[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSISTANCE FOR ELDERLY AND
DISABLED REFUGEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-762 WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DAVE CAMP, Michigan
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota
RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts SAM JOHNSON, Texas
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JERRY WELLER, Illinois
XAVIER BECERRA, California KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KEVIN BRADY, Texas
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
MIKE THOMPSON, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois JOHN LINDER, Georgia
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DEVIN NUNES, California
RON KIND, Wisconsin PAT TIBERI, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey JON PORTER, Nevada
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KENDRICK MEEK, Florida
ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Brett Loper, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JERRY WELLER, Illinois
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama WALLY HERGER, California
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia DAVE CAMP, Michigan
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York JON PORTER, Nevada
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KENDRICK MEEK, Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of March 15, 2007, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
K ' Keng, Montagnard Refugee from North Carolina................. 6
Doua Thor, Executive Director, Southeast Asia Resource Action
Center......................................................... 15
Candy Hill, J.D., Senior Vice President for Social Policy,
Catholic Charities, U.S.A...................................... 8
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies........................................................ 19
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, statement.......................... 37
Alliance for Retired Americans, statement........................ 41
ASSISTANCE FOR ELDERLY AND
DISABLED REFUGEES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:30 p.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim McDermott
(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2007
ISFS-4
McDermott Announces Hearing on
Assistance for Elderly and Disabled Refugees
Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support of the Committee on Ways and Means,
today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on assistance
for elderly and disabled refugees. The hearing will take place on
Thursday, March 22, 2007, at 12:30 p.m. in room B-318 Rayburn House
Office Building.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include affected individuals and those assisting them.
However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral
appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the
Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash
benefits to elderly and disabled individuals who have very low incomes
and limited resources. Maximum monthly benefits equal $623 per
individual and $934 per couple. Prior to 1996, legal immigrants,
including refugees and other humanitarian immigrants, were eligible for
SSI on the same basis as U.S. citizens. As part of the 1996 welfare
reform law, nearly all legal immigrants were made ineligible for SSI,
except for refugees and other humanitarian immigrants who were allowed
to receive SSI during their first five years in the United States
(which was later extended to seven years).
According to Social Security Administration (SSA), over 40,000
refugees and other ``humanitarian'' immigrants in the United States
could reach the seven-year cut-off for SSI over the next ten years.
Some also may lose Medicaid coverage upon the termination of their SSI
benefit. These elderly and disabled refugees have generally fled
political and/or religious persecution in their home countries and have
arrived in the U.S. with little, if any, income or assets.
Obtaining U.S. citizenship would prevent the termination of SSI
benefits, but a variety of issues make that difficult. One important
barrier to citizenship within the seven-year period is lengthy delays
in processing of citizenship and adjustment applications by the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS. (Refugees and other
humanitarian immigrants must first live in the United States for five
years as a legal permanent resident before they are even eligible to
apply for citizenship.) Processing backlogs have been caused by
increases in the number of applications, computer problems,
insufficient staffing levels in some areas, and lengthy background
checks put in place after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Additionally, the application process involves multiple steps including
a lengthy application, an in-person interview, a test of English
proficiency and civic knowledge, and an application fee--all of which
might present barriers for elderly or disabled refugees.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott declared, ``Having
fled persecution, many refugees come to this country with little more
than the clothes on their backs. We need to live up to our Nation's
tradition of providing a helping hand to those most in need by
extending assistance to refugees who are too elderly or too disabled to
work.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on the current limitation on providing SSI
benefits to refugees and other humanitarian immigrants.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``110th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http:/
/waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). Select the hearing
for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled,
``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Once you have
followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms
and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an email will be sent to the
address which you supply confirming your interest in providing a
submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email and ATTACH your
submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the
formatting requirements listed below, by close of business April 5,
2007. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy,
the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all
House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical
problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. The meeting will come to order. Today,
we are going to talk about Social Security benefits for
refugees. Refugees come to American fleeing injustice or
persecution or torture and/or the threat of death. So, these
are folks who have arrived here under a variety of
circumstances. As the beacon of freedom around the world, we
have become a safe haven for many humanitarian immigrants who
usually leave their homelands in haste, sometimes with a little
more than the clothes on their back, and some of the refugees
are elderly, disabled or both. Now we try to help them with the
bare essentials. We supply Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits that equals about $623 a month for an individual,
which does not even reach 75 percent of the poverty level. So,
we are not bringing them into a lavish lifestyle here. Over the
last few years, this modest safety net has gradually been
ripped away from an increasing number of disabled and elderly
refugees, roughly 12,000 refugees and other humanitarian
immigrants have had their SSI terminated over the last few
years. The Social Security Administration projects that another
40,000 will lose their benefits over the next 10 years. These
cut-offs are the result of a provision in the law that denies
refugees SSI once they have been in the United States for 7
years. If a refugee becomes a citizen, he or she may continue
to receive SSI but a series of obstacles make their transition
to citizenship difficult within the 7 year time limit on SSI. A
refugee must first live in the United States for 6 years before
they are even eligible to submit an application for
citizenship. After 6 years, the refugee must confront a lengthy
application which may take several more years. There are other
barriers to citizenship beyond long processing times for
naturalization applications. For example, a recent cap on the
annual number of asylees who may become legal permanent
residents continues to force many of these people to wait for
more than 7 years before they can file a citizenship
application. Additionally, some disabled and elderly refugees
encounter difficulties navigating the application process,
which includes both an English language and a U.S. civics test,
as well as fees reaching as much $400 per application. Now, to
his credit, President Bush acknowledged the unnecessary
hardship on refugees caused by the 7 year time limit on SSI and
his budget calls for an extension on SSI benefits. The
Administration's proposal is less comprehensive than I think is
needed but it really is headed in the right direction, and I
think the President deserves credit for that. Hopefully,
today's hearing will begin to light a fire under the Congress
to act on this issue. For my part, I look forward to working
with Mr. Weller and other members of the Subcommittee toward a
meaningful and immediate solution. I do not intend to see
another year go by without the Committee acting on this issue.
We surely can find a way to provide basic assistance to elderly
and disabled individuals fleeing persecution. I would add that
the Iraq war is going to have an impact on this whole issue
because we are going to get a whole bunch of people from Iraq
into this process. We might as well fix it now because it is
going to happen to them. Because if your name is Abdul or
Ahmad, getting a citizenship in this country is really
difficult.
So, I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Weller. Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your calling this hearing today. As we have
discussed in our prior hearings it is important for our
Subcommittee to review our Nation's social policies, especially
our social safety net to make sure that it is working as
intended. Of course today is one of those opportunities, and I
look forward to the testimony from those on our panel.
When Congress reformed welfare in the 1990's, it also acted
to focus means tested benefits of citizens on the United States
as well as non-citizens who have worked and paid taxes in this
country for a number of years. Noteworthy exception of this
general rule involved the treatment of refugees who are
guaranteed access to means tested benefits like SSI, food
stamps, and Medicaid during their early years in this country.
This policy recognizes that refugees flee their home countries
with few possessions and continued to make available special
help as they adjust to life in our country. That is consistent
with your Nation's best traditions as a beacon of hope for
oppressed people around the world.
Later legislation expanded the special treatment for
refugees to guarantee them additional years of benefits for the
current total of up to 7 years of benefit checks after they
arrive. The premise of this extension was to provide enough
time for refugees who wanted to become citizens to do so,
maintaining their eligibility for benefit checks along the way.
During these 7 years, taxpayers provide each refugee as much as
$50,000 in SSI cash benefits, not counting the value of food,
housing, health care, and other benefits they might receive.
One of the issues we will discuss today is whether this
current 7 year period of guaranteed eligibility for SSI benefit
checks is enough given the reality of the naturalization
process today. Right now, there is a class action lawsuit in
Federal court in Philadelphia that argues some refugees seeking
to become U.S. citizens have lost SSI benefits due to delays in
the naturalization process. Addressing that problem may be a
productive area for bipartisan adjustments. Such adjustments
would ensure people playing by the rules and seeking to become
citizens do not lose out simply because the naturalization
process takes too long. That would be fair, targeted,
consistent with current law, and reasonably affordable in terms
of cost. Some might propose additional exceptions, perhaps for
those of advanced age. Others maybe would like to go even
further and provide for continued SSI eligibility for all
refugees for an additional year or 2 years or possibly even
longer. There are arguments for and against each of these
approaches but two facts are unavoidable. First, the longer and
broader the extension, the greater cost. Second, offsets for
additional costs do not exactly grow on trees.
We welcome our guests and look forward to their testimony
this morning. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting
this hearing.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. If the witnesses
will come up and take your place at the table, we would be glad
to hear your testimony. We have asked all of you to send in
your testimony, and that will be entered in full in the record
so you can be assured we will have a chance to read that. But
if there are other things you want to say, you now have about 5
minutes to do that. We will begin with K ' Keng, who is a
Montagnard refugee from North Carolina. I understand Mr.
K ' Keng you are going to use a translator to do your
presentation but welcome.
STATEMENT OF K ' KENG, MONTAGNARD REFUGEE FROM NORTH CAROLINA
[Mr. K ' Keng testifies through an interpreter.]
Mr. K ' KENG. Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of
Congress, I am too old to be able to follow what is part of my
statement and what is written because of the time limits so I
am going to shift it to the gentleman sitting next to me and go
to the rest of the statements.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. All right, go ahead.
Mr. K ' KENG. Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of
Congress, today I come before you as a representative of all
the elderly Montagnard in North Carolina. We have lost or are
losing SSI benefits. My name is K ' Keng. I am a Montagnard
refugee from the central highlands of Vietnam. I am 75 years
old. I lived much of my life as a farmer in my village in the
central highlands of Vietnam until 1965 when I, along with
thousands of other Montagnards, were recruited and trained by
the U.S. Special Forces to fight alongside Americans during the
Vietnam War. In 1970, while serving in the Province
Reconnaissance Unit, I was hit by a piece of B40 artillery from
the North Vietnamese Communists, which entered my right eye and
broke my left wrist and hand. Even though my right eye was
completely blind, I still returned to serve as janitor for the
special military unit until the end of the war in 1975.
In April 1975, when North Vietnamese Communists took over
South Vietnam, I was arrested and imprisoned for 6 years as a
political prisoner because I had fought along with the
Americans. In 1992, I applied from the refugee resettlement
program created for political prisoners. My wife, K ' Keo, and
I were resettled in the United States in 1996 with our young
son, K'Hung.
We both found jobs shortly after we arrived in the United
States working in a bakery. Three months later, I was laid off
because of my disabilities. I then applied for SSI benefits. My
wife continued to work until 2001 and also got laid off because
of her age and then she applied for SSI also. We both had our
green cards but our SSI benefits were cut off in February 2003
because of the 7 year time limit. While it has been expected
that 7 years would be enough time for us to obtain our
naturalization, it is not. Having a little to no formal
education in the central highlands of Vietnam and being much
older when you finally have access to education in the United
States, learning English in order to take the naturalization
exam has been very difficult. Currently, I am enrolled in
English classes in the hopes that I will 1 day be proficient
enough to take and pass the naturalization exam to become a
U.S. citizen.
Since the loss of our SSI benefits, the only source of
assistance my wife and I receive is food stamps, the amount is
$280 a month. For this reason, our son, 20 years old, had to
leave his school and has to work full time to help us
financially. At the young age of 20, our son has to delay his
own educational goals to help us provide food, shelter, and
other necessities for our family because of no longer receive
SSI.
Mr. Chairman, the Montagnard community is very thankful
that a handful of us were able to leave the central highlands
after the fall of South Vietnam. Today, indigenous Montagnard
continue to be persecuted in their Christian faith in Vietnam.
We came with great pain, suffering, and loss but also the
promise that we would be treated with dignity we deserve as a
friend and in many ways as veterans of the United States. We
urge that Congress act to provide immediate relief for those
who have lost their SSI benefits as well as a long-term
solution to prevent others from losing their main source of
support. Again, thank you very much for the privilege to
testify today. God bless you and bless America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. K ' Keng follows:]
Prepared Statement of K ' Keng, Montagnard Refugee from North Carolina
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of Congress,
Today, I come before you as a representative of all the elderly
Montagnards in North Carolina who have lost or are losing their Social
Security Income benefits.
My name is K ' Keng, I am a Montagnard refugee from the central
highlands of Vietnam. I am 75 years old. I lived much of my life as a
farmer in my village in the central highlands of Vietnam until 1965
when I, along with thousands of other Montagnards, were recruited and
trained by the U.S. Special Forces to fight alongside American soldiers
during the Vietnam War. In 1970, while serving in the Province
Reconnaissance Unit (PRU), I was hit by pieces of B40 artillery from
the North Vietnamese Communists which injured my right eye and broke my
left wrist and hand. After 3 months in the hospital, even though my
right eye was completely blind I still returned to serve as a janitor
for the special military unit until the end of the war in 1975.
In April of 1975 when North Vietnamese Communists took over South
Vietnam I was arrested and imprisoned for 6 years as a political
prisoner because I had fought alongside the Americans. In 1981, I was
released from prison and I returned to a life of farming in my home
village. In 1992 I applied for the Humanitarian Operation (HO) refugee
resettlement program created for political prisoners. My wife, K Keo,
and I were resettled in the U.S. in 1996 with our young son K'Hung.
