year.

We can already feel these unbudgeted expenses. City library hours are being reduced. How long until police and fire department response times increase?

What kind of city government provides sanctuary to its newest arrivals as it endangers the safety of its citizens?

Adams says, Although our compassion is limitless, our resources are not. This is unsustainable. But for whom is our compassion limitless?

Every New Yorker should empathize with people who risk their lives and their childrens to come to America.

But burdening taxpaying New Yorkers with all the costs is hardly compassion for our citizens. Its more fittingly contempt.

Adams said the federal government needs to step up and assist with the never-ending influx of illegal migrants.

But why would the feds step up for a mayor and a city that continue to refuse all aspects of cooperation with federal immigration authorities?

Why would the feds enforce immigration laws that hundreds of localities throughout the nation dont want enforced?

And why would the feds see our city in need of assistance when its primary immigration policy is to welcome illegal entrants with no questions asked?

When Adams stood at the Port Authority bus terminal last August, greeting migrants with a Welcome and a handshake, he quipped to The Post, As the mayor of the city of New York, I dont weigh into immigration issues, border issues.

Well, Mr. Mayor, why not?

If the Biden administration refuses appropriate assistance, the city needs to find ways to help itself. Unsustainable is not a plan.

Lets begin with the lowest-hanging fruit. City sanctuary policy prohibits cooperation between city law enforcement and ICE, and this should change.

Federal law bars the admission of aliens convicted of drug-related crimes. With US fentanyl deaths approaching 100,000 per year, we shouldnt give sanctuary to those killing our children.

All drug offenders should be checked upon arrest for immigration status, and, upon conviction, law enforcement should notify ICE to prepare deportation proceedings. Convicts sentenced to prison must be transferred directly to ICE on release.

Aliens convicted of crimes of moral turpitude are also barred. Violent felons dont need sanctuary either. Compassion does not include a path to societal suicide.

Second, New York City needs to renew traditional immigration-screening protocols when it comes to public coffers.

As estimates widely range from $1 billion to $10 billion for total annual costs (suggesting that actual costs, like the actual number of future arrivals, are unknown), the city has moved nearly 30,000 migrants into hotels like the upscale Row near Hells Kitchen and the Milford Plaza in Times Square.

Hotel staff complain of violent behavior, fights, drug abuse and drinking among the residents, and some workers have been injured in the chaos. This is a free-for-all, a Row employee said.

The city is also picking up the tab for meals, education of school-age children and medical care.

But federal statutes make clear that these many of these expenses, in and of themselves, are grounds for exclusion: Any alien who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

Third, the mayor should note federal law ordering the exclusion of aliens with communicable diseases, mental or physical disorders that may involve a threat to the public and drug abusers and addicts.

Such exclusions should be an easy call in the wake of our COVID-19 lockdowns.

Sanctuary status should not place public health in danger by risking widespread infection or threats to public safety. Such cases require prompt action for quarantine and deportation through ICE.

Were sympathetic to the plight of those looking for a better life for themselves and their families. But we also understand New Yorkers needs.

Our city and state offer blanket sanctuary to illegal entrants without any knowledge about who they may be, why they are arriving and what they plan on doing here.

Over the last 2 years, all aspects of illegal immigration have radically changed. Unlimited sanctuary is a luxury we can no longer afford.

It is time we did what is best for our city, our residents, and our businesses.

State and local governments cannot govern with compassion for some and contempt for everyone else.

The rules of sanctuary need to change. No one is above the law.

Attorney Peter Reinharz was the chief prosecutor in New York Citys Family Courts from 1987-2002. Andrew Stein, a Democrat, served as New York City Council president, 1986-94.

Load more...

https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/new-york-just-cant-afford-to-remain-a-sanctuary-city/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

See the rest here:
New York just can't afford to remain a sanctuary city - New York Post

The Biden administration has announcedan agreementwith Panama and Colombia to reduce illegal migration through the dangerous Darien Gap. Its a jungle chokepoint that illegal migrants headed for the U.S. from South America and beyond have to traverse, often at the cost of their lives. (See the video of apanel discussionthe Center hosted on the subject featuring a local Indian leader, war correspondent Michael Yon, and Representative Tom Tiffany [R., Wis.] who personally visited the area.)

Youll not be surprised that traffic through the Darien hasballoonedin response to Bidens catch-and-release policies at the border. You also wont be surprised that the Biden administration response is not to change the policies that serve as a magnet to illegal immigration, but to try to define away the problem by making the migration legal.

