Many Indigent Refugees to Lose Federal Assistance

[Judi Lynn]

Source: New York Times

Many Indigent Refugees to Lose Federal Assistance
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 31, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Social Security Administration is about to terminate cash assistance for thousands of indigent refugees who are severely disabled or over the age of 64.

“You will lose your Supplemental Security Income on Oct. 1,” the agency says in letters being mailed to more than 3,800 refugees.

All fled persecution or torture. Many are too old or infirm to work and are not yet eligible to become United States citizens.

Federal law sets a seven-year limit on payments to refugees. The maximum federal payment is $674 a month for an individual and $1,011 a month for a couple. In 2008, Congress provided a two-year extension of benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, asylum seekers and certain other humanitarian immigrants, including victims of sex trafficking.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/01benefits.html?_r=1&ref=world

[valerief]

1. 31 million dollars a year. Some rich asshole must need a new villa built. nt

[Kurovski]

6. Not much of a villa.

Which makes it all the more pathetic.


Grover Norquist must be creaming his dinky little jeans. it won't take much to drown Govt. in the bathtub after all. And how helpful the Dems have been in holding her underwater.

[Metta]

2. The rudder seems to be off the ship, Obama. You're drifting steadily to the right.

Immeasureable suffering doesn't have to be your choice.

[burnsei sensei]

10. +1

War and corporate welfare are bigger drains than SSI ever dreamed of being.

[Metta]

17. Yes, the moral relativity in Congress is criminal in manifesting unnecessary suffering.

Some people are just dead asleep. :hi:

[Yo_Mama]

11. Don't blame Obama for this

I'm not claiming the President should never be criticized, but in this case Congress passes the law under which these benefits are paid and terminated.

Contact your senators and representatives in Congress to get this changed.

You can't blame the President - any president - for following the Constitution. He can have his own opinions, but he is bound to follow the law.

[fasttense]

15. Bound to follow the law? Not so much for the bush regime.

They made up the law as they went along.

If President Obama is bound to follow the law what about prosecution of war criminals? I guess he ignored that law. What about torture, prosecution of torturers and treaty violations? I guess he ignored those too. Indefinite detention, murder squads and warrant-less searches? I guess they are just not important enough to follow.

Bound by the law, only when it suits them.

[EFerrari]

3. How many billions has the Pentagon lost?

[Mnemosyne]

5. Trillions, Beth...Sept. 10, 2001 Rummy said so.

:hug::hi:

[EFerrari]

12. We should stop calling it the Pentagon and go with Black Hole.

:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

14. Hugh11 sucking black hole!

:hi:

[Kurovski]

7. I was just thinking that while scrolling down.

Goddammit.

[Liberty Belle]

4. Awful. Here in San Diego we have one of the highest refugee populations in the US including Iraqis;

largest number of Iraq War refugees outside of Iraq. So we blew apart their country, and now won't even foot the bill for the most disabled and elderly ones? Reprehensible!

I will be forwarding this to leaders in the refugee assistance committee, who I'm sure will be devastated by this news.

[Kurovski]

8. They'll be sent to churches, and other religious circuses.

If they're lucky, the people they have to deal with won't be batshit insane, dimwit fuckjobs.

[annabanana]

9. This seems unnecessarily punitive and harsh. .

Surely some really rich person might give up a tiny bit of that criminal tax cut they so happily took under Bush. .

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. Why are we giving money to foreigners living in the US again?

[fasttense]

16. Yes, much better to give it all away to the corporations and the lucky sperm club. n/t