Immigrants and Supplemental Security Income

SSI Extension for Humanitarian Immigrants Provides for Two More Years of Benefits

New on NILC’s Website (since October 28, 2008)

National, State, and Local Organizations Ask Congress to End Attacks on Immigrants and to Work for Strong and Integrated Communities in America

By DINAH WILEY, Public Benefits Policy Attorney

     Refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, victims of trafficking, and other humanitarian immigrants whose Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits were available only during a seven-year period may be able to receive SSI for at least two additional years.  Under a law that became effective on October 1, 2008, humanitarian immigrants whose SSI was terminated or denied due to the expiration of this time period should apply for the extension immediately by visiting their local Social Security Administration (SSA) office or by calling 1-800-772-1213.
     The law granting the extension, enacted September 30, 2008, is known as “The SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act,” Public Law 110-328 (H.R. 2608).  It amends the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, the “welfare law”).  To receive the extension, humanitarian immigrants must meet certain other criteria and must also declare that they have made a good faith effort to pursue U.S. citizenship.  If they have a naturalization application pending at the end of the two-year extension, they may be able to receive a third year of benefits.  The law granting the extensions of SSI eligibility is temporary; it expires on September 30, 2011.  
CONTINUE READING >

¶

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
A Guide to the New and Temporary SSI Extension Law for Humanitarian Immigrants (Posted 11/20/08.)

PAGE:

Immigrants & Public Benefits > Congressional Developments

Letter endorsed by about 820 organizations that was sent to each member of Congress in early November 2008

     “We . . . write to express our concern about legislative proposals in the 110th Congress that have threatened access to essential public services for immigrants and citizens. . . .
     “As Congress moves into a time of new opportunities and change, we call upon you . . . to resist politically-driven proposals designed to appear tough on immigrants.  We are concerned both about the consequences that these proposals have on access to services for eligible beneficiaries, and about the divisive impact that these negative debates have on our communities.”  CONTINUE READING >
 (Posted 11/20/08.)

PAGE:

Removal Procedures and Defenses

National Lawyers Guild - San Francisco, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (NLGSF v. US DHS)

¶

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., Nov. 12, 2008 -- Today a coalition of immigrants’ rights organizations asked a federal judge to compel the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to disclose information about a program under which it removes non-U.S. citizens from the United States without hearings before immigration judges.  The program, called “stipulated removal,” has resulted in the removal of over 96,000 noncitizens since its inception.  CONTINUE READING >

¶

Backgrounder: Stipulated Removal
Federal authorities are deporting immigrants without hearings, but the public knows very little about the program.
   Over the last five years, federal immigration officials have expanded implementation of a program called stipulated removal to deport non–U.S. citizens.  This procedure allows the deportation of a noncitizen without a hearing before an immigration judge.  Immigrants who sign stipulated orders of removal waive their rights to hearings and agree to have a removal order entered against them, regardless of whether they are eligible to remain in the United States.  According to data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, federal immigration officials have entered almost 100,000 stipulated removal orders in the past five years.  CONTINUE READING >  
(Posted 11/12/08.)

PAGE:

Workplace Enforcement by Immigration Authorities

National Immigration Law Center v. Department of Homeland Security

¶

LOS ANGELES — A coalition of civil rights lawyers is suing federal immigration officials who have illegally failed to release information about reported racial profiling, intimidation and denial of access to counsel by workers detained during a huge workplace raid in Los Angeles.   CONTINUE READING >
(Posted 10/28/08.)

¶

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case No. CV08-07092 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 28, 2008).

PAGE:

Arrest and Detention

This report reveals what happens to more than 43,000 undocumented, unaccompanied children removed annually from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries:  The U.S. often compromises children’s rights, safety, and well-being, contrary to international law and U.S. child welfare standards.  (Link posted 11/17/08.)

PAGE:

Employment Eligibility Verification and
Antidiscrimination Protections

¶

Basic Pilot/E-Verify Reality Check: Businesses Challenge DHS’s Claims
A Department of Homeland Security official described using E-Verify as “a bit less burdensome than ordering books for the first time from Amazon.com.”  But that’s not what U.S. businesses report.  (Posted 11/5/08.)

¶

Continuing the Pioneer Tradition: Illinois’ Basic Pilot/E-Verify Laws as a Model Policy
Illinois is the first state to have enacted laws intended to protect employers and workers who are affected by the federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program.  (Posted 11/4/08.) 
(This item is posted on the Immigrants & Employment > State & Local: Legislation, Litigation, and Resources page.)

¶

FINAL RULE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12989 (requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify):  Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2007–013, Employment Eligibility Verification, 73 FR 67651-705 (Nov. 14, 2008).  (Posted 11/17/08.)

PAGE:

Social Security Administration “No-Match” Letter Toolkit

¶

The rule: 73 FR 63843-67 (Oct. 28, 2008).

¶

Antidiscrimination Guidance for Employers Following the Dept. of Homeland Security’s Safe-Harbor Procedures (Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, 73 FR 63993-94 (Oct. 28, 2008).)

PAGE:

Immigrants & Public Benefits > Verification & Reporting

Assessing the Effects of Medicaid Documentation Requirements on Health Centers and Their Patients: Results of a “Second Wave” Survey (George Washington Univ. School of Public Health & Health Services, Dept. of Health Policy, Oct. 21, 2008). 
“This ‘second wave’ survey underscores the existence of serious, ongoing problems more than a year after implementation.”  (Link posted 10/29/08.)

PAGE:

Links to: Federal & State Agencies; Advocacy & Research

IPC created Immigration Impact, its new blog, “to help shape and develop a rational national conversation on immigration that shifts the terms of the debate towards achieving workable and effective comprehensive policy reform.”

FROM THE REPORT’S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  “The media have given voice to strongly felt and well-defined views at either end of the policy spectrum.  Meanwhile, the broad middle in American public opinion favors a mix of policy options on immigration, but that segment’s views are marked by uncertainty and anxiety about the topic and skepticism about government’s ability to handle it.  This reflects the way the immigration narrative has been framed by the media for a generation.”  (The link to this report, published on 9/25/08, was posted on our homepage on 11/18/08.)