We both found jobs shortly after we arrived in the U.S. working in
a bakery. Three months later I was laid off of work because of my
disabilities. I then applied for SSI benefits. My wife continued to
work until 2001 and when she was laid off she also applied for SSI
benefits because of her age. We both have our green cards and are
permanent legal residents but our SSI benefits were cut in February of
2003 because of the 7-year time limit. While it has been expected that
7 years would be enough time for us to obtain our naturalization, it is
not. The majority of Montagnard refugees who were resettled in the U.S.
were over 60 years old at the time of resettlement. Having had little
to no formal education in the central highlands of Vietnam and being
much older when we finally had access to education in the U.S.,
learning English in order to take the naturalization exam has been very
difficult. Currently, I am enrolled in English classes through the
assistance of the Montagnard Human Rights Organization, Lutheran Family
Services and Catholic Social Services in hopes that I will, one day, be
proficient enough to take and pass the naturalization exam to become a
U.S. citizen. This is also the hope of many other Montagnard elders in
our community who have lost or will soon be losing their SSI.
Since the loss of our SSI benefits, the only source of assistance
my wife and I receive is food stamps of $280 a month. We have no
income. For this reason, our 20 year old son has had to leave his full-
time enrollment in school to work full-time to help us financially
while going to school part-time. At the young age of 20, our son has to
delay his own educational goals to help us provide food, shelter and
other necessities for our family because we no longer receive SSI.
Mr. Chairman, the Montagnard community is very thankful that a
handful of us were able to leave the central highlands after the fall
of South Vietnam in 1975 to be resettled in the United States of
America, the most wonderful and powerful country in the world. To this
day, indigenous Montagnards continue to be persecuted for their
Christian faith in Vietnam. We came with great pain, suffering and
loss, but also the promise that we would be treated with the dignity we
deserved as friends, and in many ways, as veterans of the United
States. The Montgnard people are grateful for the kindness, love and
sanctuary our community has found here in our new homes in the United
States. Montagnards have been here since 1986 and enjoy the real
freedom America provides, especially the freedom of religion.
I am here today as a voice for many others in the ethnic Montagnard
community who could not be here themselves. I urge that congress act to
provide immediate relief for those who have lost their SSI benefits
through an extension of the time limit for elderly and disabled
refugees as well as a long term solution to prevent others from losing
their main source of support.
Again, thank you so much for the privilege to testify today. God
bless you and bless America.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you and thank you for your help
to our troops in the Vietnam War as well. Ms. Hill is the
senior vice president for social policy at Catholic Charities.
STATEMENT OF CANDY HILL, J.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR SOCIAL
POLICY, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, U.S.A.
Ms. HILL. Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman McDermott
and Ranking Member Weller for this opportunity to be here to
represent Catholic Charities U.S.A. in 171 diocesans and
agencies and 1,500 affiliates across the country that serve
more than 7.5 million people a year. We also are one of the
largest resettlement organizations in the United States and are
a partner with the government in providing services to people
who have fled their homeland because of terrible persecution,
deprivation and even torture before being lawfully admitted to
our country.
By definition individuals who qualify for Supplemental
Security Income are severely disabled and have little or no
income. Very poor and often without shelter, food or relatives,
many humanitarian immigrants turn to Catholic Charities and
other charitable organizations, homeless shelters and soup
kitchens to meet their most basic needs. Without SSI, they are
forced to live in emergency shelters for long periods of time,
unable to even afford a single room, often with mental health
issues and physical disabilities and may have no access to
needed health care services such as prescription drugs or long-
term therapies. Without SSI benefits, many humanitarian
immigrants will sink deeper into poverty and often suffer poor
physical and mental health.
Congress originally thought seven years would be enough
time for refugees and asylees to become naturalized citizens
and thereby preserve their SSI eligibility. However, many
refugees and asylees have not been able to make it all the way
through this process for a variety of factors, including
significant backlogs at Federal immigration offices and new
procedures after 9/11.
No one should go without the basic needs to preserve his or
her dignity. We have a moral obligation to lift up those who
are tied down by the bonds of poverty and in spite of our best
efforts to assist these people in playing by the rules, we are
falling behind because the rules were created that placed
restrictions and limits on public benefits with the assumption
that the naturalization system would work in a way that would
not penalize those who are most in need. We invited them here
to our country because of the conditions in their own country
where they were suffering, devoid in many cases of their
dignity, leaving behind the only life they know and suffering
beyond our comprehension. We offered them hope and a place
where they could be treated with dignity and respect.
Unfortunately, we have also created obstacles here for them.
Try as they might, playing by the rules, not hiding in the
shadows, they are being penalized for a system that is broken.
Now through no fault of their own face the loss of their
ability to meet their own basic needs and the loss of their
human dignity.
We are not here to talk about the merits of the system, we
are here to talk about the reality of the people who are
legitimately present and the suffering that is occurring
because of that system. It is hard for many of us in this room
to relate to the experience of the people who are affected by
this issue that we bring before you today. In 1999, I had the
privilege of working with the Kosovo refugees who came to this
country, a learning experience that has changed my life because
I fully realized at that point how lucky all of us are that we
are born under this flag, that we are able to sleep at night
without the thought of intrusion by military forces, to be
persecuted for our religious beliefs, and are able to protect
our own families. These people have not been able to do that in
their own country and have come to our shores for our
protection.
We call on this Committee and the Congress to provide the
necessary leadership to address this crisis. Your leadership
can provide a solution that speaks to the dignity and respect
of these vulnerable people. Congress should enact legislation
to prevent this vulnerable population from suffering any
further hardship. At a minimum, Congress should extend the time
limit to provide a more realistic opportunity for individuals
to be naturalized. Congress should also broaden the English
language waivers in recognition of the difficulties that many
elderly persons, who are not proficient in their homeland
language, have in the obstacles in learning a new language.
Ideally, Congress should eliminate the time limit on SSI
benefits for elderly and disabled refugees by de-linking
eligibility for public benefits with U.S. citizenship. People
should become citizens out of an attachment to the United
States, not a forced economic decision to avoid destitution.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Candy Hill, J.D., Senior Vice President for
Social Policy, Catholic Charities, U.S.A.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Catholic Charities U.S.A.'s 171 diocesan
agencies and more than 1,500 affiliates serving more than 7.4 million
people annually, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Assistance for Elderly and
Disabled Refugees and other humanitarian immigrants.
Catholic Charities U.S.A. has a continuing interest in the well
being of humanitarian immigrants in the United States. Through the
Migration and Refugee Services offices of the United States Catholic
Conference of Bishops, Catholic Charities agencies have a long history
in resettling refugees. Catholic Charities agencies provide refugee
resettlement services as well as long-term support to individuals and
families that have suffered terrible persecution, deprivation, and even
torture before being lawfully admitted to our country. We also make
every effort to help them become U.S. citizens. Catholic Charities
agencies provide assistance to nearly 70,000 refugees annually, some of
whom are elderly or disabled. Our agencies' staff help these
individuals navigate the application process, contact medical
professionals and assemble medical histories, fill out required forms,
and provide encouragement and support by helping them in their
transition from their home country to safety and security in our
country.
Humanitarian immigrants are individuals the U.S. Department of
State have sought, in consultation with the United Nations, to assist
with resettlement to this country in order to protect them from further
persecution and harm. Refugees and other humanitarian immigrants
account for 10 percent or less of the annual legal immigrant admission.
Humanitarian immigrants include Russian Jews and other religious
majorities who fled the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing
persecution under the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans fleeing the Castro
regime, Hmong immigrants from the highlands of Laos who served on the
side of the U.S. military during the Vietnam war, persecuted minorities
in Somalia, Kosovo refugees fleeing Serbians forces and persons from
various regions of the former Yugoslavia displaced by the Balkan wars.
Humanitarian immigrants who are of advanced age and/or totally and
permanently disabled and who are bereft of personal and material
resources need on-going income support as well as social and health
services. Many of these individuals arrive in our country after fleeing
for their lives arrive without relatives and only the clothes on their
backs. Such long-term need is beyond the capacity of religious and
charitable organizations. The SSI program is literally a lifeline for
such immigrants. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has
expressed concern that eliminating essential social services like SSI
from refugees after seven years falls short of the durable solution
resettlement is intended to offer elderly and disabled individuals.
While we know that we must expand our own commitments to meet
humanitarian needs as social service agencies, we also know that faith-
based groups and other non-profit sector organizations do not have the
resources to replace those functions which are the legitimate
responsibility of government and the private sector. Catholic Social
Teaching tells us that one of government's central responsibilities is
to ensure that no one goes without the basic material necessities of
life. The basic necessities are moral rights, and it is ultimately the
government that has the responsibility to protect these rights.
The U.S. Government provides monthly Supplemental Security Income
payments to refugees and other humanitarian immigrants 65 and over,
blind and disabled individuals to help meet basic needs for food,
clothing and shelter. In 2007, individual SSI beneficiaries receive
monthly payments of up to $623 and married couples receive up to $934.
In some states this amount is supplemented. In addition, many states
link SSI and Medicaid eligibility by allowing SSI recipients to
automatically qualify for Medicaid. This coverage is vital for people
with health problems and disabilities. However, thousands of refugees,
asylees, and legal immigrants are now being left destitute as a result
of losing their SSI benefits due to a change in the mid-1990's Welfare
Law. According to the Social Security Administration, nearly 12,000
elderly and disabled refugees, and other legal immigrants have already
loss their SSI benefits and it is estimated that another 40,000 will
lose benefits over the next decade.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (PRWORA) severely reduced the availability of federal programs
for immigrants and aliens. \1\ Under PRWORA, most immigrants are
ineligible to receive federal means-tested benefits for their first
five years in the United States and are not eligible for SSI or the
Food Stamp Program (FSP) at all. It should be remembered that PRWORA
sought to make elderly and disabled refugees ineligible for SSI and
food stamps as a budget cutting measure and direct more people into
paid employment, even though elderly and disabled refugees by their
circumstances are not employable. Humanitarian immigrants, however,
were granted a full exception to the restriction on federal means-
tested benefits and were allowed to retain their eligibility for SSI
and food stamps for a limited amount of time. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
\2\ States were given the option to place their own limitations on
certain federal programs administered at the State level (TANF, SSBG,
and Medicaid) but humanitarian immigrants were also given a time-
limited exception from these possible limitations as well. Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 Sec. 402(b) (codified
as amended at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1612(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 402(a)(2)(A) TIME-LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLEES--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 5 years after the date
[he is granted status as a humanitarian immigrant.] \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996
Sec. 402(a)(2)(A) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1612(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years following the enactment of PRWORA, Congress passed
several amendments designed to ease some of the restrictions on SSI and
FSP eligibility for certain immigrants. Most notably, at one of the
first opportunities to offer technical amendments to PRWORA, Congress
extended the time-limited exception to the categorical bar on SSI
eligibility from 5 to 7 years for certain humanitarian immigrants. \4\
Section 402(a)(2)(A) was amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Balanced Budget Act of 1997 Sec. 5302, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111
Stat. 251 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 402(a)(2)(A) TIME-LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLEES--
With respect to the specified Federal programs described in paragraph
(3), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien until 7 years after the
date [he is granted status as a humanitarian immigrant.] \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The amendment contained in The Balanced Budget Act of 1997
actually amended this provision to read somewhat differently, but the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
amended the food stamp provisions and resulted in the language of
current law. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act
of 1998 Sec. 503, Pub. L. No. 105-185, 112 Stat. 523, (codified at 8
U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, Congress created a system to incentivize naturalization by
limiting the time a humanitarian immigrant could receive SSI benefits
as a non-citizen. While 7 years may have seemed sufficient to
accomplish this task without needlessly penalizing old and disabled
humanitarian immigrants, reality tells a different story.
This restrictive time limit has fallen hardest on people who fled
persecution or torture in their home countries and subsequently came to
the U.S. empty-handed--Jews from the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds,
Cubans, Hmong, Kosovo refugees and others--who are now too elderly or
disabled to support themselves.
To fully understand the continued significance of these modified
restrictions on humanitarian immigrants receiving SSI it is necessary
to look at the eligibility requirements for SSI and the naturalization
process.
SSI provides a modest cash benefit of $623 to persons who have very
limited resources and are elderly, blind, or have a significant
disability. To qualify for SSI, in addition to being poor a person must
be:
Age 65 or older,
Blind, or
Unable to engage in substantial gainful activity as a
result of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that
will result in death or will last a period of at least 12 consecutive
months. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Additionally, applicants must agree to apply for other cash
benefits for which they may be eligible, reside in one of the 50
states, District of Columbia, of Northern Mariana Islands, and be a
United States citizen or a qualified alien.
Humanitarian immigrants represent a narrow subset of SSI
beneficiaries. Humanitarian immigrants have sought refuge and
protection in the United States after fleeing untold horrors of
persecution and abuse, face grievous circumstances, and are often in
dire need of federal assistance. They may have been forced to leave
their family behind and often have no other means of support.
Taken together, these individuals are poor, elderly or disabled,
and have suffered or fled persecution and abuse in their home countries
and Congress chose to exempt them from the generally applicable
restrictions on SSI and food stamps.
Unfortunately, some of the elderly and disabled immigrants who are
most in need of income support are also least likely to be able to
naturalize. The challenging and complicated requirements of the
citizenship application process, which are sensible and necessary to
make naturalization a serious and significant step for most applicants,
are beyond the capacity of humanitarian immigrants who were denied
education in their home countries and who are not literate in any
language. Achieving sufficient mastery of the English language to pass
the test is clearly beyond their potential.
In order to naturalize, an applicant must first become a lawful
permanent resident (LPR). Humanitarian immigrants must be
fingerprinted, complete the ``Application To Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status'' form, complete the ``Biographic
Information'' form, submit ``Evidence of Asylee Status'' or
``Application by Refugee for Grounds of Excludability,'' submit
evidence of having resided in the United States for one year (including
documenting any absences during the period of residence), submit a
birth certificate or birth record, submit a ``Medical with Vaccination
Supplement,'' and pay the associated filing and fingerprinting fees.
