Recently, several legal groups filed a case at the New York State Supreme Court, demanding that the state government pay 25 lawful elderly immigrants an equivalent amount that would have received if they were enrolled for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Among these elderly – mostly Russian asylees and refugees – is the late 97-year-old Boris Khrapunskiy, who was denied Supplemental Security Income because he had not become a U.S. citizen on time.
The New York Legal Assistance Group was among the firms that filed the suit last December, where Russian-speaking lawyers work side-by-side with American colleagues.
On August 22, 1996, the Welfare Reform Bill was passed, which affected not only single mothers but also the elderly poor, blind and disabled, who either arrived as refugees or received political asylum in the United States. According to the bill, people 65 years or older are eligible for Supplemental Security Income for seven years after arriving in the United States or obtaining political asylum status. However, the bill noted that Supplemental Security Income benefits would be revoked if, after seven years, they did not become U.S. citizens.
For politicians, it seemed that seven years is a sufficient time to be naturalized citizen; however, several factors were apparently not taken into consideration, specially the sluggishness of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service (BCIS), whose operation did not speed up after joining the Department of Homeland Security. Seven years had passed and elderly refugees and asylees with citizenship applications still awaiting review began to lose their Supplemental Security Income. Now the court has ruled in their favor.
Russian Bazaar spoke with Irina Matiychenko, head lawyer at the Immigration Division of the New York Legal Assistance Group.
Russian Bazaar: Irina, we want to congratulate you on this important victory.
Irina Matiychenko: Thank you. However, the real winners are not the coalition of attorneys, but the poor, elderly and disabled people who will begin to receive their Social Security Insurance. These people are lawful residents and had the full right to get SSI, only their immigration status interfered.
RB: Besides humanitarian and moral considerations, you were surely motivated to file this suit from a legal standpoint.
IM: Yes, we filed the suit because the New York State Government made a decision many years ago to support aged, blind and disabled residents. According to the social services law, taking care of these people is considered a key challenge and a priority of a healthy society. Also, the law states that the minimum living requirements for the elderly and disabled must be higher than the minimum living requirements for the young and able-bodied poor.
RB: I’m aware that the state of New York even contributes an additional small sum (about $87) to SSI for elderly and disabled people.
IM: Yes, precisely. The state contributes that amount because it considers that needy elderly and disabled people receive insufficient funds from the federal government alone. However, these elderly and disabled had lost all, both the federal and local portions of their SSI. And they lost it though no fault of their own, but simply for not receiving their awaited U.S. citizenship on time. This was discrimination against them and for this very reason, we decided to file the suit.
RB: Did the state at least provide welfare benefits to the people denied SSI?
IM: At first, the state appeared to be humane enough to not leave these people completely without any means of existence. But welfare benefits are twice as small as SSI benefits. Welfare does not satisfy the state’s own minimum criteria for the destitute elderly and blind. Judge Jane Solomon, who heard our case, completely agreed with us. Moreover, she ruled that the people who did not receive benefits until now must receive benefits retroactively.
RB: Do you mean that the state will pay the difference between the welfare payments and sum of both federal and local SSI portions?
IM: Yes, that’s correct.
RB: Do you think your victory will propel attorneys in other states to file similar lawsuits? Will the social policy of the federal government possibly recognize or reflect this? Will congressional leaders introduce a welfare reform law in order to allow all destitute elderly residents of the United States to have access to SSI independent of their immigration status?
IM: Some states already have programs that compensate elderly and sick people who lost SSI benefits. As far as the federal government is concerned, however, our victory will hardly have an effect. For two years already, congress has been looking to extend by two years the period when elderly refugees and asylees can get SSI , regardless of their citizenship status. However, there is no resolution in sight. The federal government has other priorities now, like security and the war on terror.
RB: How long will the state of New York be able to maintain such payments? I’ve been informed that state authorities already filed an appeal to this ruling.
IM: Yes. Certainly, this is a colossal burden on the state. We are doing everything in our power to shift this responsibility back to the federal government.
RB: How do you do that?
IM: By helping people become US citizens more quickly. Recently, the immigration division at New York Legal Assistance Group submitted to the circuit courts approximately 40 applications on behalf of people whose citizenship reviews got stuck at the immigration service. These people passed their interviews and citizenship exams several months ago but did not pass the last stage of the naturalization process, which is the reciting the oath.
