How [Undocumented] Immigrants Saved Social Security (Or "Things Lou Dobbs Will Never Tell You")

Today's NY Times has a very interesting and thought-provoking editorial on immigrants and immigration.  Some segments are reproduced below but the whole editorial - and the Social Security report it refers to - are worth looking at:

Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.

That is not to suggest that illegal immigration is a legitimate fix to Social Security’s problems. It is another reminder, however, of the nation’s complex relationship with undocumented workers. Would the people who want to deport all undocumented workers be willing to make up the difference and pay the taxes that the undocumented are currently paying?

Emphasis added.  The report can be accessed here.

On the one hand, unless you're a recalcitrant anti-immigration (or anti-illegal-immigration) advocate, this shouldn't surprise you since it's common sense.  The whole point of the no-match letters that are now being used in some towns, counties, cities, or states to establish whether a person is an illegal immigrant is to inform the person that because there is no match, he or she would not be entitled to benefits - or would receive reduced benefits -if he or she did not correct the error.

On the other hand, you really have to wonder about an editorial that pretty much sings the virtues of a system based on the permanent disenfranchisement of an entire group of workers.  "They" are such a good thing for "us."  While the article raises the issue of whether Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes to make up the difference in revenues, it doesn't discuss the implications of providing a path to citizenship for these workers.  What would the picture look like if these workers could receive Social Security benefits when the time comes?

So, for the NY Times, it seems it's OK to exploit "them" as long as it benefits "us."