The large numbers of citizenship applications, combined with other
factors (including the requirement for more rigorous background check
requirements following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001)
have resulted in a multi-year administrative backlog at USCIS. In July
2006, the USCIS reported a backlog of over 1.1 million naturalization
applications. \7\ Of those applications, 140,000 cases were considered
under USCIS control. The nearly one million remaining applications
included cases considered outside USCIS' control because the agency was
waiting for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI has
acknowledged that USCIS' name check requests outpace the FBI's
available resources for name checks. \8\ Through no fault of the
applicant, these administrative delays can cause the naturalization
process to take longer than the 7 years envisioned by section
402(a)(2)(A). According to the Migration Policy Institute, the median
number of years between legal immigration and naturalization has been
eight years for individuals who became U.S. citizens in 2002 through
2005. But the process is likely to take longer for humanitarian
immigrants. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services News Release, ``USCIS
Announces Elimination of Naturalization Application Backlog,'' http://
www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/n400Bklg091506NR .pdf
\8\ Supplemental Declaration of Michael A. Cannon, Section Chief of
the National Name Check Program Section at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, filed in Yakuba v. Chretoff, No. 1:06-cv-3203-ERK-RLM
(Eastern District of New York), August 31, 2006, paragraph 21.
\9\ Jeane Batalova, ``Spotlight on Naturalization Trends,''
Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformaiton.org/
USfocus/display.dvm?ID+421#14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asylees face additional difficulties because of asylee adjustments
to LPR status. Like refugees, they must wait for at least one year
after being granted asylum before adjusting to LPR status. Prior to May
2005, the number of ayslees that could adjust to LPR status each year
was capped at 10,000 regardless of the number of individuals that
actually had been granted asylum. \10\ As a result of the cap and
processing delays, a backlog of adjustment applications formed.
According to USCIS, as of April 2006 nearly 113,000 asylees were
awaiting processing of their applications to adjust to LPR status. \11\
USCIS estimated that for applications that already have been submitted,
the wait for processing could exceed 4 years, though the agency intends
to process applications submitted after April 1, 2007 within six
months. \12\ After having adjusted to LPR status, to apply for
citizenship, asylees must have resided continuously in the U.S. with
LPR status for at least four years. \13\ This has resulted in a backlog
of eligible applicants that extend far beyond the 7 years envisioned by
section 402(a)(2)(A). For a typical asylee granted asylum today, the
wait to naturalize will be 15 years or more. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13) eliminated the cap.
\11\ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ``Asylee or Refugee
Seeking Lawful Permanent Resident Status, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/
site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f 614176543f6d1a/
?vgnextoid=207796981298d0
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ Asylees are required to have had LPR status for five years
before applying for naturalization. But there is a special rule that
allows them to start counting their LPR status as having begun one year
before the date on which their LPR application was approved. Thus,
asylees must wait four years from the time their LPR application is
approved before applying to naturalize. In addition, the naturalization
application may be submitted 90 days before the date on which the
asylee will have had LPR status for five years (refugees may also
submit their applications 90 days before having been in the United
States for five years). American Immigration Lawyers Association,
``Some Common Questions about Naturalization,'' accessed January 16,
2007, http://www.aila.org/Content/default.aspx?docid=21334.
\14\ Estimates of asylees in this backlog range from 140,000 (see
Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Prepared Remarks before the Migration Policy Institute, Sept 3, 2003)
to 160,000 (see Declaration of Mark A. Rohrs, Supervisory Center
Adjudications Officer for the Department of Homeland Security,
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Nebraska Service Center, Vukaj v.
Ridge, No. 03-72676 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 19, 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The road to citizenship is lengthy and difficult for the average
immigrant. This process is exacerbated for old and disabled immigrants
who have difficulty meeting some of the naturalization eligibility
requirements.
An eligible applicant with LPR status can apply for naturalization
if they:
(1) Are 18 yrs or older,
(2) Have been an LPR for the previous 5 years (unless a member of
the Armed Forces or married to a citizen),
(3) Pass an English language test,
(4) Pass a U.S. Civics test,
(5) Are willing to support the Constitution of the U.S. and be
willing to take an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 312(a).
Humanitarian immigrants are frequently illiterate both in English
and in their native language. This severe lack of education often
combined with the presence of mental and physical impairments (due to
age or disability) present obvious difficulties for them as they seek
to naturalize.
In addition, applicants must pay $400 in fees, and USCIS proposes
increasing the fees associated with naturalization to $660 \16\ For an
individual relying solely on SSI benefits, the current fees alone
amount to nearly two-thirds of one month's income and the proposed fee
of $660 would exceed the monthly maximum benefit for an individual.
Although partial fee waivers are available at the discretion of USCIS,
as a practical matter it is difficult for humanitarian immigrants to
apply for fee waivers without the assistance of an aid organization or
attorney. Many humanitarian immigrants are not aware that fee waivers
are available and the waiver request must include an affidavit, which
is difficult to prepare properly without assistance. Also, USCIS has
avoided providing a form to request fee waivers, thereby leaving
applicants to construct and present evidence of financial need on their
own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Federal Register, February 1, 1007, ``Adjustment of the
Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule,'' Proposed Rule, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/
01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-1631.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Charities U.S.A. and other organizations partnered
extensively with both USCIS and the former INS to develop the extensive
regulations and policy guidance designed to ensure compliance with the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. \17\ This regime provides applicants that
do not meet the criteria for disability waivers an opportunity to meet
the naturalization requirements with the aid of reasonable
accommodations. For example, an applicant unable to take a written test
would be permitted to take the test orally. Another example is, if an
applicant requiring fingerprints is unable to report to a service
center due to a disability, USCIS personnel may arrange alternate means
of taking the fingerprints, such as by sending an agent to the
applicants residence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87
Stat. 355 (codified at 29 U.S.C. 794(d)), requires accommodations for
applicants with physical and mental impairments. A disability is a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of
impairments which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the modifications required by the Rehabilitation Act,
extremely disabled applicants may qualify for disability-based
exceptions, which are a statutory requirement of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. \18\ To qualify for such a disability waiver,
applicants must have a ``medically determinable impairment'' that
results from ``anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical or
laboratory diagnostic techniques to have resulted in functioning so
impaired as to render an individual unable to demonstrate an
understanding of the English language or U.S. Civics.'' \19\ These
waivers are available only under fairly limited situations. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 312(b).
\19\ 8 C.F.R. 312.1, 312.2.
\20\ Statutory accommodations are generally only available for the
English and U.S. Civics requirements. There is at least one exception
to this statement. In 2000, Senator Hatch (R-UT) introduced and
Congress passed legislation that authorizes USCIS to waive the
requirement to take the oath of allegiance if an individual has a
disability or mental impairment that prevents him or her from being
able to understand the meaning of the oath or to communicate an
understanding of the oath requirement. Pub. L. No. 106-448, 114 Stat.
1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age-Based Exemptions and Exceptions
(1) An applicant who is age 50 or older may have the English test
waived if they have accumulated 20 years as an LPR. In this case, the
U.S. Civics test would be given in the applicant's native language.
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 312(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) An applicant who is age 55 or older may have the English test
waived if they have accumulated 15 years as an LPR. In this case, the
U.S. Civics test would be given in the applicant's native language.
\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 312(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) An applicant who is age 65 or older may have the English test
waived if they have accumulated 20 years as an LPR. In this case, they
are eligible to take a simplified version of the U.S. Civics test in
the applicant's native language. \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 312(b)(3).
There are no provisions for a complete waiver of the U.S. Civics
test requirement based solely on age.
Despite the importance of these accommodations and exceptions for
the naturalization applicants that they reach, they are ineffective in
assisting those humanitarian immigrants who have lost or are in danger
of losing SSI benefits as a result of PRWORA's time-limited exemption.
While the age-based exceptions will help those who have been
present in the United States for significant periods of time, more
recent humanitarian immigrants have and will lose their SSI benefits
long before they are eligible for an age-based waiver. And older
immigrants often do not qualify for either reasonable accommodation
under the Rehabilitation Act or disability waivers under the INA.
Consider the following examples:
Efim and Faina Rabinovich entered the U.S. as refugees
from the former Soviet Union (Latvia) in August of 1996. Efim has been
seriously ill since June 1997 and now suffers from advanced Parkinson's
disease. Due to his poor health, he is often unable to leave his home
for immigration interviews. As a result his fingerprints (which must
accompany the adjustment of status application) have repeatedly
expired, and the adjudication of his naturalization application has
been delayed. These processing delays and the couple's illnesses have
made it impossible for them to naturalize within seven years of their
arrival in the United States.
As thousands of humanitarian immigrants have lost or will lose
their SSI eligibility due to the 7 year time limit provision of the
welfare law, many of the organizations that are serving these very
vulnerable immigrant populations have encountered immigrants in
desperate situations that signify a significant problem:
A Catholic Charities agency in Des Moines, IA reports the
case of a married couple, ages 75 and 70. Both fled to the U.S. from
Vietnam and they have been unable to find employment because of their
age and physical disabilities. Both receive federal SSI benefits, but
neither has been able to naturalize because of an inability to learn
English. Both are at risk of losing their SSI benefits, currently their
only means of support.
A 68-year-old Ukrainian immigrant who fled her home
country to avoid religious persecution is an SSI recipient in the U.S.
She is still two years away from losing her SSI benefits and is
studying hard in hopes of being able to learn English well enough to
complete the naturalization testing requirements. But because she is in
old age, she has had difficulty remembering how to write and speak the
new language, even after a lot of time and effort put into studying.
There is a good chance that she will be unable to learn English
sufficiently well to pass the naturalization test before her SSI
benefits expire.
A 78 year old refugee from Somalia has never been to
school in his life. As an SSI recipient, the clock is ticking against
him as he perseveres in hope of learning English well enough to pass
the naturalization testing requirement before his SSI benefits expire
in 2 years. His monthly SSI disability check is his only source of
income.
A 72 year old cancer survivor and his 75 year old
diabetic wife, Cuban refugees now residing in Florida, were among the
thousands of humanitarian immigrants facing loss of their SSI benefits
in 2004. These two were lucky; a social worker helped them to apply for
citizenship. But after receiving notice that his and his wife's SSI
benefits might be terminated, the 72 year old recounts, ``it just about
gave me a heart attack--the fear, the worrying.''
Elderly immigrants often have difficulty learning a new language
due to their age or other impairments. Many have little or no
education, learning disabilities, and other circumstances that create
insurmountable obstacles for them as they attempt to naturalize. Since
these serious impairments are not a result of a diagnosable disorder,
many elderly immigrants will not qualify for a disability-based
reasonable accommodation to the naturalization process and, as a
result, may never naturalize or be eligible for benefits.
By definition, individuals who qualify for Supplemental Security
Income are severely disabled and have little to no income. Very poor
and often without shelter, food, or relatives, many humanitarian
immigrants turn to Catholic Charities' and other charitable
organization's homeless shelters and soup kitchens to meet their most
basic needs. Without SSI, they are forced to live in emergency shelters
for long periods of time, unable even to afford a Single Room Occupancy
unit or other low income housing. Individuals who are the most
vulnerable--with mental health issues and physical disabilities--may
have no access to needed health care services such as prescription
drugs or long term therapies. Without SSI benefits many humanitarian
immigrants will sink deeper into poverty, and suffer poor physical and
mental health.
No one should go without the basic needs to preserve his/her human
dignity. We have a moral obligation to lift up those who are tied down
by the bonds of poverty. In spite of our best efforts to assist in
playing by the rules, we are failing because rules were created that
place restrictions and limits on public benefits with the assumption
that the naturalization system would work in a way that would not
penalize those in need. We invited them here because of the conditions
in their own country where they were suffering devoid in many cases of
their dignity--leaving behind the only life they know--and suffering
beyond our comprehension. We offered them hope--and a place where they
could be treated with dignity and respect. We call on the Committee to
provide the necessary leadership to address this crisis--your
leadership can provide a solution that speaks to the dignity of respect
of these vulnerable people.
In the years following the enactment of PRWORA, there have been a
number of technical and substantive legislative amendments designed to
restore fairness to vulnerable immigrant populations.
Congress should enact legislation to prevent this vulnerable
population from suffering further hardship. At a minimum, Congress
should extend the time-limit to provide a more realistic opportunity
for individuals to naturalize. Congress should also broaden the English
language waivers in recognition of the difficulties many elderly
persons have obtaining proficiency in a new language. Ideally, Congress
should eliminate the time limit on SSI benefits for elderly and
disabled refugees by de-linking eligibility for public benefits with
U.S. citizenship. People should become citizens out of attachment to
the U.S., not a forced, economic decision to avoid destitution. These
recommendations are proposed in a document called A More Perfect Union:
A National Citizenship Plan--a study prepared by the Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Inc. resulting from two years of research and over
100 interviews with immigration and naturalization experts.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Ms. Thor is the
director of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DOUA THOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ASIA
RESOURCE ACTION CENTER
Ms. THOR. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of Congress for this opportunity. My name is Doua Thor,
I serve as the executive director for an organization called
the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. We are a national
refugee organization managed primarily by and for Americans
with heritage from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. I myself came
as a refugee to the United States and the daughter of a Hmong
soldier who was recruited by the United States during the
Central Intelligence Agency in what is known now as the
``Secret War'' in Laos.