The second of the ambitious goals of the new agreement is: Open new lawful and flexible pathways for tens of thousands of migrants and refugees as an alternative to irregular migration. In other words, come up with legal ways to admit the prospective illegal border-jumpers.

But if genuinely legal means were available, theyd already be using them. Instead, this signals an expansion of what Andy McCarthy aptly calls Bidens Immigration Parole Scam.

But the unlawful use of parole is just the tool. The policy served by that tool is one of de facto unlimited immigration. This administration believes that statutory limits on immigrationare illegitimate, and it will undermine those limits if there are more people who want to come here than can be legally admitted. AsByron Yorkput it a few months ago, Republicans want policies that willstop, or at least dramatically reduce, the flow. Democrats want policies that willaccommodatethe flow.

This is mostly true, but not entirely. There are still Republicans (likeNikki Haleyand evenDonald Trump) who also want to accommodate unlimited flows of immigrants, but, likeGeorge W. Bush, prefer using guest-worker programs rather than immigration parole to do it. But the objective is the same immigration without numerical caps.

Id contrast this with the governor of Florida, who saidlast fall:

And this idea of mass immigration, whether its illegal immigration or whether its just mass immigration through the legal process, like the diversity lottery or chain migration, is not conducive to assimilating people into American society.

More of this please.

Continue reading here:
Defining Away Illegal Immigration - Immigration Blog

Summary

Despite oft-heard claims that immigration will bolster Social Security and Medicare, the reality is more complicated. Much of the confusion stems from conflating the impacts of different policies. Toleration of illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and legal immigration are distinct policy choices that require separate analyses. This article explains conceptually how each of these immigration policies would impact the financial health of Social Security and Medicare.

Key points:

This report concludes that immigration is not a practical means of avoiding tax increases and benefit reductions when addressing the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Before discussing the impact of each immigration policy, a few basic points about Social Security and Medicare are in order. First, they have progressive benefit structures. In the case of Social Security, participants contribute the same 12.4 percent tax on all earnings up to the maximum taxable salary, but their benefits increase at a slower rate as their earnings increase. In other words, low earners receive a greater return on their contributions than do high earners.

Importantly, years without work are included as zeroes in the calculation of a workers average earnings. This gives part-career workers a higher-return on their contributions than longer-career workers with the same salary. For example, if a worker earns $100,000 each year for 10 years and then retires, he would pay 50 percent of the taxes paid by a worker who earns $100,000 each year for 20 years. However, the shorter-career worker would receive a Social Security check that is about 58 percent as large.1

Medicare is even more progressive than Social Security because participants need to work for only 10 years at a minimal earnings level to become eligible for the full benefit. In the example above, the shorter-career worker would pay 50 percent of the Medicare taxes as the longer-career worker but would receive 100 percent of the Medicare benefits.

Social Security and Medicare do not establish 401k-style accounts for individual participants. Instead, both programs operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, in which todays workers pay for the benefits of todays retirees. Social Security and Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) are funded with payroll taxes paid into each programs trust fund. All benefits paid by those two programs must flow from their trust funds. By contrast, other Medicare benefits that accompany Part A such as the subsidized medical insurance provided under Part B, and prescription drug coverage under Part D are funded with general tax revenue. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Medicare from this point forward will mean Part A specifically.

The Social Security and Medicare trust funds face a long-term fiscal imbalance, meaning that the future benefits owed to participants exceed the future payroll taxes that the government expects to collect. Without any further action, Social Security benefits will be automatically reduced starting in 2034, and Medicare benefits will be reduced in 2031. To close the gap, the Social Security trust fund is projected to require additional taxes equal to 3.6 percent of covered payroll over the next 75 years, while Medicare will require an additional 0.6 percent.2

Whether immigration will improve or worsen the fiscal imbalance described above depends on the specific policy under consideration.

Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration improves the finances of Social Security and Medicare for a simple reason: Although illegal immigrants are generally not eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits, many still pay taxes into the system.3 These taxes function as free contributions to the trust funds, as long as the illegal immigrants remain ineligible for benefits. (See the Amnesty section below.)

