I could easily be wrong, but I seem to recall that the proposed Totalization agreement contemplates that work histories in both countries count and are reciprocal. In other words, a Mexican could have worked 8 years in Mexico, and then 2 years in the USA, and then qualify for US social security with the total of ten years.
These agreements have been entered into with many other (primarily western european, australia and canada) countries. But with those counries it is no big deal because people are not flocking from them to the USA, and their benefits are roughly equivilent to ours. Citizens of theose countries come here to work via a company transfer or the like, and then go home. Same thing for US workers who go to those countries to set up telecom systems or factories or whatever. Mexico, however, is a third world country that absolutely loves sending is economic refugees here, and receving remitances back.
Regardless of the above, and regardless of the cutural implications already being felt from SoCal to Texas, I have yet to see a serious econmic analysis that shows that this deal is good for us–the USA. If it is not good for US, then we should not do it, period. And no, I don’t consider below market illegal cheap labor good for the USA. Its like economic cocaine…eventually the fun will be over and the consequences will be ugly.