So, people from the Southeast Asian countries of Cambodia,
Laos, and Vietnam constitute the largest group of refugees ever
to arrive in the United States and many fell actually victim to
the genocide that ensued after the takeover. Desperate families
fled by thousands on foot, by boat, or if they were lucky, on
the few U.S. planes that returned for them.
The U.S. has historically been a safe haven for many
fleeing persecution and war in the homelands. Humanitarian
immigrants who are affected by the 7 year SSI eligibility time
limit are from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
Russian Jews who fled the former Soviet Union. Other recent
groups of humanitarian immigrants include Cubans fleeing the
Castro regime and persecuted minorities from Somalia. Many such
as the Hmong in Montagnards risked everything that they had to
fight bravely and honorably alongside American soldiers in
times of war.
For many elderly and disabled refugees and other
humanitarian immigrants, SSI is their lifeline. Many arrive
having little to no access to formal education and are either
unable to obtain employment due to language barriers and
disabilities, advanced age or a combination of all of the
above. Because of the trauma that many humanitarian immigrants
have faced, barriers to employment can also include a wide
range of disabilities, such as life-threatening or serious
illnesses and mental health issues. For these populations, SSI
provides the bare minimum, of which Mr. Chairperson mentioned
earlier, no more than $623 per month for an individual and $934
for a couple. The average monthly payment in 2007 was $466.
However, with the 7 year time limit, refugees and other
humanitarian immigrants face destitution once they are no
longer eligible for SSI.
In order to continue receiving SSI, refugees and
humanitarian immigrants must obtain their citizenship with an
often unrealistic timeframe of 7 years. It is unrealistic for
many because the path of citizenship is lengthy and compete
with barriers and bureaucratic roadblocks. Refugees and
humanitarian immigrants must reside in the U.S. for at least 1
year before they can be eligible to apply for lawful permit and
residency or a green card. After which, they must wait an
additional 5 years to be eligible to apply for naturalization.
Within those 6 years, a number of obstacles may prolong the
process, increase fees, backlogs, processing delays, background
checks, fingerprints, and many other issues. The median number
of years between legal immigration and naturalization for
persons who have become U.S. citizens between 2002 and 2005 has
been around 8 years. The path to obtaining citizenship can take
much longer and for many refugees and humanitarian immigrants
who are eligible and receive SSI, they will need more time.
As one of the steps to obtaining citizenship, individuals
must demonstrate the comprehension of the English language and
also pass an exam in U.S. history and civics. Many refugees and
humanitarian immigrants have little or no form of formal
education, which makes learning very difficult. In addition to
learning disabilities, it is known that with advanced age, the
ability to learn and retain new information becomes less likely
and often impossible for many. Because of such barriers, simply
obtaining the English capacity to naturalize becomes a goal
that is unachievable for a number of most vulnerable and
disabled refugees, especially for those who fought on behalf of
the United States and have become allies to this country and
represent what it means to be an American but may not be able
to pass the civics exam.
Increasing application fees also contribute to the delay in
naturalization. The current cost of the naturalization
application is $330, which is over 70 percent of the average
SSI payments made in January of 2007. Recently, CIS has
proposed a fee increase to citizenship change of the
application that would bring the cost of naturalization
applications up to $595, well over the average SSI payments
made in January 2007. High fees further delay and often
prohibit those who receive and depend on modest SSI benefits
from attaining citizenship.
I urge Congress to ensure the needs of disabled and elderly
refugees are made a priority in the 110th Congress to prevent
this vulnerable population from further hardships and setbacks.
Congress should enact legislation, as mentioned by Ms. Hill, to
dealing SSI eligibility from U.S. citizenship for refugees and
humanitarian immigrants. At the very least, Congress should
provide a stop-gap measure of extending the 7 year limit on SSI
eligibility.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doua Thor, Executive Director,
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Barriers to Citizenship, SSI and the Poverty Impact on Disabled and
Elderly Refugee and Humanitarian Immigrants
Good afternoon. First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman
for his extensive work with refugee communities and for highlighting
this very important issue of the impact of the SSI time limit on
elderly and disabled refugees and other humanitarian immigrants. My
name is Doua Thor and I currently serve as the Executive Director of
the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, also known as SEARAC. Based
in Washington, DC, SEARAC is a national nonprofit refugee organization
managed primarily by and for Americans with heritage in Cambodia, Laos
and Vietnam.
I was born in Laos, escaped to Thailand, lived in Ban Vinai refugee
camp, and came to the United States with my own family fleeing
persecution. I am a former refugee and the daughter of a Hmong soldier
who was recruited by the United States CIA in what is now known as the
``Secret War'' in Laos.
People from the Southeast Asian countries of Cambodia, Laos, and
Vietnam constitute the largest group of refugees ever to build new
lives in the United States. Nearly all Hmong entered the U.S. as
refugees or as relatives of refugees at various times after the end of
the Vietnam War. The Hmong have a unique history with the United States
and began to relocate to this country in 1975, after fighting alongside
the U.S. soldiers, rescuing downed American pilots, and gathering
intelligence for America's military forces during the Vietnam War. At
the end of the ``Secret War,'' the American-supported South Vietnamese
government succumbed to the military pressures of their communist
neighbors to the north. The Hmong were then targeted for persecution
and had to leave our home country for fear of losing their lives. Many
fell victim to the genocide that ensued after the takeover. Desperate
families fled by the thousands, on foot, by boat, or, if they were
lucky, on the few U.S. planes that returned for them. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pha Lo, Visiting the Hmong: America's Forgotten Refugees,
Pacific News Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the refugee resettlement process I fully understand, first
hand, how difficult it is to start over in a new home, living in
poverty.
The U.S. has historically been a safe haven for many fleeing
persecution and war in their homelands. Most of the humanitarian
immigrants who are affected by the seven-year SSI eligibility time
limit are from Russia or the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
including Russian Jews who fled the former Soviet Union and former
Yugoslavs displaced by the Balkan war; other recent groups of
humanitarian immigrants include Iraqi Kurds fleeing persecution under
the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans fleeing the Castro regime, and
persecuted minorities from Somalia. \2\\,\\3\ Many, such as the Hmong
and Montagnards, risked everything that they had to fight bravely and
honorably alongside American soldiers in times of war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Zoe Neuberger, ``Loss of SSI Aid is Impoverishing Thousands of
Refugees,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 8, 2007.
\3\ For more information on the national origin of humanitarian
immigrants who would be affected by the SSI eligibility limit, see
Fremstad, ``The Impact on the Seven-Year Limit on Refugees' Eligibility
for Supplemental Security Income--Refugees from the Former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe are Most Affected.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the U.S., according to the 2000 Census, Southeast Asians from
Cambodia and Laos with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty,
than Americans and other Asian Americans in general. Approximately 18
percent of Americans with disabilities live in poverty. However, the
rates for Southeast Asians are much higher in comparison; approximately
28 percent of Cambodians, 39 percent of Hmong, 22 percent of Laotians
and 18 percent of Vietnamese Americans with disabilities live in
poverty.
Disabilities are closely linked with poverty among Southeast Asian
Americans. In fact, the 2000 Census found that in 1999, 44 percent of
Cambodian households in poverty had disabled householders, as did 48
percent of Hmong, 45 percent of Laotian and 38 percent of Vietnamese
households below the poverty level. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 36 percent of U.S. households overall below the poverty level
were found to have disabled householders, as were 30.8 percent of such
Asian American households overall, see Southeast Asian American Elders
in California: Demographics and Service Priorities Revealed by the 2000
Census, October 2003, http://www.searac.org/sea-eldersrpt-fin.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Southeast Asian, elderly individuals who also have
disabilities are at higher risk of poverty. For example, in the state
of California alone, the disability rates for people aged 65 and over
range from 63 percent for Laotians, to 68 percent for Cambodians, and
71 percent for Hmong compared to approximately 42 percent for
Californians overall.
According to the Social Security Administration's 2004 SSI Annual
Statistic Report, refugees and humanitarian immigrants account for only
9.7% of all SSI recipients. \5\ It is estimated that 12,000 refugees
and other humanitarian immigrants have already lost SSI benefits and
another 40,000 will lose benefits over the next decade. \6\ It is
unacceptable to force thousands of some the most vulnerable people into
destitution, amongst them, those like K ' Keng who have risked their
lives on behalf of America in the exact same way that American veterans
and soldiers have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Social Security Administration, ``SSI Annual Statistical
Report, 2004,'' http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2004/
sect05.pdf
\6\ Zoe Neuberger, ``Loss of SSI Aid is Impoverishing Thousands of
Refugees,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 8, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many elderly and disabled refugees and other humanitarian
immigrants, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is their lifeline. Many
arrived in the U.S. having had little to no access to formal education
and are either unable to obtain employment due to language barriers,
disabilities, advanced age or a combination of all the above. Because
of the trauma that many humanitarian immigrants have faced, barriers to
employment can also include wide ranging disabilities such as life
threatening or serious illness and mental health issues. For these
populations, SSI provides the bare minimum for many, no more than $623
per month for an individual and $934 for a couple, to afford the most
basic needs of survival such as food, clothing and shelter. The average
monthly payment in January 2007 was $466.70. \7\ However, with the
seven year time limit, refugees and other humanitarian immigrants face
destitution once they are no longer eligible for SSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Social Security Administration, SSI Monthly Statistics,
January 2007, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/
2007-01/table07.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to continue receiving SSI benefits, refugees and
humanitarian immigrants must obtain their citizenship within an often
unrealistic timeframe of seven years. It is unrealistic for many
because the path to citizenship is lengthy and complete with barriers
and bureaucratic road blocks. Refugees and humanitarian immigrants must
reside in the U.S. for at least one year before they can be eligible to
apply for lawful permanent residency (green card) after which they must
wait an additional five years to be eligible to apply for
naturalization. Within those six years, a number of obstacles may
prolong the process. Increasing fees, backlogs, processing delays,
background checks, fingerprinting and preparation for English language
proficiency and U.S. history and civics are among barriers to timely
naturalization. The median number of years between legal immigration
and naturalization for persons who became U.S. citizens between 2002
and 2005 has been eight years. \8\ The path to obtaining citizenship
can take much longer for many refugees and humanitarian immigrants who
are eligible and receive SSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Jeanne Batalova, ``Spotlight on Naturalization Trends,''
Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/
USfocus/display.cfm?ID=421#14, September, 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one of the steps to attaining citizenship, individuals must
demonstrate their comprehension of the English language and also pass
an exam on U.S. history and civics. While applicants over the age of 55
who have been in the U.S. for over 15 years and those over 50 who have
been in the U.S. for over 20 years are eligible to take the exam in
their native language and be exempt from the English language
requirement, these exemptions are not helpful for disabled or elderly
refugees. \9\ Many refugees and humanitarian immigrants have had little
or no form of formal education which makes learning very difficult. For
some, even the written form of their native language is foreign. In
addition to learning disabilities, it is known that with advanced age,
the ability to learn and retain new information becomes less likely and
often impossible for many. Because of such barriers, simply attaining
the English capacity to naturalize becomes a goal that is unachievable
for a number of the most vulnerable disabled and elderly refugees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Melanie Nezer, ``America's Broken Promise: The Dire
Consequences of Welfare Reform for Jewish Refugees,'' Summer 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing application fees also contribute to the delay in
naturalization. The current cost of the naturalization application
alone is $330 which is over 70% of the average SSI payments made in
January 2007. Recently, USCIS has proposed fee increases to citizenship
and change of status applications that would bring the cost of the
naturalization application up to $595--well over the average SSI
payments in made January 2007. High fees further delay and often
prohibit those who receive and depend on modest SSI benefits from
attaining citizenship.
These and other barriers to citizenship not only prohibit many
refugees and humanitarian immigrants from becoming fully integrated
into American society and civically engaged through citizenship, but
they also pose as threats to the loss of SSI eligibility and the risks
of falling further into poverty.
I urge Congress to ensure that the needs of disabled and elderly
refugees are made a priority in the 110th Congress to
prevent this vulnerable population from further hardship and setbacks.
Congress should enact legislation to de-link SSI eligibility from U.S.
Citizenship for refugees and humanitarian immigrants. At the very
least, Congress should provide a stop-gap measure of extending the
seven-year limit on SSI eligibility. Seven years is certainly not
sufficient time for thousands who have been affected and thousands more
who will be affected by this cut off.
The U.S. has been a leader in providing refuge for people from
around the world who, among many unimaginable circumstances, have faced
persecution and dislocation because of conflict and war. Many who find
refuge in the U.S. have been longtime allies and supporters of this
country and as such, have risked their lives and those of their loved
ones to be here. It is unimaginable that we would allow our disabled
and elderly refugee and humanitarian immigrants to endure the unfair
hardships of losing their SSI.
Examples and Stories of Refugees Affected by the Seven Year Limit:
Bounta Xasiengpat, was 81 years old and was resettled in
the U.S. as a refugee in 1996. Because of the seven year time limit on
her SSI, her benefits were discontinued in December of 2004. SSI was
her only source of income. She had to move in with her daughter and
grandson. Bounta was seriously ill and required dialysis treatments
three times a week. Since her husband's death a few years ago, she had
been very depressed; a feeling only compounded with the loss of her SSI
benefits. She felt hopeless and unsure of what to do next. She wanted
to become a U.S. citizen and was participating in programming at the
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries in Fresno, California.
Bounta passed away early this year.
An Ethiopian asylee received political asylum in the U.S.
in 1999 based on credible fear of persecution if he returned to
Ethiopia. When he received asylum in 1999, he was blind and completely
insulin dependent and was qualified to receive SSI. His health
deteriorated and he ultimately required daily home health care due to
the life threatening nature of his illness. He lost his SSI in 2006
because of the seven year limit and subsequently lost his Medicaid as
well because of this. Despite his best efforts to obtain citizenship
within seven years, his path to obtaining lawful permanent residency
and U.S. citizenship were set back by delayed background checks and a
national cap for asylees of 10,000 a year (the cap was lifted in 2005)
which held up his application for an excess of four years.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Now Mr. Krikorian,
the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Thank you, Chairman McDermott and Ranking
Member Weller, for the invitation to speak. The 1996 welfare
reform bill, as we know, barred most non-citizens from
receiving SSI, which is the welfare program for the low-income
poor, disabled and elderly. There was clearly a need for reform
at that time. Nearly two-thirds of SSI recipients were in fact
immigrants at that time. Chinese in particular were abusing the
program by transferring all their assets to their children and
then claiming poverty. But the point to refugee admissions is
that it is a form of charity. We admit people as refugees not
because they have family Members or because they have job
skills or they have someone to sponsor them but for other
reasons and that is why Congress rightly I think extended the
eligibility for SSI for refugees for 5 years and then to seven,
again in effect as a form of charity to permit people time to
naturalize.
In the 10 years since then, the SSI usage rate is roughly
the same between immigrants and natives when you look at all
immigrants together but immigrant sending countries clearly
have much higher rates. Russian immigrant headed families, one
out of six are on SSI. One out of eight Iranian families are on
SSI. Ten percent of Cubans are on SSI, more than 6 percent of
Vietnamese are on SSI. Immigrants who seek to naturalize for
whatever reason, either as a strategy to preserve welfare
eligibility or genuine commitment to America, are going to find
it to be a cumbersome and time-consuming process. There are all
requirements that foreigners that need to demonstrate they meet
spelled out in the law. There are certain exemptions for people
who are elderly or have certain impairments but nonetheless it
is a bureaucratic process that has a lot of i's to dot and t's
to cross.
As the number of applicants for citizenship have increased
over the years, both because of welfare reform causing people
to change their decisions and simply because of the ongoing
surge in immigration, the processing time for citizenship
ballooned and you made a reference to that. In some cities up
to 2 years, it took up 2 years between filing and being sworn
in. Often this happened because the fingerprints provided by
immigrants, which were necessary for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) background check, expired. In other words,
they were only considered valid for a certain period of time.
The FBI never got around to it before that time period expired
and the immigrants had to go in all over again and provide new
sets of fingerprints.
This administration has not had a stellar record on
immigration from anybody's perspective I think but they have in
fact managed to reduce the processing time for citizenship
applications. This backlog issue really is not the issue it was
in the past few years. In September, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS), I represent the older CIS, but
nonetheless they announced in September that they had
eliminated the naturalization backlog. This is what the press
release said. I think it was sort of an imaginative definition
of eliminated, nonetheless the times have been brought down
significantly. The CIS site you can actually check online what
the processing date is for naturalization applications, and
they are reporting that in all the major cities, they are now
processing applications that were submitted about 7 months ago.
That is beyond--that is longer than their 6 month target, which
is pretty long as it is, but clearly it is not--the backlogs
are no longer really an obstacle to naturalization.
It seems to me legitimate to considerately certain targeted
limited exemptions, perhaps in fact those who have a
naturalization application in the pipeline to provide an
extension for them in case backlogs do in fact balloon in the
future. The broader suggestions though that some other
witnesses have made about de-linking welfare SSI eligibility
from citizenship may be sensible but they are not an
adjustment. That is a fundamental change to the way Congress
has decided to do welfare for immigrants and is not something
that we limited to SSI because you are going to have similar
stories of difficulties in learning English and what have you
coming from non-refugee immigrants as well. So, if we are
talking about limited adjustments, the de-linking that has been
suggested is really not appropriate. That is a fundamental
change, a sort of paradigm shift to the way Congress does
immigration and welfare.
But there is a broader issue I just wanted to touch on at
the end and that is that whatever Congress does decide to do in
this question of SSI eligibility, we need to understand that
immigration is very costly to the taxpayers and that refugee
admissions are the most costly form. It is a kind of taxpayer-
supported charity. We need prioritize, it seems to me, whom we
provide this kind of charity to. If we decide that in a
situation of limited government revenues we are going to extend
this form of charity to refugees, whom we admit for
humanitarian reasons, and rightly so, whether it is sensible to
continue these kind of levels of mass immigration of non-
refugee, non-humanitarian flows of people.
I would be happy to answer any questions afterward. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Krikorian, Executive Director,
Center for Immigration Studies
Thank you Chairman McDermott and ranking member Weller for the
opportunity to speak before this Subcommittee.
In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act which, among other things, barred most
non-citizens from receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a
welfare program for low-income people who are disabled, blind or aged
65 or older. \1\ There was clearly a need for reform of SSI
eligibility; immigrants made up nearly two-thirds of elderly SSI
recipients, with elderly Chinese, in particular, often using the
program after giving their assets to their children and then claiming
poverty. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplemental Security Income Home Page, http://www.ssa.gov/
notices/supplemental-security-income/index.htm.
\2\ See, for instance, ``From `Jiu Ji Jin' to `Fu Li Jin': Some
Chinese Immigrants Mistakenly See Welfare as a `Fringe Benefit','' by
Norman Matloff, The New Democrat, November 1994, http://
heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/pub/Immigration/WelfareUse/NewDemo.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refugees are humanitarian immigrants admitted without being
sponsored by a family member or employer (who would be responsible for
ensuring they did not become a burden to the taxpayer), and were
therefore permitted to retain their SSI eligibility for five years
after arrival, later extended to seven years. The goal of these time
limits was to allow refugees time to naturalize, and thus remain
eligible for benefits on the same basis as any other American citizen.
And there was, in fact, a significant uptick in naturalization in
response to welfare reform. In the words of one scholar, ``There is
strong evidence that immigrants sought citizenship as a means of
retaining welfare eligibility. Those immigrant groups with the heaviest
welfare use rates saw the largest increases in naturalization after
welfare reform, further neutralizing its potential impact.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``The Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant Welfare Use,'' by
George J. Borjas, Center for Immigration Studies Report, March 2002,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/borjas.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy refugee use of SSI continues. SSI usage overall is similar
between native and immigrant-headed households: in 2005, about 4
percent of native-headed households received welfare benefits through
SSI, compared to 4.4 percent of immigrant-headed households (which,
because of welfare reform, are almost certainly disproportionately
refugees). \4\ This is buttressed by the data by country of origin;
though the government surveys used to measure such things do not record
the specific immigration status (and so cannot focus specifically on
refugees), certain countries are more likely to send refugees than
others, and people from those countries have high rates of SSI use. For
instance, 15.4 percent of households headed by someone born in Russia,
long a major source of refugees, collected SSI in 2005, the highest
rate among the top-25 immigrant-sending countries. The same is true for
other refugee-sending countries; 12.4 percent of Iranian-born
households collect SSI, as to 9.9 percent of Cuban households, and 6.3
percent of Vietnamese households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Immigrants at Mid-Decade: A Snapshot of America's Foreign-
Born Population in 2005,'' by Steven A. Camarota, Center for
Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 2005, http://www.cis.org/
articles/2005/back1405.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proportion of new refugees who might be eligible for SSI--i.e.,
those who are elderly or disabled--cannot be determined exactly, but
the Office of Immigration Statistics reports that the proportion of
people over 55 years old among newly admitted refugees was 12.9 percent
in 2003, 9.2 percent in 2004, and 8.7 percent in 2005. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Refugees and Asylees: 2005,'' by Kelly Jefferys, Department
of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, May 2006, http:/
/www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/
Refugee_Asylee_5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants who seek to naturalize--whether as part of a strategy to
preserve their SSI welfare eligibility or out of genuine commitment to
America--may find it to be a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Of
course, much of the time and effort is justified and cannot be avoided;
after all, the law rightly requires foreigners to meet a variety of
benchmarks before being considered for admission to the American people
through naturalization, including a period of continuous residence in
the United States, the ability to read, write, and speak our national
language, a knowledge and understanding of America's history and
government, good moral character, and attachment to the principles of
our Constitution. \6\ Foreigners who are otherwise eligible but who are
elderly or have certain physical or mental impairments may be exempted
from the language and history/government requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) page
on naturalization, http://www.uscis.gov/naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practical terms, this means filling out more forms, providing
fingerprints for security and criminal background checks, being
interviewed by an adjudicator, and eventually attending a swearing-in
ceremony, where the candidate for citizenship declares that he will
``absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of
whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.''
As the number of applicants for citizenship increased (because of
welfare reform and because of the ongoing surge in immigration), the
processing time for citizenship ballooned, in some cities taking two
years from initial filing of paperwork to taking the oath of
allegiance; the waits were sometimes so long that the fingerprints
provided for FBI background checks would expire and have to be
resubmitted.
Although this administration has not had a stellar record on
immigration, it has managed to reduce the processing time for
citizenship applications; in September 2006, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) declared the ``elimination'' of the
naturalization backlog. \7\ Though one senses a ``mission
accomplished'' approach to this issue by USCIS, the wait times and
backlogs have indeed come down; the USCIS site shows that
naturalization applications are taking about seven months to be
processed in most cities, including Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco,
Los Angeles, and New York. \8\ This is longer than the six-month target
the agency has set for itself (which is itself a pretty long time), but
is nowhere near the two years that some cities had been seeing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/N400Bklg091506NR.pdf
\8\ Check processing times here: https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/
jsps/ptimes.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question for this panel would seem to be whether it is
necessary to extend the SSI eligibility period so as to prevent elderly
and disabled refugees from losing access to SSI welfare benefits. Given
the reduction in processing times, combined with the exemptions from
certain requirements, there would not appear to be any justification
for extending the SSI eligibility period for refugees beyond the
current seven years; any elderly or disabled refugee who seeks
citizenship, and is not disqualified due to criminal or security
concerns, should be able to successfully meet the requirements for
citizenship within the seven-year period. In fact, further extending
the eligibility period would seem to be a disincentive to refugees to
seek citizenship; at the most, it might be justified to extend the
eligibility period only for those who have already applied for
naturalization, in case in the future, backlogs and waiting times start
to increase again.
One final thought on this topic. Whatever Congress decides to do on
this specific issue of SSI eligibility for refugees, lawmakers need to
keep in mind that our immigration policy is very costly to taxpayers,
and the admission of refugees is inevitably the most expensive
proposition of all. This is because refugees are admitted precisely
because of their desperate circumstances, often having lost all their
possessions or been severely traumatized, and perhaps even hailing from
profoundly backward societies with no familiarity whatsoever with
modern life. And we may well see a surge of refugee admissions over the
next several years, with the potential resettlement in the United
States of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See a January 16, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on
this topic, http://judiciary .senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of limited government resources, and given the fact
that a refugee is dramatically most costly to taxpayers than any other
kind of immigrant, policymakers must consider whether the costs of
admitting additional refugees should be balanced by a reduction in the
admission of other immigrants. To govern is to choose, and if we choose
to permit humanitarian immigration (as I would argue we must, though
not necessarily as it is arranged today), then we must face up to the
costs and order the rest of our immigration system accordingly.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Can the fees be waived?
Ms. HILL. In theory, yes.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. In theory. If they have somebody who
comes in on SSI and they demand a month's subsistence the
Immigration Service requires them to pay?
Ms. HILL. Right, but when I say in theory because there are
waivers available in the current process, but when we really
look to the actual application of the waiver processes that are
available to the immigration official, they are not being used.
So when we talk about waivers as a process being available, the
answer is yes. Is it being utilized in individual cases, the
answer is no.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will not speculate about why.
Ms. HILL. I am not in a position to.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Let me go to one other question, both
of you are dealing with immigrants on a regular basis. What is
the fastest that somebody like Mr. K ' Keng could get through
the process?
Ms. THOR. I think this was mentioned earlier in terms of
the inconsistency across the board. There are areas where you
can get it much sooner and areas where it is much more
difficult. But, for example, according to the ombudsman report
to CIS, applications in New York have taken 90 days, for
example, for green cards but applications in Greensboro, South
Carolina have taken 500 days. So, I feel as though there is a
broad spectrum. In our work with community-based organizations,
many who do deal on the direct service with refugees and
immigrants, on average in their discussions with us have been
around anywhere from 6 months to a year if they have a really
good advocate who also understands the system and if that CIS
has strong relationships with the community, understands the
history and those components. If not, there are multiple delays
that could take years. It is just very inconsistent across the
board, and I think our philosophy is that because it is so
inconsistent, it should not be on behalf of the burden of the
refugees to bear that piece.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Your experience, Ms. Hill?
Ms. HILL. Similar experience, we are one of the largest
resettlement organizations in the country and so it is spotty
across the country. We have refugee programs in almost every
jurisdiction and there is no cookie cutter process, which I
could say to you is working one way or the other, and I think
it is great that they report it is 90 days in New York, I think
our agencies would probably beg to differ with that.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Krikorian suggests that maybe
extending the eligibility would serve as kind of disincentive
to immigrants trying to get in or asylees trying to get in, do
you agree with that? Is that what you are finding with people
that the only thing that is driving them is the fact that they
are about to go off of SSI?
Ms. THOR. I do not think so. You can ask Mr. Krikorian
himself actually but even though he has not--he is not on SSI,
he is still English as a Second Language (ESL) class that is
trying to get his citizenship. I know for many they think it is
about just getting the citizenship piece and that is the carrot
for them. But on behalf of many Southeast Asian refugees, many
who fought on behalf of the United States, I think for them
being able to say the oath as a part of their commitment to
this country and kind of finalize that step all the way from
beginning to the end in terms of being recruited to support the
U.S.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. There is no way for him to get his
citizenship without speaking English and passing the civics
test in English?
