Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Fake Cuban exiles exploiting welfare, Medicaid--back in Cuba

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279

    Fake Cuban exiles exploiting welfare, Medicaid--back in Cuba

    http://my.xfinity.com/video/cubans-t...ro_sf_loudbaby

    (related) http://www.theledger.com/article/201...NEWS/151009734
    South Florida Sun Sentinel reporter says not only are Cuban "exiles" returning to Cuba with American welfare dollars, they also exploit the Medicaid system. I have known for two decades that So. Florida was the con artist capital of America, one of the last places I would want to live. I don't trust any company that I find is located there, at all.

    And we have had many stories of immigrants in Florida wreaking havoc in numerous ways. Now they can return with US dollars to spend in the still backwards economy. But it's nothing new----others have been doing this, before--such as with SSI payments because they had some "disability". And maybe they didn't report their family holdings in India or Russia, anyway, because no one would check and no one really "asked?"

    NY Times article on immigrant "retirement" in US, prior to 1996 reforms:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/16/ny...lan-in-us.html
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279
    Here is the statement from Mark Krikorian regarding immigrants use of welfare systems as a means of retirement---and even to subsidize a higher lifestyle and aid family back in their countries of origin:

    Assistance for Elderly and Disabled Refugees

    By Mark Krikorian March 2007






    March 22, 2007
    Statement of
    Mark Krikorian
    Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies
    Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support
    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives

    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
    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
    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.
    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
    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.
    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.
    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
    In the context of limited government resources, and given the fact that a refugee is dramatically more 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.
    http://cis.org/articles/2007/msktestimony032207.html

    Last edited by Newmexican; 10-08-2015 at 01:18 AM. Reason: Added link - missing
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. Investigation: Cuban Refugees Abusing, Funneling U.S. Welfare to Cuba
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-16-2015, 10:57 PM
  2. Cuban exiles DEMANDING $40 million in US aid...
    By florgal in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 02:07 PM
  3. Most Cuban Exiles Come Through Mexico...
    By AmericanMe in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 12:47 AM
  4. Cuban Exiles and Book Banning
    By swatchick in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2007, 09:11 AM
  5. Some Cuban exiles fearful of deportation
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2006, 09:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •