On Friday, bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 5706) and Senate (S. 2920) “to deny Social Security benefits and other benefits to individuals who participated in Nazi persecution”.
This sudden legislative attention to a decades-old problem stems from an Associated Press story two weeks ago about Social Security payments to Nazi war criminals. The Nazis in question immigrated to the U.S. after World War II, worked there long enough to qualify for Social Security, but then departed in the middle of Department of Justice investigations against them and then renounced their U.S. citizenship to head off the denaturalisation and deportation cases against them.
I was initially concerned that this bill might be used to attempt to deny Social Security benefits to other people who gave up citizenship, but as it turns out, the bill is written narrowly enough to target only Nazi war criminals — not even war criminals from other countries, let alone ordinary emigrants.
Sponsors and purpose
In her speech introducing the bill, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) stated:
After the conclusion of World War II, thousands of people who participated in Nazi persecution fled to the United States and lied about their pasts to gain U.S. citizenship. The Department of Justice has successfully identified and deported hundreds of these individuals over more than three decades. There were, however, individuals who left the country of their own accord before being issued an order of removal, which would have terminated all federal benefits, including Social Security. Without this order, eligibility for these benefits remained intact and these individuals collected millions of dollars in federal benefit checks.
The Nazi Social Security Benefits Termination Act of 2014 would require the U.S. Attorney General to notify the Social Security Commissioner to terminate benefits for any individual who has renounced citizenship or been denaturalized on the grounds of participation in Nazi persecution. In the event that the Department of Justice identifies Nazi war criminals still residing in the U.S., it may initiate its denaturalization process as normal, and this rule change would allow benefits termination at the end of that process. The measure also requires an annual report to Congress from the Department of Justice on the number of individuals it has determined are disqualified for Social Security benefits under this new legislation as well as the number of active investigations against Nazi war criminals it continues to pursue.
Maloney is one of the few people in Congress who has made any effort on behalf of U.S. Persons abroad, but looking at the list of other co-sponsors might make you nervous: it’s filled with people who have repeatedly expressed their contempt for us. In the Senate, there’s Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer of Ex-PATRIOT Act infamy.
And in the House there’s an even longer list of reprobates. First we see Keith Ellison (D-MN), who has led the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ attempts to kill what they insultingly & misleadingly call the “foreign earned income loophole”. After that we have David Cicilline (D-RI) and Hank Johnson (D-GA), who have lent their strength to Carl Levin’s various crusades to make it impossible for U.S. emigrants to conduct ordinary financial transactions where they live. And finally there’s Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who despite their membership in the Americans Abroad Caucus have supported numerous pieces of legislation to make life more miserable for actual Americans abroad, including passport confiscation and almost everything else mentioned in this paragraph.
In 1995, Congress and the Clinton administration quietly used the two-minute hate against billionaire ex-citizen Kenneth Dart to extend the scope of the expatriation tax to thousandaire ex-green card holders. With that history in mind, I was initially concerned that this bill’s publicly-stated purpose — denying benefits to ex-Nazis — was simply a smokescreen for its actual effect. However, a close reading of the bill’s actual text finds that, for once, these legislators aren’t trying to attack Americans abroad in general.
Legal details
Under current law, the loophole mentioned by the AP and Maloney is the narrow grounds for termination of benefits in 42 USC § 402(n): only deportation — not abandonment of green card, renunciation of citizenship, nor even voluntary departure after denaturalisation — makes you ineligible for Social Security. More details can be found in SSR 68-45.
The new bill’s provisions for termination of benefits expand that a bit, but they are still quite narrowly targeted. From govtrack.us (which somehow managed to get the House bill’s full text before congress.gov did):
(a) In General
The following paragraphs shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law:
(1) Social security benefits
A participant in Nazi persecution is not eligible for any benefit under sections 202 or 223 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402; 423).
(2) Supplemental Security Income benefits
A participant in Nazi persecution is not eligible for any benefit under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), including any supplemental payment pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration under section 1616(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e) and any payment pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212 of Public Law 93–66.
So only participants in Nazi persecution, and not other ex-citizens, are made ineligible for Social Security benefits. The definition of “participant in Nazi persecution”, in the next section, is also quite narrow — possibly too narrow to accomplish the bill sponsors’ goals:
(b) Participant in Nazi persecution defined
For purposes of this Act, the term “participant in Nazi persecution” means an individual—
(1) with respect to whom an order admitting the individual to citizenship has been revoked under section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in any case in which such revocation is based on conduct described in section 212(a)(3)(E)(i) of such Act (relating to participation in Nazi persecution); or
(2) who has lost status as a national of the United States by voluntary renunciation under section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into with the Attorney General in which such individual has admitted to conduct described in section 212(a)(3)(E)(i) of such Act (relating to participation in Nazi persecution).
In simpler terms, the bill as written cannot be used to strip benefits from other people who voluntarily gave up their U.S. status — not even Soviet or Rwandan war criminals who hid the fact that they should have been inadmissible to the U.S. under INA § 212(a)(3)(E)(ii), let alone ordinary American emigrants who worked in the U.S. for forty qualifying quarters. However, this assumes that the bill will survive the committee stage intact, without midnight amendments being added “for other purposes” in the manner of FATCA. (Also, the text of the Senate version of the bill is not yet available, though I’m assuming it will be the same.)