Ms. THOR. He can apply for the English language waiver but
he has a specific time limit and some boundaries of which he
has not met yet, for example he has not been in this country
long enough for that specific waiver. In addition, when he is
interviewed in the process--even if he were eligible for the
waiver, it is difficult in the sense that the person
interviewing him could ask any series of questions which may or
may not--which he may or may not have the ability to answer
based upon--even if he studied as hard as he could.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Let me ask you, Mr. K ' Keng, through
your interpreter. You came to the country and went to work.
What kind of work were you doing and what was the reason that
you were unable to work further and therefore had to apply for
SSI as a way of subsisting?
[Speaking through interpreter.]
Mr. K ' KENG. He worked at a bakery, planting flowers and
stuff and because of his disability, you can see that his left
eye--I mean his right eye has problems. Of course, there is a
blueprint label that you have to follow or to read and of
course there does not know English and he is not able to follow
it and also his age. That is a problem that he is laid off.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Where is he taking his English only
classes or is learning his English language?
Mr. K ' KENG. Well, actually in North Carolina, the church
is also opening classes, which is a Montagnard hiring Americans
who are qualified to teach ESL language. So, yes, this American
is helping--they are really good help. They are helping the
Montagnard. When you are thinking about it, when you are old,
it is really, really hard to keep all of that learning into
your head.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Do not ask me to learn another
language. Mr. Weller can inquire.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first this is a
very useful hearing. As one of those who notes that as we have
had the debate over the issue of immigration in the last few
years, that often those who are left out of this debate are
those who are here following the rules. Of course, the people
we are discussing today are those who are following the rules.
So, I appreciate this hearing and, Mr. K ' Keng, we want to
honor you and your colleagues who stood with America during the
conflict, and we thank you for being here and we honor you for
your service.
Mr. Krikorian, in your testimony you noted that processing
times have been reduced. However, the ombudsman for the
Citizenship and Immigration Services Office at the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) in the annual report for this past
year said one of the reasons INS or naturalization backlogs
have fallen is because DHS had redefined some of the people
previously counted as being in the backlog as now being out of
the backlog. It seems kind of artificial.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. To some degree.
Mr. WELLER. Since the size of this backlog has taken a
direct effect on refugees who might be applying for citizenship
and thus able to maintain their benefits, that raises
questions. As you mentioned in your testimony, you talk about
reducing the processing times. Does this redefinition of the
backlog affect the real processing time or are they just
changing the definition so that they can say the are doing it
quicker?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. I think it is probably a little bit of both.
They are defining as not in the backlog people who are--whose
applications have been suspended for security reasons, for
instance, and several other criteria. Some of it is
imaginative, fancy footwork, bureaucratic footwork but the----
Mr. WELLER. Creative accounting in order to look better?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Yes, exactly. But some of it clearly has
been a reduction in the sort of very long processing times in
some of the cities we are seeing. But I am not here to
apologize for the administration.
Mr. WELLER. I am not asking you to. What do you consider,
just looking at it, you are an expert, is the real processing
time for someone here following the rules who is refugee status
for going through the citizenship process?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. I could not give you an estimate precisely
because of the things the other witnesses have said, that it
really is different--in other words, the kinds of people that
CIS has defined out of the backlog are not evenly spread
everywhere and therefore they are going to be different real
backlogs in different cities. I could not give you a real
number.
Mr. WELLER. Ms. Thor or Ms. Hill, what is the real
processing time? DHS says it is 7 months today, what is the
real processing time?
Ms. THOR. I would like to hear from Candy too because I
think we have tried in every way possible to get an answer on
that and there is not a consistent answer across the board. I
think for the communities that we work with, the fact that we
cannot get any consistent answer is problematic and speaks to
the fact that we do not have a consistent way to define really
how people are decreasing these backlog cases and if they
really are cases that should be defined and should be connected
to this in many ways.
Mr. WELLER. Now someone is going through the refugee
process to become a citizen, do they follow exactly the same
process as someone else not in the refugee status or are there
exceptions that they are given in the process?
Ms. THOR. From my personal opinion, and I am a person
actually who was not a citizen and then had to go through the
process myself, I think that the CIS is overwhelmed and
everyone that comes through the door, you become another number
in a big line of people who have to deal with the situation,
and they personally care that my father has fought on behalf of
the U.S. They see me as another person that they have to
process and get through. In fact, many interviewees that we
have gone with to help with in terms of the process, they
actually question that process and they say, ``Well, why should
you get it because you are refugee?`` In many ways I think they
see that the extra burden should be on top of some of these.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Krikorian, are there any exceptions or do
they follow exactly the same process?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. As far as I know, the same rules. The
bureaucratic laws and the law is the same for those because
what happens is a refugee or a political asylum recipient,
after one year of getting that status can convert to being a
regular immigrant, a lawful permanent resident, at which point
five more years, then they are really just another immigrant.
They are converted to an immigrant after a year so legally it
is the same thing.
Mr. WELLER. Then do we provide any special assistance, is
there any particular program designed to directly assist
refugees move through the----
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Not a government program, no, there may be
private ones.
Mr. WELLER. Groups like yours, Ms. Hill?
Ms. HILL. Well, certainly the United States Catholic
Conference of Bishops is one of the largest refugee
resettlement organizations and so there is money available on
the front end, when we are bringing people into the country,
but sustaining people over time in that process, the answer is
no other than the individual benefits that they might be
eligible for under SSI.
To your point about the backlog, if I might just read a
quote, this is why in the ombudsman report it says, ``The
ombudsman shares the IG's concern that these definitional
changes in how we are counting the backlog, i.e., hide the true
problem and the need for change.'' To permit accurate
assessment of backlog and elimination progress, CIS should
provide along side its backlog numbers its redefined the
numbers, the real total numbers without such recalculation.
Only then I think could you get a true picture of where
actually we stand on this issue.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you. I realize my time has expired. Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Stark will inquire.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Krikorian, you were quoted in my hometown
newspaper a few years back, I will refresh your memory. ``When
we admit people lawfully, the idea of applying different
welfare rules to them just does not make sense to me. We let in
elderly people who are refugees, then you have got to expect
they are going to have a hard time fitting into their new
society.'' I presume that means that some years ago you thought
it was unfair to cut off the benefits. Today, you seem to be
suggesting a different approach. I am wondering why the change
of heart? I may have to leave in a couple of minutes, I had one
other question for you probably Ms. Hill. Because our district
office, which is right next to San Jose, we must see 150
immigration cases a month come through, all kinds of reasons
and concerns, whether it is citizenship or bringing relatives
in or green cards. So, we have a fairly active staff who work
with the various bureaucracies to help them. I cannot help but
think that there has been a--that the recent terrorist
paranoia, whether real or presumed, has caused us to just be
running through a lot of extra bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in
terms of taking more time with the FBI finding background
checks. I have a hunch that is applied less to immigrants from
Europe than it is perhaps from Asia and the Pacific Island
nations. I wonder if any of you have observed that. I am not
sure it is bad or good, maybe there is a real threat to
terrorism in that regard but my own feeling it is probably not,
but we have all been on heightened alert. But what about your
change, is there--have you changed your opinion since 2004?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. No, not really.
Mr. STARK. Okay.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Because that is why we have special
exemptions already, in other words, refugees are already
eligible for SSI for 7 years in a way that other immigrants are
not. We have exemptions for the elderly who have been here for
a long time. Maybe adjusting those specific exemptions would
make sense but a broader change is not the de-linking
altogether, is a paradigm shift to the way we do immigration
and welfare. That is something that seems to me is different
from what we are talking about here. If I could talk about the
security concerns.
Mr. STARK. But just before you get there, I would suspect
that the other witnesses would agree with me, but for cost, and
that is but for the cost, and that is not an insignificant part
of this, I would have trouble deciding why we should allow
people who have been here 5 years, obeyed the law and paid
their taxes, they qualify for social security, they qualify for
Medicare, how it is that we do not let them qualify for SSI
other than cost? There is not a good reason, is there?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. No, because the point is that SSI is for
people who do not qualify for Social Security. In other words,
it is run through the Social Security Administration for people
who do not have a sufficient number of quarters of work. See
that is why it is much more----
Mr. STARK. Yes, I understand that but still it is a
socially motivated attempt to help people who are legally here
and who for whatever reason--are not breaking the law and if it
is necessary, paying taxes, and otherwise obeying the system,
and I just wonder if there is any other reason besides cost
that we should not just make them eligible?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Well, because the principle I think, and I
do not want to speak for the Members because you all voted on
this, but the principle to limits on welfare for non-citizens
is that they are not yet Members of the community. They are
guests that we have admitted and when they buy in, then they
become us, at which point they become eligible on the same
standards as everyone else. Now if that is a theory that
Congress decides they want to change----
Mr. STARK. Yes, but we do not apply that when we have a
military draft, if you are here and not a citizen but you are
here illegally, you can be drafted.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. If you are here illegally you can be
drafted.
Mr. STARK. Okay, then why shouldn't we? As I said, I
cannot----
Mr. KRIKORIAN. You need to ask President Clinton and the
1996 Congress that passed and signed the bill, that is my
point.
Mr. STARK. I did. I just have trouble. But go back and help
me on the--yes, please?
Ms. HILL. Mr. Stark, I think you make a great point about
the time limits in your question and about 9/11. I think that
in 1996, Congress could not have predicted what was going to
happen obviously with 9/11 and so looking backward now, 7 years
might have seemed very reasonable to Congress to have people
naturalized in this country, but I think we have to admit that
things came to a screeching halt with 9/11, and I think that is
exactly why you have to take a second look at this.
Mr. STARK. Or the system got bogged down.
Ms. HILL. Yes, and I think that is exactly why you have to
take a second look at the decision that was made in 1996, we
could not have known that 9/11 was coming and it may have been
a reasonable decision back in 1996 but it is not a practical
decision today.
Mr. STARK. Now that poor guy in Guantanamo has confessed to
every terrorist crime that has ever happened in the world, we
do not have to worry about any more, we nailed him for every
terrorist act that has ever happened.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I think we will take another turn
around here because I have got some more questions, and we do
not have very many Members here. So, I would like to ask you I
am trying to understand the timeline that Mr. K ' Keng or
someone like him goes through. He comes into the country and
then he has to wait 6 years for his eligibility. He goes first
to step of becoming a legal resident.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Right, so that is 1 year.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. One year, so he has to wait 1 year.
Then after that, he has to wait----
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Five more years.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Five more years.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Right.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. So, for six years--so now he has got
all this time and he is getting himself ready, and he has got
all his documents and everything, and he plops it down on the
table at the end of the sixth year here, now he has 1 year, and
I was trying to think--somebody has got to check the stuff he
has handed in, right? They have to check and find out if he
really was born there and where his Army records are and all
this stuff and that is going to happen in 90 days in New York?
Does anybody think that is a reasonable number?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. They are saying 7 months now not 90 days.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Oh, I thought somebody said----
Mr. KRIKORIAN. They are reporting from New York it is 7
months.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Seven months?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Yes.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. So, is that a reasonable length, Ms.
Hill?
Ms. HILL. Well, I think one of the things I wold say to you
is that he could have everything, including passing his civics
test and learning English, and get to the point where he is
ready for the last step, which is the FBI clearance, right
before being given the oath, and what we know about that
process is it is a one to 2 year process before you can
actually be sworn in as a citizen. So, when you talk about 1
year and 5 years, that 6 years, then he is going to get ready
to be a citizen by taking civics class and he is learning
English, he can do all of that and he can get to the door of
the FBI clearance. If you read the material about how they do
the clearances, if there is an ``i'' not dotted or a letter off
or whatever, that process can cause him to have to go back
through it a number of times and that could take one to 2 years
before he has done everything right, he has done it in the
right process, and yet he is still not sworn in as a citizen.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I have trouble also when I am listening
to this, I watch CSI on television and they have these data
banks of fingerprints, and they put a fingerprint on there and
it flips around and suddenly we know who it is. How does a
fingerprint wear out and have to be re-done by an immigrant?
What is the explanation for what that is all about, does
anybody know?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Well, it does not wear out, there are
administrative guidelines for how long--in other words, the
maximum amount of time.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Fingerprints do not change.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. I do not know the rationale behind that, I
think that is a FBI benchmark. Maybe one of the other witnesses
know, I do not know why.
Ms. THOR. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Yes.
Ms. THOR. Actually, I am not going to respond to the
fingerprint question because I think none of us are probably
qualified to answer that but definitely in terms of Southeast
Asians, for example, many people came with the same exact last
names. So, for example, for the Hmong who supported the U.S.,
there are only 15 clans in this country and 200,000 people all
with the same last name. So, for those and for Mr. Stark, who
is from San Jose, the Vietnamese, what percentage of them have
the same last name. Then for our communities on top of it,
there are only a few additional names that--the first names are
similar too. My name is also a male name in our community, so
we would want the U.S. to do a thorough background check,
correct, I think that would be our appropriate for our
communities and for this country. We should expect that it
would take longer because of the complexities of the
communities that come into this country.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Okay. Yes?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. There are sort of two issues it seems to me
that we are talking about here, one is this issue, which is the
bureaucratic kind of the plumbing issue, and that seems to me
is something that can be dealt with by saying that those who
have an application in the pipeline retain their eligibility.