How do illegal immigrants who are ineligible for benefits still contribute payroll taxes? They do so with a Social Security Number (SSN) acquired one of several ways. They may have received a valid SSN via a temporary work permit but have since overstayed their visa or otherwise lost their status; they may have faked their identity to use someone elses SSN or to acquire their own fraudulently; or they may use an entirely fake SSN.4

A 2013 report from the Social Security Administration estimated that roughly half of illegal immigrant workers use an SSN.5 Two subsequent developments suggest that figure is now higher. First, visa overstayers contributed more to the illegal immigrant population in the 2010s than did people who crossed the border without authorization.6 Second, although border crossings have surged to record levels in this decade, the Biden administrations generous use of the parole power has granted temporary work permits to large numbers of migrants who will not be eligible for entitlement benefits when (and if) their parole expires. In any case, when the number of illegal immigrants who contribute payroll taxes increases, so does the benefit for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. Any policy that grants illegal immigrants amnesty i.e., the right to live permanently in the U.S. will likely include work permits and subsequent eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. That eligibility would impose steep costs on the trust funds for two reasons. First, as described above, many illegal immigrants are already paying into the system. Their contributions are in fact part of the Congressional Budget Offices baseline budgetary forecasts. Amnesty would require the government to bear the added cost of these recipients status as new beneficiaries without the added revenue that would normally come from new contributors.7 Second, illegal immigrants tend to earn less and work fewer years in the U.S. than the average participant, meaning amnesty will provide them an above-average return on their contributions.

In short, illegal immigrants as a group are net contributors who partially pay into the trust funds while receiving little in return, but amnesty would transform them into net drains who receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes. CIS has estimated the per-recipient cost of this dramatic change in status to be $129,000 in present value.8 If 10 million illegal immigrants receive amnesty, the total cost to Social Security and Medicare would be roughly $1.3 trillion, equivalent to a one-time transfer of 6 percent of GDP.9

Legal Immigration in the First Generation. The previous two cases were unambiguous. Illegal immigration increases tax contributions while costing little in new benefits. Amnesty increases benefits while adding little in new tax contributions. By contrast, welcoming new legal immigrants causes substantial increases in both tax contributions and benefit obligations. Determining the net fiscal impact in this case will depend largely on each immigrants income and career duration. Based on a CIS analysis of 2019 data from the American Community Survey (ACS), working-age legal immigrants earned an annual income of about $50,000, which is greater than the $46,000 earned by natives.10 However, because the average age of arrival for legal immigrants was 35, their career durations will be significantly shorter. As noted in the Preliminaries section above, the progressive benefit structures of Social Security and Medicare give shorter-career workers a higher return on their contributions.

A complete fiscal-impact calculation involving income, career duration, longevity, and other factors is beyond the scope of this report. Generally speaking, however, younger and higher-earning legal immigrants will be net contributors to the trust funds during their lifetimes, while older and lower-earning immigrants will be net drains.11

Legal Immigration Extended to the Second Generation. Up to this point, we have analyzed the impact of immigrants within their own lifetimes. If the present value of an immigrants taxes paid is less than the present value of benefits received, then that immigrant is said to be a net drain. But perhaps the entry of immigrants who are net drains within their own lifetimes could still ultimately benefit the trust funds if we consider the next generation. The theory is that the average low-earning immigrant will have several children who collectively pay more into the system than their parent took out.

Unfortunately, immigrant fertility tends to be too low for this theory to work, even among less-skilled groups. Analysis of 2019 ACS data shows that legal immigrants with no more than a high school diploma had a total fertility rate of 2.06 per woman, which is merely replacement level. This one-for-one population replacement (two children per couple) is insufficient to maintain the current ratio of approximately 2.8 workers for every retiree even if, unrealistically, all of the immigrants offspring became working adults. (About 74 percent of Americans ages 18 to 64 are currently working.)

Continuous Legal Immigration. The Social Security trustees project that increasing immigration going forward will lessen the fiscal imbalance over the next 75 years.12 Keep in mind, however, that the trustees are estimating the impact of continuous immigration, not the marginal impact. The immigrants who arrive near the end of those 75 years have the most positive impact because their tax contributions are included in the projection period, while their retirements will occur beyond it. These later-arriving immigrants help to pay for the immigrants who arrive earlier in the period, but they will eventually become costly themselves as their retirements start to fall within the shifting 75-year window which necessitates more immigration, and so on.

The assumption of continuous immigration can generate results that seem almost paradoxical. Even if every new immigrant imposes a lifetime net cost, a high-immigration policy could still appear to have a positive effect as long as the flow continues indefinitely. The term Ponzi scheme is sometimes seen as an epithet, but it accurately describes this funding strategy. Earlier participants are paid with the contributions from new participants, creating an ever-larger liability that would bankrupt the system if the supply of new participants were to ever falter.

