 |
| U.S.-Mexico Border Crossing In Normal Times |
This woman was receiving widows benefits on the account of her late husband who was a U.S. citizen but she's not a U.S. citizen. She's a Mexican national living in Mexico. A somewhat odd provision of the Social Security Act says that she can only receive dependent benefits while living outside the U.S. if she comes to the U.S. on a regular basis, either at least once every 30 days or at least once every six months if she stays in the U.S. at least 30 days. 42 U.S.C. §402(t). Before the pandemic, this wasn't a problem for her. I don't know her circumstances but she probably lives near the border. In normal times, she might have crossed the border frequently to visit family or friends or do some shopping but border crossings are now limited to "essential travel" so she can't visit the U.S. which means her widows benefits are suspended.
The provision cutting off this woman's benefits doesn't apply if the U.S. has a Social Security treaty with the other country providing an exception. 42 U.S.C. §402(t)(3). The U.S. has a Social Security treaty with seven countries providing an exception but not with Mexico. We might have a Social Security treaty with Mexico covering this issue except that some years ago Republicans got word that the U.S. had negotiated a Social Security treaty with Mexico and went ballistic, spewing ridiculous lies about what a Social Security treaty with Mexico would mean. A Social Security treaty with Mexico would only address boring, uncontroversial issues such as this lady's situation, avoiding double taxation of wages, mutual assistance between social security agencies, totalizing wages for a handful of people who have legally worked on both sides of the border but who couldn't otherwise qualify for benefits in either country, etc. The result of the Republican lies is that the treaty that was negotiated in 2004 has never been officially approved and that for years Social Security's appropriations have included a provision that no money can be used to implement a Social Security agreement with Mexico.
I think it is long past time to approve the U.S.-Mexico Social Security agreement and remove the restrictive provision in Social Security's appropriations. Quit appeasing the racists.
I also wonder about the provision in 42 U.S.C.§402(t)(2) that says that the limitation on paying benefits to non-resident non-U.S. nationals doesn't apply if the "Commissioner of Social Security finds [that the other country] has in effect a social insurance or pension system which is of general application" and meets certain requirements. I know that Mexico has a social security system but I don't know enough about it to say whether it technically meets the requirements of this provision. I can't even find a list of countries who do qualify under this provision. I'd be grateful if somebody could point me to a list.
By the way, don't waste your time trying to post racist MAGA crap in response to this. I'll never allow it to show up.
Catch-22 anyone? Government won't pay her a benefit her spouse earned unless she comes into the country periodically. Government won't let her into the country. Government stops payments because she hasn't come into the country because the government won't let her do so. How has she violated the rules? Unintended consequences are a b*tch. (And this is a classic example of why policy rules get more and more complex. Should someone see the inequity of this and administratively try to address it, it becomes an exception to a rule, documented in regs, may or may not be coded into the system, an obscure "but" in an already complex weave of policy rules.)
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a strange set of requirements under the regs. There may be a constitutional issue here, due process, that prevents the government from creating the condition which makes it impossible for her to continue benefits. But on another note... the Democrats also had opportunities to fix the issue and failed. I don't see them doing anything to fix it right now either. Social Security seems to be kicked to the curb by both parties on a consistent basis.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is long past time to enact this treaty with Mexico.
ReplyDeleteFor a list of countries where the provision in 42 U.S.C.§402(t)(2) applies, check out the SSA publication "Your Payments While You are Outside the United States" https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10137.pdf. I also find their Payments Abroad Screening Tool helpful: https://www.ssa.gov/international/payments_outsideUS.html
This sounds like one of the consequences of no longer having an international office at SSA:
ReplyDeletehttps://socsecnews.blogspot.com/2020/09/sounds-trumpy.html?m=1
The last administration made it a priority to destroy the international program at SSA. Let's see if this administration tries to rebuild it.
Was wondering why this was a requirement. Maybe they want the non-citizen possibly spending some of the money in the States. Or maybe they want to guard against it being a sham marriage. I have done limited immigration work in California but do know the immigration courts are always on the lookout for sham marriages.
ReplyDeleteMaybe any citizen who is near death could marry someone far away to get them on SS benefits. Maybe it is guarding against this.
That's one complicated section of law. But it only applies to aliens/non-citizens outside the US. I gave up trying to parse it.
ReplyDeleteYour post linked to the treaty obligation subsection in RS 02610.010(B). The subsection below that one discusses the Social Insurance Exception under 42 U.S.C. §402(t)(2):
ReplyDeletehttps://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0302610010#b
The Social Insurance Exception subsection links to RS 02610.015, which shows the country exceptions in section C:
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0302610015#c
Mexico meets the Social Insurance Exception under 42 U.S.C. §402(t)(2). However, noncitizen dependent/survivor beneficiaries who reside outside of the United States must also meet the 5-year residency requirement under 42 U.S.C. §402(t)(11), which is discussed in the Social Insurance Exception subsection of RS 02610.010(B). See also RS 02610.025:
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0302610025
12:45pm The law already guards against deathbed marriages. A marriage must last at least 9 months before the worker dies, in order for the widow(er) to qualify for benefits. There are some exceptions (for example, accidental death, having a child together). This provision applies to anyone, including citizens.
ReplyDelete