But the other issue is the one that Mr. K ' Keng was talking
about, the inability to actually meet the criteria. In other
words, there are two different issues there, the first one, the
plumbing issue is much easier to address.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Somebody who is in, you could just
extend it until they are done.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Conceivably, yes.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. But then that would leave all these
other people out who somehow get--my naturalization press
release here says, ``Of this gross backlog of 1.1 million,''
140,000 cases are considered backlogged in the Immigration
Service so they have knocked 900,000 people out without--I do
not know quite how they did that.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. No, but my suggestion is that is still a
kind of an administrative plumbing issue, in other words, if it
is the FBI that is the problem, their applications are still
live and in CIS' hands. The other question is elderly people
who cannot or who claim they cannot learn English, that seems
to me is a different obstacle than the administrative obstacle.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller, you want to ask?
Mr. WELLER. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again this
is a useful hearing, and I appreciate the time we are investing
here today. It is my understanding there are about 30 states
that provide additional benefits beyond SSI which refugees can
benefit from. My state of Illinois is one of them. I was
wondering, Ms. Hill, can you highlight on that and tell what is
available in addition to the SSI and are there time limitations
on this available at the state programs in Illinois, for
example, my home state or Washington state, which is one of
them?
Ms. HILL. Well, let me start with the last part of the
question to say I would be happy to look into the time limits
in each of those individual states, and I cannot answer--I am
not prepared to answer that question. I am from Michigan so I
can talk a little bit about Michigan as well. I think that the
states have recognized, even with SSI benefits when you look at
$623 that is the maximum an individual can receive and you
think about that here in this jurisdiction of Virginia,
Baltimore and D.C. and the cost of living here, there are
individual jurisdictions like yours in Illinois that have
realized that people cannot even meet their most basic needs,
that they are living way below the poverty level. Certainly at
our agency, even when they are receiving SSI benefits, they are
many times coming to us for assistance for food, to pay their
rent. It is a very low existence for them but it does provide
them some dignity and opportunity to pay but I think the states
have realized that it is not enough. Certainly now if it is
tied to, if your benefit in Illinois is tied to the receipt of
SSI at the Federal level, when they lose their eligibility at
the Federal level, I would presume they are going to lose the
eligibility in the state.
Mr. WELLER. Ms. Thor?
Ms. THOR. I think from our experience with our community-
based Members we do feel like people on the state level realize
that this is a very vulnerable population that needs that kind
of support and in actuality the states actually support it very
minimally and often is the first program that they look to cut
in terms of looking at programs when they are looking--the
states also feel overburdened in terms of trying to think
through how to be supportive and so I think that for
California, for example, it has definitely been our population
that has been at risk of losing this support. Many of them
already, like you said, do not have the Federal support and so
they are really struggling maybe with just food stamps and
those components.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. The answer is I do not know. I am not
familiar with the states specifically.
Mr. WELLER. Okay. I guess the question is before this
Subcommittee of whether or not we extend a longer period of
time, and I would just like to hear from each of you. Mr.
Krikorian, in your testimony you felt there is no need for an
extension, that is consistent with our view for a longer period
of time?
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Yes, I think that at the most those who have
submitted applications, have already begun the process, if it
is because of the FBI or CIS' problems, that it is appropriate
they continue to be eligible. But the point to the time period
of extended eligibility, in other words, they already--refugees
already have 7 years longer than other immigrants to be
eligible for SSI. No, I think it is hard to justify it. If we
do, it seems to me to be part of a broader reassessment of
whether all immigrants should be made more eligible.
Mr. WELLER. So, as I understand it, if they are in the
midst of their process and the process has not been completed,
you would support an extension of SSI for those individuals
that are----
Mr. KRIKORIAN. That have undertaken the process----
Mr. WELLER [continuing]. That have undertaken the process.
Mr. KRIKORIAN [continuing]. Of applying for citizenship,
yes, I think that would make sense.
Mr. KRIKORIAN. Ms. Thor, do you agree with that position?
Ms. THOR. I actually agree that we need a longer fix and a
much broader fix for this. Hence, I think both Ms. Hill and I
did recommend de-linking in the sense that this country has a
commitment to the people that we bring in legally and refugees
who supported us as allies. I do not think it is a shift in our
philosophy to support those who supported us abroad as well as
those who have come into this country that we have brought in
legally. I feel like there is this idea that when people think
of us doing a charitable act, that there is no support from the
other side and actually those communities have not given
anything in return.
Mr. WELLER. So, if they are not applying to be a U.S.
citizen, if they are not pursuing U.S. citizenship, you believe
they should continue to get these SSI benefits for a longer
period of time, that is your position?
Ms. THOR. We support an extension as well as a longer fix,
especially for those like Mr. K ' Keng who may not be able to
pass his exam but are here legally because of his support of
the U.S.
Mr. WELLER. Ms. Hill, are you consistent with Ms. Thor?
Ms. HILL. Yes, and I would add a couple of other things. I
think we need to be careful about mixing the term ``refugee''
and ``immigrant.'' Refugees are here under a completely
different status, and I would echo they were invited in by this
country and they came because of persecution, many times for
helping our troops abroad, and I think that CIS has looked at
this as a special classification, and we need to not mix the
two. So, I think that is an apples and oranges conversation.
Immigrants come a different way into this country so I would
caution the Committee not to mix the two.
I would also say to you that in the refugee population that
we deal with, again people do not realize the atrocities these
people have experienced, and I do not think it is a reluctance
to becoming a U.S. citizen, they are under extreme pressure to
become a citizen. So before coming here today, I talked with
some of our folks who work at clinics and they told me a story
about a woman who is reaching the end of her SSI benefits and
she is 75 years old. She was coming to see one of her workers
at Catholic Charities and she suffered a stroke in the parking
lot, and she is very near the end and they are under a lot of
stress to become a citizen. I think that is why I would say de-
linking it.
Mr. WELLER. May I ask why would they not want to become a
citizen?
Ms. HILL. I do not think that we have evidence that they do
not want to become a citizen. I think the idea is just de-
linking--in order to get food, water and shelter after seven
years in this country, turning this around, you have to become
a citizen. So I think that is the wrong approach. I do not
think we have ever been asked are these people willing to
become citizens. Anybody that would lay down their life
alongside of our troops in their own country and be persecuted
by their own government, I do not know how as a country we can
question their allegiance to this country.
Mr. WELLER. Ms. Thor, why would someone not want to become
a citizen if they are here as a refugee?
Ms. THOR. I have personally not met anyone who would not
want to become a citizen. I actually feel very strongly that
de-linking would give people the opportunity to really learn
English well and really be able to engage in the way that they
want to and really embrace the fact that becoming a citizen is
about more than just passing a civics exam.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. K ' Keng, the people of his community that
are here under refugee status, do they all wish to become U.S.
citizens?
Mr. K ' KENG. [Through interpreter] Yes, everybody is
anxious to become a U.S. citizen within their seven month--or 7
years in the United States.
Mr. WELLER. Are there any in the community who would choose
not to or feel they should not--that they would not want to
become a U.S. citizen?
Mr. K ' KENG. No, no.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Meek has something to
enter into the record, and I would like to enter something as
well. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an
article that was in the Seattle Times today called, ``Citizen
Application Backlog Holds Up Disability Benefits,'' and it
talks about these issues. I think that this is an issue we will
come back to and see if we cannot find a way. I could not help
thinking as I was walking down the hallway coming here the
Chinese aphorism that says, ``Beware of saving a man's life
because you are responsible for him forever.'' When we take
people in, I think we have accepted that responsibility and I
think that we in this Committee will try and deal with that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Yes?
Mr. WELLER. I would like to ask unanimous consent to
include pages eight and nine of the ombudsman for the
Citizenship and Immigration Services, their annual report as
part of the record as well with my comments.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Thank you all for
coming and testifying. It helps us to actually see real people
like Mr. K ' Keng and people who are working on the firing line
trying to deal with all the problems. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted by the Members to the Witnesses
follow:]
Questions submitted by Mr. Meek to Ms. Hill
Question: Do you believe that the current conditioning on
eligibility for SSI acts--in a sense--as an incentive for asylees to
leave the safety of the U.S. and return to their home countries--even
though they potentially face imminent persecution?
Answer: [Response pending.]
Question: To allow such asylees to stay in the U.S. but deny them
assistance when they are too infirm or disabled to work--what message
does this send to other potential asylees?
And on a greater scale, at a time when the United States' human
rights reputation is at issue around the globe, what message does this
send to the international community?
Answer: [Response pending.]
Question: Is it a fair assertion that not all asylees wish to
become U.S. citizens but come here out of need?
That being said, in your opinion, doesn't linking SSI eligibility
for asylees to U.S. citizenship create the wrong incentive to become a
U.S. Citizen--economic hardship versus citizenship?
Would not encouraging citizenship from individual desire and not
the threat of privation be in the best interest of the United States
and our melting pot culture?
Answer: [Response pending.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
Statement of Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Through its mission of rescue, reunion, and resettlement, HIAS has
provided lifesaving services to world Jewry for more than 125 years. As
an expression of Jewish tradition and values, HIAS also responds to the
needs of other migrants who are threatened and oppressed.
Since its founding in 1881 by Jewish immigrants who found sanctuary
in the United States after fleeing persecution in Europe, HIAS has
assisted more than four and a half million people in their quest for
freedom, helping them start new lives in the United States, Israel,
Canada, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and other countries
around the world. As the oldest international migration and refugee
resettlement agency in the United States, HIAS has played a key role in
the rescue and relocation of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Jews
from Arab and communist countries, more than 380,000 Jewish refugees
from Iran and the former Soviet Union, and refugees of all faiths
fleeing persecution in Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, and other
dangerous places. HIAS works with an extensive network of local Jewish
agencies across the country to resettle refugees from the Former Soviet
Union, Iran, and other areas of conflict around the world.
Jews from the former Soviet Union are more affected by the limits
on SSI than any other previous refugee group because the large wave of
Russian Jewish emigration to the U.S. in the 1990s was demographically
the oldest in U.S. history. This wave of Russian Jewish emigration
happened to coincide with the 1996 adoption in the welfare reform law
that conditioned the receipt of Supplemental Security Income (``SSI'')
benefits for the disabled, blind and elderly on achieving citizenship
within the first seven years of entry into the country after August 22,
1996.
In response to this growing crisis, over the past decade HIAS has
advocated that Congress repeal the seven year time-limit entirely,
thereby de-linking naturalization from SSI eligibility for humanitarian
immigrants. Basing eligibility for assistance on citizenship debases
citizenship and puts many elderly and disabled refugees in financial
dire straits, leaving them with no safety net. We encourage immigrants
to become citizens in order to participate fully in the civic life of
the country, not because the alternative is the serious economic
hardship that may result if benefits are lost or unavailable. The
United States admits refugees with the promise of security and
protection against the dangerous situations they encounter in their
home countries. Yet for many elderly refugees, we are breaking that
promise after seven years simply because they cannot learn English or
get through the citizenship process quickly enough. Without SSI and
facing extreme destitution, refugees are even less likely to make it
through the naturalization process given their overriding concerns of
how they will afford food and housing. Only by eliminating the time
limit will the United States fulfill its promise to this most
vulnerable and deserving population.
SSI Benefits and Refugees
Since 1974, the U.S. government has provided low-income elderly,
blind, and disabled individuals with financial support through the SSI
program. It was not until 1996, when Congress passed and President
Clinton signed sweeping welfare and immigration legislation, that
lawful immigration status served to restrict the access of low-income
disabled or elderly individuals to SSI and other welfare benefits.
Though some restorations passed in subsequent years, SSI remains the
only federal means tested public benefit program that cuts off refugees
after seven years unless they become citizens.
SSI provides monthly income support to meet basic needs for food,
clothing, and shelter to low income individuals who are 65 or over,
disabled, or blind. In most states, beneficiaries also qualify for
Medicaid to pay for hospital stays, doctor bills, prescription drugs,
and other health costs. Currently, individual SSI beneficiaries receive
monthly payments of $623 and married couples receive $934.
In contrast to Social Security benefits, SSI eligibility is not
based on prior work history. It is available only to those who both
meet a poverty means test and are completely unable to work because of
age or disability. A person is defined in Federal law as ``disabled''
for purposes of SSI benefits if he or she is ``unable to engage in any
substantial gainful employment as a result of a medically determinable
impairment which can be expected to result in death or has lasted, or
can be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12
months.''
When Congress passed the 1996 legislation terminating access to
public welfare benefits for non-citizens, it clearly considered that
the United States had a continuing obligation to assist certain classes
of non-citizens. Reflected in the 1996 welfare reform legislation is
the idea that some non-citizens--including humanitarian immigrants who
flee persecution and are offered sanctuary in the U.S., or who serve in
the U.S. military, or who participate in the U.S. work force for a
significant length of time--merit special consideration when it comes
to public support such as through receipt of SSI benefits.
The obligation of insuring equal treatment of non-citizen refugees
by providing SSI income support benefits to refugees and asylees in the
1996 welfare legislation is reflected in the international treaty the
United States has adopted. This treaty provides under the article
entitled ``Public relief'': ``The Contracting States shall accord to
refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with
respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their
nationals.'' Article 23 of the 1954 United Nations Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees (``Convention''). Under the 1967 United
Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223,
606 U.N.T.S. 267, a treaty entered into force for the United States on
November 1, 1968 (see Treaties in Force 2006, p. 507), the Parties
undertook to apply articles 2 through 24 of the 1954 Convention.