And even under current law, if American emigrants pay into the social insurance system of some other country long enough to qualify for benefits there — possibly even suffering double social security taxation due to the lack of a “Totalization Agreement” — their U.S. benefits will be reduced, thanks to the “windfall elimination provisions”. And due to another strange loophole in 26 USC § 6039G(d), denaturalised ex-citizens — unlike voluntary emigrants — don’t get “named-and-shamed” in the Federal Register, even though they’re subject to the exit tax at the time of denaturalisation (rather than the time of their actual departure from the United States).
Finally, all of us here who are familiar with U.S. nationality law will already have noticed the loophole in this bill: it only applies to renunciants and not relinquishers. An ex-Nazi who restores his former citizenship (or obtains a different one entirely — perhaps from Comoros, if he can’t afford the pricetag for the Commonwealth of Dominica), and uses that as the basis of an INA § 349(a)(1) expatriation claim, will remain eligible for Social Security benefits.
This bill is narrow now; there could be something broader later. Who knows? This is yet another example of the control of they-who-cannot-be-named over the entire political agenda in the USA and similarly here in Canada. Congress critters earning their brown-nosian points is what this is really about.
My husband is deferring SS until his seventies. I’ll tell him not to count on getting anything by that time. What the heck! Our whole retirement plan was blown to smithereens anyway. BTW, he is NOT a criminal but American lawmakers can expand their definitions just as far as suits their purposes. Congress critters and cohorts will obviously always be exempted.
Almost everything they do starts out narrow and broadens with time. The Congress can expand their definitions tomorrow to state that I am a pumpkin, it would then be up to me to prove otherwise or take the easy way out and accept it. I really don’t care if they keep all my SS money, I just want my life back.
This goes to show that they violate their Constitutional Oath that they have taken when they took office.
However, these dinosaurs took their first one so long ago that they don’t bother to listen to what they are saying in their biannual renewals.
No one is guilty until they are prosecuted.
Social Security was paid in. I’m quite sure that other criminals get their social security, especially those that haven’t been convicted.
I don’t like Nazis or criminals, but if they aren’t convicted they are not supposed to be punished.
The list of names in that bill are the ones that are dying to get their names in the newspaper again for all the yahoos.
All eyes will need to be kept on this until the end. In the past, they have slipped things against U.S. persons in at the conference stage (where differences between the two sets of bills are ironed out). It is unalterable after the conference stage, with the majority of both houses needing support and no filibuster option in the Senate.
Hmmm … and what of the many thousands of former Nazis that the US engaged in their service after WWII in the wreckage of Europe … and the Rocket Scientists that they spirited to the US to form the beginnings of rocket programs there (like NASA ?) ?
Just like all US Legislation, the intent starts off warm and cozy.
Raise hands, who thinks it is now a short step for former citizens to be stripped of social security?
If I get anything out of SS it will be a bonus and I live in the states! This stuff is going to change big time over the years. Renouncers are sure to be targets at some point. The UK wants to get rid of various exemptions for overseas residents for their UK income for example.
Anyway all renouncers are rich. So they don’t need SS at all. I’ll mail Chuck Schumer on this very issue.
In reality removing SS from renouncers would likely really dry up the stream of leavers.
Well, Congress established the basic principle all the way back in 1954 when they decided to cancel deportees’ Social Security benefits in the first place with the Social Security Act of 1954.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-68/pdf/STATUTE-68-Pg1052.pdf#page=32
I would have figured it’s a short step from that to cancelling renunciants’ Social Security, but in the past six decades apparently no Congresscritter ever thought of it on the various occasions the issue might have come up, e.g. in the Foreign Investors Tax Act or in IIRIRA.
@George
In case you can’t see it, my hand is raised. I think it’s probably a foregone conclusion. As I understand it, the government has had it’s hands in the SS cookie jar and more than a few cookies have been borrowed. Someone’s going to have to go hungry, might as well be someone they don’t have to look at.
It’s bad move. If you pay into the system, you should receive your SS back. Who else is the US Govt going to cancel? ISIS fighters, renunciations? anyone the USG doesn’t like?
@ Neill
expats are already penalized through the (WEP) Windfall Elimination Program, additionally
the military pay manual stipulates that former officers who renounce cannot benefit from their service, my 8.5 years FICA contribution during the Vietnam conflict no longer count toward social security benefits
Thanks for bringing this “camel nose” legislation to our attention, Eric. Good grief, how many Nazi’s can there be left, let alone those who’ve fled the US with their SS payments? Did the article say five? (BTW, for the purposes of clarity on this specific subject, we should make it clear which “SS” we’re referring to here 🙂
@patricia,
I understand WEB. My SS spreadsheet handles it for me because you see immigrants get hit by it as well.
