"What Crist is saying is baloney. Hokum."

Florida Senate candidate Charlie Crist in the article referenced below proposes AMNESTY to shore up Social Security. 

Typical of pro-AMNESTY advocates he inaccurately describes his proposal  as a way for "illegal immigrants to earn citizenship,"  linking illegality to earning and citizenship.   Continuing his distortions he also says that this is "no amnesty."   Mr. Crist needs to use a dictionary because AMNESTY is "waiving of a penalty" and the penalty waived by AMNESTY is "subject to deportation."

The full article is at:

Crist: Shore up Social Security by allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship:

"What Crist is saying is baloney. Hokum," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter immigration controls. ''Legalizing them will increase the burden on Social Security."

The articles below indicate that illegal alien's additions to Social Security as a result of AMNESTY are not only not a real solution but an additional burden, essentially because they would be low wage workers.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/why-immigration-cant-save-social-security:

"Now think what comprehensive immigration reform usually entails: first, immigrants in the country illegally would generally receive some form of legalization—call it amnesty, a path to citizenship, whatever. So a large group of immigrants, who under current law would not receive benefits, now would receive benefits. Good for them, not so good for Social Security’s finances. Second, reform would likely increase the flow of legal immigrants into the country. Since these folks pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, it’s hard to call this a win for solvency either."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/sactestimony061907.html:

"Even the relatively tiny positive effect they currently have on SS and Medicare is partly due their inability to collect benefits.  If legalized, they would represent a long-term drain because illegals overwhelming have little education, and thus have low average incomes.  Because Social Security pays more generous benefits to low-income workers relative to what they pay in, legalization would add millions of low-income workers to the system, further straining it."

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16931&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1010:

"While increased immigration might help the Social Security Trust Fund in the short-run, the reason it is no solution in the long run is the following:

·         Immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits. More foreign workers result in increased future payouts. This helps only as long as larger numbers of immigrants are being brought in than are retiring. In that sense it is a Ponzi scheme. See our study “A Ponzi Problem” for a fuller discussion of this issue.

• A majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees."

September 24, 2010