We have seen that the impact of immigration on Social Security and Medicare depends on the specific policy under consideration. Illegal immigration improves the solvency of the trust funds, but granting amnesty would reverse those gains and impose additional costs. The impact of new legal immigrants is less clear-cut, as the arrival age and earnings of those immigrants will generally determine their status as net contributors or net drains. Continuous immigration could theoretically keep the programs running even when the immigrants are net drains, but whether such a Ponzi scheme is sustainable is unclear.

Given these differential effects, could expanding immigration allow the U.S. to avoid tax increases and spending cuts when addressing the long-term fiscal imbalance faced by Social Security and Medicare? Not as a practical matter. While carefully selected legal immigrants can be net contributors, attempts to use mass immigration as a comprehensive fix for the trust funds would be fraught with risk. For example, although more illegal immigrants (or legal immigrants ineligible for benefits) would certainly bolster the trust funds, the presence of so many second-class residents would generate political pressure for regularization and subsequent benefit eligibility. Similarly, continually importing low-skill immigrants as part of a Ponzi scheme would result in a fiscal crisis if at any point the requisite number of immigrants could no longer be recruited.

Even leaving aside those risks, the sheer number of immigrants required to make Social Security and Medicare solvent is unrealistic. CIS has estimated that immigration would need to rise to five times its current annual level just to maintain todays working-age share of the population through 2060.13 Even more immigration on top of that would be needed to raise the working-age share to a point where it generates a trust-fund surplus. Such a dramatic transformation of the U.S. population would cause economic, cultural, and political changes that transcend the impact on trust-fund solvency.

Rather than looking to immigration as an outside fix for the fiscal imbalances faced by Social Security and Medicare, policymakers should acknowledge that any practical solution will primarily involve a combination of tax increases and benefit reductions that encourage Americans to live within their means.

1 Online Benefits Calculator, Social Security Administration

2 Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, A Summary of the 2023 Annual Reports, Social Security Administration.

3 Some illegal immigrants have a temporary or deferred status that entitles them to receive retirement benefits for the duration of that status. Examples include parole, DACA, and TPS. See William R. Morton and Audrey Singer, Social Security Benefits for Noncitizens, Congressional Research Service, November 17, 2016.

4 For more detail on illegal immigrants with SSNs, including those who are currently eligible for benefits through programs such as DACA, see Steven A. Camarota, Estimating the Number of Illegal Immigrants Who Might Get Covid Relief Payments, Center for Immigration Studies, March 22, 2021.

5 Stephen Goss, et. al., Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds, SSA Actuarial Note No. 151, April 2013.

6 Robert Warren and Donald Kerwin, The 2,000 Mile Wall in Search of a Purpose, Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 124-136.

7 The added revenue would not be zero, however. Since illegal immigrants tend to experience wage increases after amnesty, their payroll taxes would also be higher. This increase is far too small to offset the added cost of their benefits. See Jason Richwine, Amnesty Would Impose Large Costs on Social Security and Medicare, Center for Immigration Studies, April 5, 2021, EN11.

8 Richwine, Amnesty Would Impose Large Costs on Social Security and Medicare.

9 A present value converts a long stream of future payments into a single upfront cost, adjusting for the time value of money. In this case, an amnesty for 10 million illegal immigrants would impose the equivalent of an immediate one-time cost of $1.3 trillion on American taxpayers. The actual payments would, of course, be distributed piecemeal over many years, and the simple sum of those payments (without discounting future values) would be much more than $1.3 trillion.

10 Legal immigrants are three years older than natives on average. After netting out the effect of age, the two groups have essentially identical incomes.

11 An exception to this rule are immigrants who arrive so late in life that they are unable to obtain the 10 working years needed to qualify for Social Security and Medicare. These immigrants would not be net drains on the trust funds, although they may, of course, consume means-tested benefits, such as Medicaid.

12 The impact would be notably small. The 35 percent increase in immigration contemplated by the trustees in their high-immigration scenario would reduce the 75-year actuarial deficit by just 11 percent. See The 2023 OASDI Trustees Report, Social Security Administration, Table VI.D3.

13 Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population, Center for Immigration Studies, February 4, 2019.

See the original post:
The Impact of Immigration on Social Security and Medicare: A ... - Immigration Blog