SS if for poor people. You can’t rely on that rubbish. Hell I worry about the IRS confiscating my private wealth at some point in the future. For example SDVDI (sock draw voluntary disclosure initiative) that will cone in in 2023 will impose a 30% balance penalty on all my accounts because I failed to file the SDIR (sock draw inventory reporting) informational form. That carries a $10k / sock / year penalty.
What I don’t understand… this money is not a gift from the US… this is money they put in… they are making it sound like they are receiving *free* money from the US… its not free… its their money… Most are in their 80’s getting less then $300 a month and it stops when they pass… Gov’t reps can get their crap going on for this… but not one of them are willing to help ex-pats, immigrants, etc for our issues. Alot of homelanders don’t even understand that… they seem to equate SS as a gift from the gov’t… its not… its your money u put in & if u expect to live on this money in your golden yrs with nothing else invested… expect to eat lots of cat food & live in a cardboard box…
Of course these guys would start with the Nazis first, because who’s going to defend them?
Naturally this will only be expanded upon to where it’ll be focused on any ‘undesirable’, such as us unpatriotic, tax dodging expatriates. Who gives a damn if these same people ever put into the system, as it’s their loss for backtalking against their benevolent, paternal masters, yes?
The bill is selective as it does not cutoff Social Security benefits for those participants of Bolshevik persecution, Cambodian or Rwandan genocide – or even traitors who committed offenses on US soil like Jonathan Pollard. And a dangerous precedent, as denial of benefits could be extended to other groups, or definition changed to go after Tea Party.
This bill is just a public relations effort meant to curry favor with the members of a certain ethnic religious group. Any of these Nazis would have to be in their late eighties or nineties. How many could there be…five or six? What a joke! But as many have commented, this could be very easily expanded to include others at a later date.
Oh Henry! — You nailed it.
Just as a data point, John Demjanjuk (who passed away in 2012) is by far the most high profile alleged ex-Nazi to be pursued by the USG. My understanding is that Demjanjuk lost his social security benefits in 2008 when he exhausted all appeals of his deportation–as opposed to 2002 (when he was denaturalized) or 2009 (when he was actually physically deported).
@Henry
The Simon Wiesenthal Center still lists 8 men on its “most wanted” of whom 1 is now dead. None are younger than 90:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Most_Wanted_Nazi_War_Criminals_according_to_the_Simon_Wiesenthal_Center
The only one in the USA who would be affected by this law is Theodor Szehinskyj, 90:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Szehinskyj
Interestingly, before he died and himself in his mid nineties, Simon Wiesenthal himself thought it was time to stop pursuing Nazis as the few remaining were getting too old:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/nazi-hunter-simon-wiesenthal-says-his-work-is-done-1.12473
Orrin Hatch (loudest Republican supporter of the Ex-PATRIOT Act) introduced his own version of a bill to revoke Nazi social security benefits … “and for other purposes” on Wednesday: S.2944. Co-sponsors include FEIE enemy Chuck Grassley and passport confiscation “highway bill” supporter Ron Wyden. Bill text is not yet available, so we peons will have to wait till next week to find out what the “other purposes” are:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2944
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2944
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was also added as a co-sponsor on last weeks’ Senate Nazi social security bill (S.2920)
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2014/11/20/senate-section/article/s6205-2
Okay, news reports say S. 2944 is identical to its House companion bill H.R. 5739, whose full text is available. Cosponsors of the House bill include Xavier Becerra, Chuck Rangel, Lloyd Doggett, and Steve Cohen:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5739/text
Basically it looks like it would have the same effect as S.2920, it’s just drafted in a more confusing manner (instead of directly making denaturalized/renunciant Nazis ineligible for Social Security, it says they “shall be considered to have been removed” from the US). Other major difference is that it tightens the deadline for DOJ to give a report on previous Social Security payments to Nazi war criminals. Doesn’t close the relinquishment loophole. More importantly, still nothing that would affect non-Nazi war criminals, or those of us here.
Thank you for your vigilance, Eric. You never know when they’ll try to pull a fast one, like FATCA.
@Eric
Good work. Yes, that ‘other purposes’ had me concerned, too, even though it appears a lot in bills. Of course, amendments can be added and the Senate in particular can really go off piste because its amendments don’t even have to be germane. Nowadays unbelievable switcheroos get pulled at the conference stage (after the House and Senate have passed separate amended bills). On CBT, some of the bad stuff has just been inserted in at the conference stage with no publicity, then when it goes back to the Senate or House it has to be voted up or down with no chance of amendment. It ain’t over til it’s over.
H.R. 5739 (the more-confusingly-worded one) passed the House 420 to 0. No amendents (i.e. no provisions to strip Social Security from other renunciants, and the relinquishment loophole remains open).
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll537.xml
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5739/text
Speeches by Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Sam Johnson (R-TX), and Sander Levin (D-MI). Nothing surprising, the usual giving themselves a pat on the back
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2014/12/02/house-section/article/h8232-1/
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2014/12/02/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/e1697-1/
Becerra’s speech gives me the impression he’d probably be open to stripping Social Security from emigrants in the future. (As mentioned above he’s sponsored measures in the past to repeal the FEIE).