Refugees and other humanitarian immigrants comprise 10 percent or
less of the annual legal immigrant admissions. Included in the groups
of refugees and related humanitarian immigrants are Russian Jews and
other religious minorities who fled the Former Soviet Union, Iraqi
Kurds fleeing persecution under the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans
fleeing the Castro regime, Hmong immigrants from the highlands of Laos
who served on the side of the U.S. military during the Vietnam war,
persecuted minorities in Somalia, and persons from various regions of
the former Yugoslavia displaced by the Balkan wars.
Refugees and asylees arrive in the United States with considerably
greater challenges to self-sufficiency than other classes of
immigrants. The U.S. government grants refugees and asylees permission
to reside in the U.S. based solely on the determination that they have
been the victims of persecution or have a well-founded fear of
persecution in their native countries due to their race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or social group.
Many refugees arrive with no financial resources, no documentation
of professional qualifications or past achievements, little social
support, and physical or mental health problems--often severe--related
to the trauma they have suffered.
The law recognizes that refugees and asylees often arrive alone and
have no family members in the U.S. Unlike other immigrants, while
refugees and asylees are eligible to receive time-limited support from
the government in partnership with refugee resettlement agencies, they
are not required to have a permanent sponsor (such as a family member)
who is legally obligated to assist them if they cannot provide for
their own support.
The Federal Government has acknowledged the unique challenges faced
by refugees and asylees by establishing a comprehensive system of
assistance for their initial resettlement into the United States.
Because the goal of the refugee program is early economic self-
sufficiency, these benefits are generally available for a limited
amount of time after the refugee's arrival, and are provided for the
purpose of helping a refugee to become acclimated to life in the U.S.
The Federal Government's involvement in refugee resettlement
efforts began in the period following World War II. Over the years,
Congress and private organizations have funded a variety of programs to
help newly arriving refugees adjust to life in the United States. In
1980, the Refugee Act (Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212)
formalized the national refugee assistance system, marshalling the
resources and expertise of public and private agencies into an ongoing
program now commonly known as the Refugee Resettlement Program.
The Refugee Resettlement Program demonstrates a unique and profound
commitment to this group of non-citizens by Congress, the Federal
Government, and private agencies and individuals. It also confirms the
recognition by all involved that refugees--as victims of persecution
and as people who have been forced to flee their homelands--are
different from other immigrants.
Many refugees are able to rebuild their lives in America with
minimal assistance. In fact, the employment rate for refugees is only
slightly lower than that of the U.S. population. Furthermore, refugee
use of all types of public benefits has declined significantly. The
percentage of refugees receiving public benefits is similar to that of
U.S. citizens. Even receipt of SSI, which is only available to the most
vulnerable refugees, declined from 13.4% of refugees in 1994 to 9.2% in
1999.
Despite the fact that most refugees will ultimately be able to
support themselves and their families without relying on public
assistance, refugees who are elderly or disabled (often because of the
extreme trauma they have suffered) may never be able to provide for
their own means of support. For these refugees, SSI is a lifeline.
Barriers to Naturalization
Naturalization is one way that immigrants can gain full
participation in U.S. society. For refugees and asylees particularly,
U.S. citizenship can be a validation that they have been fully and
completely accepted by the U.S. and can finally leave their ``home''
country--a place of hostility and suffering--behind.
While naturalization is a challenging process for many immigrants,
it can be particularly daunting for elderly and disabled refugees.
There are two types of barriers that stand in refugees' pathway to
citizenship: (1) the inability to pass the citizenship examination,
often because of physical and mental disabilities, low educational
levels, and lack of access to naturalization outreach and education
programs; (2) lengthy processing times of both naturalization and legal
permanent residence (the required first step towards naturalization)
applications caused by immigration service backlogs, security reviews,
and service errors.
Applicants for naturalization must demonstrate that they have
knowledge of written and spoken English and pass an exam in U.S.
history and civics. Applicants who are over age 55 and have been in the
U.S. for 15 years and applicants over age 50 who have been in the U.S.
for 20 years are exempted from the English language requirement and can
take the civics and history examination in their native language.
However, these exemptions are not helpful for disabled or elderly
refugees who rely on SSI benefits, as these refugees must naturalize
within seven years of admission if they are to be continuously eligible
for SSI.
Disabled naturalization applicants can request a waiver of the
English language and/or the U.S. history and civics exam requirements.
In order to qualify, a doctor must confirm that the applicant has a
physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that
renders the applicant unable to learn English and/or the required U.S.
history and government material. This waiver process is complex and can
add a significant amount of time to the naturalization process,
reducing further the likelihood that a disabled refugee will be able to
naturalize within seven years. These problems are exacerbated for the
most extremely disabled individuals (such as those who are completely
homebound), who may not be able to access the help they need to begin
the process of preparing and submitting the naturalization and
disability waiver application.
Elderly and disabled refugees who manage to complete the
citizenship exam are faced with immigration processing delays that can
make it impossible to achieve citizenship within seven years. As a
result, many of these ``almost citizen'' refugees lose their SSI
benefits.
Refugees must have five years of legal permanent resident (``LPR'')
status before they become eligible to apply for naturalization. For
refugees, LPR status is considered to begin on the date of arrival in
the U.S. Asylee LPR status is deemed to begin one year before the date
their application for legal permanent residence is granted. Practically
speaking, refugees have a two-year window during which they must apply
for naturalization, complete the naturalization examination and
interview, clear all required security checks, and take the oath of
citizenship if they are to receive their SSI benefits without
interruption.
Asylees have faced even greater delays in becoming citizens in part
because they have faced a 10,000-per-year cap of those eligible to
achieve LPR status. This cap resulted in a waiting list of
approximately 180,000 asylees waiting for green cards, with those at
the end of the line scheduled to wait 18 years to be eligible to apply
for citizenship. Before the annual cap was finally repealed by the REAL
ID Act of May 11, 2005, USCIS failed to utilize even the 10,000
adjustment ``slots'' to provide the maximum access to LPR status for
asylees. This failure and resulting backlog was the subject of earlier
litigation that was settled in favor of the asylees in Ngwanyia v.
Gonzalez, 376 F. Supp. 2d 923, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13942 (D. Minn.
July 12, 2005) (court approval of settlement), but the ensuing delays
have meant that in fact it has been impossible for asylees receiving
SSI to naturalize within the seven year period.
Since USCIS assumed the immigration service functions of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in March 2003, processing
times for naturalization applications have generally decreased across
the country. However, mostly because of lengthy security check delays,
the naturalization process can still take years from the time the
application is filed to the time the applicant takes the oath of
citizenship.
Significantly contributing to naturalization processing delays are
government background checks, which are conducted to ensure that people
who have criminal backgrounds or who present a security risk to the
U.S. do not receive legal permission to enter or remain in the country.
While background checks have been a part of immigration processing for
many years, these checks, also known as security clearances, have
intensified since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The
requirements for more thorough screening of applicants for immigration
benefits have added significantly to the workload of U.S. immigration
officials, and in many cases have delayed the issuance of immigration
benefits including naturalization. As a result, some applicants who
pose no risk to the United States must wait for months or, in some
cases, even years for their security checks to be completed.
Announcements by USCIS that they have diminished the backlogs and
processing times for naturalization applications must also be carefully
scrutinized. In September 2006, USCIS announced that the naturalization
backlog had been reduced to five months, eliminating the backlog.
However, in its new analysis of 1.1 million pending cases, USCIS
excluded from counting approximately 960,000 cases, or 87% of the
backlog, that it considers to be out of its control, such as those
awaiting scheduling of a judicial oath ceremony and those pending an
FBI name check. Also, in April 2006, USCIS announced that, in order to
preclude lawsuits being filed by applicants when their cases have been
pending for more than 120 days after the naturalization interview is
conducted, USCIS has stopped scheduling interviews for applicants until
their fingerprints and FBI name checks have cleared. Thus, applicants
whose cases are pending with the FBI now face even longer delays and do
not have the recourse of filing a lawsuit.
Refugees Who Lose SSI Suffer Irreparable Harm
Included among the typical refugee cases of loss of SSI of those
who have not naturalized within seven years of admission to the U.S.
that HIAS has seen is a 77-year-old widower who came to the Florida as
a refugee from Ukraine, applied for citizenship soon after he became
eligible, but waited two years to be called in for a naturalization
interview by USCIS. During those two years, he lost his SSI. He lived
in housing provided by a Jewish charity, which waived his monthly rent
after he lost his SSI, but barely survived on $109 in food stamps and
his Medicare each month. Florida, unlike some other states, does not
offer welfare or any other form of monetary support for adults who do
not qualify for SSI. The man's only child, a son, was killed by a
suicide bombing aboard a bus in Israel, and he had no family in the
U.S. who could support him financially.
In another typical case, a husband and wife that arrived in
Connecticut after leaving Russia as refugees lost their SSI because
they were unable to naturalize within seven years. The husband, who has
been a deaf-mute since age five, was 79 years old when he lost his SSI.
Because of Russia's failure to educate individuals with disabilities,
the man never learned to read or write. The wife was 81 years old when
she lost her SSI and suffers from severe heart disease. Both submitted
requests for a medical waiver of the English and civics requirements
for naturalization, which remained pending even after they lost their
SSI.
The Jewish Community Response
The American Jewish community has demonstrated a steadfast
commitment to ensuring that Jewish arrivals to the United States
receive support if and when they need it. Jewish community action in
response to the loss of SSI has ranged from English and citizenship
training and naturalization application assistance; to garnering
community resources to try to keep those who have lost their benefits
from becoming hungry or homeless; to advocacy for restoring benefits at
the local, state, and national levels. Although charitable efforts can
be helpful, sufficient resources are unavailable to help all those
losing SSI benefits under the seven year policy.
Predicting the serious problems that would come to pass after
welfare reform was adopted in1996, HIAS developed a series of
initiatives aimed at helping people--particularly in the Russian-
speaking community--to naturalize. Despite HIAS' extensive efforts
since the 1990s to preempt the looming problem, in 2003 considerable
numbers of refugees around the country, who had been unable to
naturalize and had fallen through the cracks because of language
barriers, ill health or bureaucratic delays, began losing their SSI
benefits. In the years 2003 and 2004, according to the Social Security
Administration, close to 3,000 non-citizen refugees and asylees were
terminated from SSI.
In 2005, HIAS launched the National SSI Initiative, with staff
dedicated exclusively to assessing the nationwide scope of the SSI
problem, providing data to HIAS' Washington, DC office to support
ongoing efforts to achieve legislative change, providing naturalization
assistance to individuals, producing citizenship and training
materials, and developing a national network of professionals to
provide pro bono assistance in preparing naturalization applications
for needy refugees.
Statement of Alliance for Retired Americans
The Alliance for Retired Americans commends Chairman McDermott for
holding a subcommittee hearing on the status of legally resident senior
and disabled refugees within the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program.
Founded in 2001, the Alliance for Retired Americans is a grassroots
organization representing more than 3 million retirees and seniors
nationwide. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Alliance's mission
is to advance public policy that protects the health and security of
older Americans by teaching seniors how to make a difference through
activism.
SSI provides a minimal cash benefit to persons with very limited
resources and who are elderly, blind or have a significant disability.
In 1996, the welfare reform law--the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act--placed many restrictions on the
availability of federal programs for legal immigrants. Although
Congress eased some of these, it retained a time limit--initially five
years, later extended to seven--that a refugee or asylee could receive
SSI benefits as a non-citizen.
The rationale for the seven-year time limit may have had some
validity when it was first enacted insofar as it was premised on the
idea that seven years was sufficient time for individuals to complete
the process of becoming a citizen. However, the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks has led to rigorous background check requirements and increased
the time required to complete the naturalization process resulting in a
multi-year backlog. In addition, prior to May 2005, there were caps on
the number of asylees who could become permanent residents resulting in
another backlog of applications for legal resident status thus delaying
the start of their five-year waiting period for citizenship.
By their circumstances, elderly and disabled refugees are unlikely
to be able to support themselves or to naturalize. These individuals
arrived in the United States with little or no assets, are far less
likely than most immigrants to have a family support network to fall
back on, and are among the most vulnerable of SSI recipients. Many were
denied educational opportunities in their home country and are not
literate in any language. Due to their age or disability, many have
physical and mental impairments.
In 2007, individual SSI beneficiaries receive monthly payments of
up to $623 and married couples receive up to $934, which is 27 percent
below the official poverty level. In some states this amount is
supplemented. In most states, the loss of SSI eligibility also means
the loss of Medicaid coverage. Consequently, in addition to a loss of
financial assistance, elderly and disabled refugees who lose their SSI
benefits will also lose their access to medical care. Originating in
countries such as the former Soviet Union, Iraq, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos,
Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, they came to this country to escape
religious, ethnic or political persecution in their native land and now
annually face the prospects of serious deprivation in their adopted
homeland.
Each year there are an increasing number of elderly and disabled
refugees and other humanitarian immigrants who lose their SSI benefits
upon the expiration of their seven year SSI eligibility period. The
Social Security Administration estimates that nearly 12,000 elderly and
disabled refugees and asylees have already lost their SSI benefits and
that another 40,000 will lose benefits over the next ten years.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed
concern that eliminating essential services such as SSI benefits after
seven years falls short of the objective that resettlement is intended
to offer elderly and disabled refugees.
The Alliance for Retired Americans believes that SSI benefits
should be restored to all legal immigrants whose status would have
entitled them to benefits prior to the1996 welfare reform law and that
there should be no time limits imposed on when they acquire U.S.
citizenship. Unless action is taken in this Congress, another 4,500
people will lose their SSI benefits this year, with many losing
associated health care benefits as well. The Alliance urges Congress to
pass legislation that will correct these wrongs. This is a crisis that
can and should be averted. Humanitarian refugees who fled to the United
States should be treated humanely.