Social Insecurity : Plan to Cut Benefits Worries Elderly Legal Immigrants

For several weeks, Chen Teh Liu and many of the friends who gather daily in the activity room of his Downtown Los Angeles senior center have been absorbed by the dizzying political discourse taking place in Washington.

Like Liu, most are immigrants who came to this country to escape political persecution in their homelands, to flee economic deprivation or to embrace the romantic idea of America.

If you talk to Liu and his friends, that romantic notion includes the concept of respect for the elderly embodied in government programs such as Social Security and guaranteed medical care.

So it is with deep concern and growing disillusion that Liu and others ponder proposed welfare reform laws that could alter the lives of tens of thousands of aging legal immigrants like them.

The legislation, already passed by the House of Representatives and now being debated in the Senate, would exclude most legal immigrants from receiving federal social benefits, and in particular would deny Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid and in most instances in-home support services to elderly legal immigrants under 75.

Some local officials say the law, if passed, could have a disastrous impact on the elderly in Los Angeles County, which is home to more legal immigrants than any other locale in the nation.

More than 63% of all people over 65 who receive SSI and Medicaid in the county are legal immigrants, according to census and county estimates. The denial of these benefits could render them virtually destitute and result in massive new burdens on local government, say opponents of the proposals pending in Washington.

For people like Liu, a 72-year-old cook who emigrated from Taiwan more than 10 years ago, it all seems unbelievable.

“America is the biggest country and the wealthiest country and they care about human rights,” he said. “There’s no way they would pass this law.”

It is uncertain if all or any of the House proposals will remain intact after their consideration in the Senate, where competing plans are already emerging. But they are among the most detailed and far-reaching measures submitted so far.

Their crafters insist that they are fair. Legal aliens over 75 who have resided in the United States for at least five years will remain eligible, as will refugees who have been here less than five years, legal immigrant veterans and permanent residents who suffer from mental or physical disorders so severe as to preclude their passing a naturalization exam.

The GOP welfare bill puts the onus of responsibility for the well-being of immigrants on sponsors. Sponsors are now required to certify that immigrants will not become a public charge, and the House measures would make that agreement legally binding and applicable until the immigrant becomes a citizen.

Information released by House Republicans states that “aliens” over 65 are five times more likely to be on SSI than “U.S. taxpaying citizens” over 65.

“Our welfare system should not be a retirement plan for immigrants,” proponents argue.

However, others believe that because legal immigrants pay taxes and contribute to the national economy, it would be unfair to deny them federal benefits.

*

The plight of elderly legal residents, many beyond their working years and with few resources, has evoked sympathy. Now, about 103,000 legal immigrants 65 or older in the county receive Medi-Cal (the name of the Medicaid program in California), SSI, which provides cash assistance to indigent elderly and disabled people, or in-home support, which supplies personal care services to the aged and disabled and allows them to live safely in their homes while avoiding more costly institutional care.

More than 69,000 of these senior citizens are projected to lose benefits if the House-passed legislation becomes law, according to the county’s Area Agency on Aging.

“There is a huge anxiety in the community around this issue,” said Phil Ansell, intergovernmental relations director for the county’s Community and Senior Citizens Services agency. “It’s foreseeable that many of these people would simply die due to lack of medical care, homelessness and possibly starvation. There is nothing in the private sector that could make up for this kind of loss of governmental benefits.”

Many Los Angeles County officials say the proposed laws could wreak havoc on local health and social services and have strongly opposed the measures.

“Restricting federal public assistance benefits to legal immigrants would result in a major shift in costs to the county, because they would remain eligible for county-funded general [welfare] assistance and health services,” stated briefing papers submitted to key congressional policy-makers by the County Board of Supervisors on a recent Washington lobbying trip.

The denial of SSI benefits alone could increase county costs by $173 million annually, and overall yearly costs could top $500 million, according to the papers. Supervisor Gloria Molina said the proposed laws could have a dramatic impact in her Eastside district, which includes large numbers of immigrant Latinos.

“If SSI is taken away all of a sudden, it’s a huge loss in their income; they might be evicted, they might be homeless,” Molina said. “No other place has absorbed more immigrants and refugees than Los Angeles County, and I think it’s a little tough for people in Kansas or the Midwest to understand the implications because we are so unique.”

Worried about the possible ramifications of a massive shift of costs to local government, some county officials want to block legal immigrants cut off from federal funds from receiving county assistance as well. The board recently approved a motion asking for state authorization to do just that.

*

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who supported the motion and endorses the House welfare proposals, said the onus of providing for immigrants should be borne by sponsors and relatives who facilitate their entry into the country, and not the federal government.

“These sponsors have signed an oath that these individuals will not be a burden on taxpayers, and the feds have turned their backs on enforcing those provisions,” said Antonovich.

He also argued that many immigrants have resided in the country for decades but have expended little effort to become naturalized U.S. citizens.

But critics of the House proposals argue that barriers such as delays in processing citizenship applications and the daunting bureaucracy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service hinder many.

The number of immigrants applying for citizenship has doubled in the last year and the waiting lists for English and civics classes exceed 50,000 in cities such as Los Angeles and New York, said Susan Drake, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.

And the elderly have the most difficulty obtaining citizenship, with fewer than 20% of elderly immigrants ever becoming citizens. English-language proficiency and history requirements are particularly difficult for the elderly to overcome, Drake said.

That is evident from some of the sentiments expressed to the Area Agency on Aging by immigrants, such as one Laotian refugee, now 75, who came to the United States in 1980 with his wife, now 72. She would be in jeopardy of losing the SSI benefits that both depend on.

“If the government and officials do this, you can place yourselves in my position and think about what my wife and I will have to do,” wrote the man, who identified himself as Mark. “Language is different, age is 75, we do not know the system working here. . . . We feel that it is not that you are trying to save money. You must be punishing us for something else.”

Angel and Josefina Corona first came to the United States in 1940, when Angel, now 75, was contracted as an agricultural worker in the bracero program, a federally sponsored plan to bring in seasonal labor. They became legal residents in 1972 and three of their 11 children are U.S. citizens. Under the proposed welfare reforms, they face the loss of SSI, Medi-Cal and in-home support services that allow the couple to stay in their Montebello home.

“If I were to lose the benefits, I’d probably die soon, because I don’t have the strength to work,” said Josefina, 71.

*

The couple say their children are not well off and have their own obligations. They wouldn’t want to be a burden. It is a sentiment felt by many elderly, said Oscar Sandoval, a caseworker who helps the Coronas at AltaMed, a senior health and activity center.

“Without this program, they would likely not be able to make it,” Sandoval said. “With the elderly, a lot of case management is pushing them, because their self-esteem and self-worth go down and they start neglecting themselves. A sense of being independent is so helpful for them.”

That loss of independence is something that Liu worries about. His dumplings have been the toast of discerning gourmets from Los Angeles to New Orleans in the 10 years since the 72-year-old cook immigrated to America.

Despite two failed attempts to establish restaurants in Los Angeles, Liu has gained satisfaction in teaching the ancient culinary arts of his native land to young chefs in his new home, the land he calls the biggest and best country in the world.

But the normally cheerful Liu is reduced almost to tears when he talks about proposed laws being considered in Washington. He applied for citizenship once but did not pass because of language difficulties. He plans to apply again but worries that he will not be successful.

“If they take away my benefits, I wouldn’t know what to do,” said Liu, who has no family here. “I’m all alone by myself.”