{"id":21471,"date":"2019-05-13T16:08:50","date_gmt":"2019-05-13T20:08:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21471"},"modified":"2019-05-13T16:08:51","modified_gmt":"2019-05-13T20:08:51","slug":"whats-to-fear-about-social-securitys-no-match-letters-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/05\/13\/whats-to-fear-about-social-securitys-no-match-letters-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s to Fear About Social Security\u2019s No-Match Letters?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Swerving off their \u201cSave Social Security\u201d<\/a> script, Democrats on Capitol Hill are assailing an initiative that purports to protect the program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forty-six House Democrats<\/a> are demanding that the\u00a0Social Security Administration (SSA) not send Employer Correction Request Notices to businesses where employee W-2 forms do not match SSA records. The group, led by Rep. Jesus Garc\u00eda, D-Ill., alleged that the \u201cno-match letters\u201d are part of a Trump administration crackdown on illegal immigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While members\nof Congress may certainly debate immigration policy \u2013 please do! — it\u2019s hard\nto fathom objections to maintaining accurate government records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If\nwe cannot match the name and Social Security number reported on a W-2 to our\nrecords, we cannot credit earnings to a worker’s record,” SSA spokesman\nMark Hinkle noted. “When earnings are missing, the worker may not qualify\nfor Social Security benefits he or she is due or the benefit amount may be\nincorrect.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid rampant identity fraud — including rising theft<\/a> of Social Security numbers \u2013 foreign nationals<\/a> and illegal aliens are tapping into the system. It\u2019s imperative that steps be taken to uncover and root out grifters who illegally siphon off benefits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SSA\nstarted sending no-match letters in 1993, but did not begin requiring employers\nto terminate unverified workers until 2007. The program itself was terminated\nthat year. The Obama administration revived the no-match letters in 2011\nwithout the termination requirement. That effort was discontinued just a year\nlater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nTrump administration re-launched no-match letters in March, with a directive to\ninform employers about discrepancies with the SSA database.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it sounds good, the latest iteration is not an ironclad defense against fraud. A sample<\/a> of the new no-match letter from the SSA website directs an employer to compare the information online to the company\u2019s employment records and to correct any typographical errors.\u00a0If the discrepancy is not typographical, the employer asks the employee to correct the records.\u00a0It does not require<\/em> the employer to fire workers who refuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep.\nGarcia & Co., aren\u2019t letting the facts get in the way of their political\nhustle. \u201cOther than to instill fear \u2026 this is one more tool to drive the\nimmigrant community into the shadows of society,\u201d he declared last week,\nconflating legal immigrants whose interest are protected by no-match letters\nand illegal aliens who engage in identity fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The congressman\u2019s rhetoric notwithstanding, SSA\u2019s latest measure may not be the silver bullet that prevents illegal aliens from claiming American jobs. But in the absence of mandatory E-Verify<\/a> to universally vet job applicants, no-match letters can be useful instruments and should be employed to the fullest extent of the law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Swerving off their \u201cSave Social Security\u201d script, Democrats on Capitol Hill are assailing an initiative that purports to protect the program. Forty-six House Democrats are demanding that the\u00a0Social Security Administration (SSA) not send Employer Correction Request Notices to businesses where employee W-2 forms do not match SSA records. The group, led by Rep. Jesus Garc\u00eda,<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":16468,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[74],"tags":[162,1524,1778,356],"yst_prominent_words":[2122,2019,3274,2260,2254,2697,5575,2013,2008,5578,5576,5574,1944,2261,2296,2754,5259,5577,1991,5579],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21471"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21471"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21471\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21472,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21471\/revisions\/21472"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21471"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}