“The world is based on paradox.”

I am frequently reminded of that adage by John Galsworthy, which alludes to political and social nuances in our country. In fact, it came to mind again recently when I learned of a class action lawsuit filed against the Human Resources Administration with the Federal Court in Manhattan by several female immigrants, legally in this country. The women, who left violent marriages and took their children with them, have been left without means to support themselves and their families, and have yet to receive social services from the state.

Indeed it is a paradox. Undocumented female immigrants frequently portray themselves as victims of domestic violence in order to legalize their stay in the United States. Yet, female immigrants living in the country legally and who are victims of domestic violence do not always receive the benefits to which they are entitled by law.

The Russian Bazaar previously reported on undocumented female immigrants, particularly young beauties from post-Soviet countries, and their attempts to put down roots in the United States. First, they lure an American man or a Russian who is already a U.S. citizen – sometimes over the Internet, while they are still in Russia – to the altar. Loud family quarrels usually follow, which can be easily overheard by neighbors. They give themselves bruises, on their own or with the help of female collaborators, and then run to the police. After this performance, the wait for a green card is often shortened dramatically.

Legal women immigrants could envy these enterprising ladies. While they too may have chosen to marry in order to legalize their immigration status, their husbands are not fictitious or temporary. It is not uncommon for these very real husbands to leave their wives with bruises. However, leaving their belligerent husbands is not always an option for them.

Why? Because, in most cases, these roughnecks are the sole breadwinners in the family, and the chances of receiving benefits from the government that can begin to replace the husband’s salary are quite slim

These unfortunate women are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They leave their husbands and risk losing the benefits of his salary, or they stay and put their health and even their lives at risk. Maternal instinct persuades most women to stay and only decide to leave when their husbands shift the focus of their harmful attention to others, often their own children.

The stories of these women are terrifying. The husband of one stalked her from Texas to New York. The husband of another subjected her to torture. A third husband, who was subsequently placed in a psychiatric hospital, beat his wife in the stomach while she was pregnant with their second child. A fourth husband threatened to poison their young children with arsenic. These are only a few examples of many such situations.

Representatives from the Domestic Violence Project of the Legal Aid Society, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, confirm that after their clients left their husbands, they applied for food stamps, but were flatly rejected, even though by law they were eligible for food stamps.

One of the women moved into a shelter for victims of domestic violence with her two children. Once there, she applied for food stamps at the local social services office. During this process, she presented the social worker with all the necessary documents: a U.S. visa, a work permit and police documents attesting to the fact that her husband beat her. The social worker announced that only the youngest child – an infant born in the United States, therefore a citizen – was eligible for food stamps. The woman turned to a lawyer working in the shelter for help. After much effort, the lawyer proved that the mother and older sister also had a right to food stamps.

Lawyers from the Domestic Violence Project of the Legal Aid Society estimate that there are hundreds of women in similar circumstances in New York alone. Many of them go through cumbersome procedures in order to obtain social services. In the end, however, the lengthy bureaucratic process tosses them out onto the street without the funds to support themselves and without hope of receiving assistance from the government.

After much travail, the unfortunate women were back at square one, forcing some to reconcile themselves to their fate and return to their husbands, reentering the cycle of harassment and violence.

There were times when the social workers themselves took pity on the indigent women and entered inexact information in their documents in order for them to receive benefits. At first, the women received benefits; however, when their immigration files were carefully checked, the benefits were revoked.

How can such lawlessness exist in a state based on the rule of law? The lawyers representing the women point to several reasons.

A primary factor is deficient computer menus at social services. Any welfare computer can access a list of people who are eligible for one benefit or another. The lists are organized into U.S. citizens and immigrants not yet U.S. citizens. For non-citizens, there is no category for “immigrants who are subjected to cruel treatment at home or victims of domestic violence.” This category is also absent from textbooks that social workers study, at least in New York State.

The second reason is the mess created after the adoption of welfare reform in August 1996. President Clinton, who signed this law due to pressure from the Republican-controlled Congress promised to push through a series of amendments restoring several benefits to certain categories of immigrants later on. These amendments were adopted and the right to receive benefits that were revoked in 1996 was restored to certain groups of immigrants. State governments started to issue analogous or similar benefits to other immigrant groups. Social workers, who are not always properly trained, are slow to recognize these nuances.

Prejudice and cynicism on the part of the social workers themselves is also a contributing factor. Many have probably seen or at least heard about opportunists who try to beat the government out of money. Naturally, they put up their guard when they see women who have lawful and employed husbands yet demand government aid.

Many ask why these women do not get jobs and support themselves. Their lawyers give a list of reasons why. First, the majority of these women have young children and no one to leave them with. Even when their children are placed in a government daycare center, they still need help. Generally the women, who lived under the husband’s wing – or rather the heel – never held a job in America. Some of them speak English poorly, if at all. In order to find work, they must first learn English and acquire some skills.

As well, women who have been subjected to violence over an extended period need time to recover physically and psychologically. Some develop psychological disorders that prevent them from working.

As expected, the leadership of the Human Resources Administration believes that the lawsuit is baseless and that lawyers for the Domestic Violence Project have no grounds for attacking the social services.

“We have always worked closely with them [Domestic Violence Project] to avoid misunderstandings and inaccuracies,” stated Human Resources Administration spokesman Bob McHugh in a conversation with a journalist from The New York Times. “But they preferred to go to court.”

It could be that the lawsuit filed by the Domestic Violence Project and others is an attempt by them to generate public sympathy for the plight of the women. We must hope that the lawsuit directed against the unyielding bureaucracy of social services will help these women find a way out of their frightful situation.