Senate votes to give Social Security to Illegal Immigrants

I received an email regarding this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006:

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3985 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 )
Statement of Purpose: To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity

How your Senator voted

Basically, it was a proposal to prevent people from receiving Social Security benefits that were obtained through illegal means; i.e., fraud, or forged documents, etc.

Of course, this amendment has it's roots in the current illegal immigration debate.

The US Senate voted 50 to 49 to allow illegal immigrants to collect SS benefits. Basically, they voted YES on the motion to table the amendment, which kills the motion to reconsider.

You can see how your Senator voted by visiting the link provided. Another link is
projects.washingtonpost.com...

Now, some will make a case for those who, although being illegal immigrants, have paid into the SS system and should thus be entitled to collect their benefits.

But what if a citizen commits fraud by using false documents? Would they not be subject to the penalties of law?

I say that anyone who collects benefits obtained through illegal means should forfeit their benefits as part of their penalty.

What do you think?

So, was the intent to allow ILLEGAL residents to collect SS or was that a side effect of voting yes

I'm rather surprised at the lack of comments here.
Seems that any SS discussion evokes little or no interest

I don't get it. How are they going to give the money back to them? If they have an illegal Soc number then what are they going to do?

I'd take whatever the cost to process these refund checks, the cost to send them back home, and a fine for illegally being here as being the things that need to be taken out of these checks before they get their money.

All I know is that when I went to buy my car, one of the salesman complained endlessly about illegals using fake Soc Sec numbers to get great loans on trucks. Then if they didn't pay or their credit got shot, then they would just get a new Soc number or head back to Mexico.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
So, was the intent to allow ILLEGAL residents to collect SS or was that a side effect of voting yes

I'm rather surprised at the lack of comments here.
Seems that any SS discussion evokes little or no interest

The intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from collecting SS benefits obtained through illegal ( which includes fraudulent ) means.

The actual vote was whether to table the motion, which is why the 50 YEA votes defeated the 49 NAY votes.

Tabling the motion kills any future reconsideration:

MOTION TO TABLE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER is used to kill the motion to reconsider.

Without promptly disposing of it, the motion to reconsider could be used to re-open the vote just held.
www.c-span.org...

A bit confusing; I had to read it several times.

Thanks, jso

NOt only is it confusing, but it also shows me that the system is more than confusing.
Votes in the middle of the night, confusing language that says one thing and means another, etc. etc.

And, if the conclusion was not intentional, why are folks like McCain coming out on national television and saying how horrible it is that these illegals are paying taxes and receiving no benefits for it. (I'd say the conclusion there would be to get in line to get legal!!!)

I want to comment on this but I'm so confused! Sorry!

jsabecky, can you tell me which way I would vote or want my Senators to vote, if I think illegal immigrants should NOT have SS #s and should NOT receive Social Security?

Thank you...

McCain voted Yea to table the motion, so his vote is consistent with his public position. I agree that the language is confusing; almost like using double negatives to describe the intent. But politicians are quite used to that type of talk.

BH

If you had a straight up and down vote on the amendment, you would vote YEA to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.

But the actual vote was on a Motion to Table the amendment, which in essence means, put it aside and forget ever having it brought up for reconsideration.

So, if you wanted this amendment to pass, you would vote NAY on the motion to table. Which, according to your question is the way you would want your Senators to vote.

Clear as mud, eh?

I don't think they should receive benefits. So when I saw that both of my Senators voted NAY, I initially got very upset. Actually, they voted they way they should have.

Thank you, jsobecky for that explanation! My senators voted one each way. Along party lines, of course... :shk:

Just as a side note, the confusion is enough to keep me from ever wanting to be a politician!

Absolutly nutz !!!
America is no longer America.
What the hell is the constitution.....nothing anymore.