One need only glance at Marla Del Carmen’s small, gnarled hands to begin to understand how rheumatoid arthritis has crippled her since 19.
The 62-year-old works some, but she relies heavily on Social Security disability to get by.
Or, she did.
This month, Del Carmen received an odd letter from the Social Security Administration informing her that her disability benefit would increase to $687 a month. But then the letter said those payments were being suspended because “you were not a United States citizen or lawfully present in the U.S.”
That was news to Del Carmen. She was born in Des Moines with a Hebrew maiden name and has spent all her life on the east side.
She is married to a Hispanic man, Mateo Del Carmen Hernandez, a permanent resident of the United States, for more than 22 years. ...
With immigration the chief focus of President Donald Trump’s administration, Del Carmen says she can’t help but feel targeted by the federal government. She said it appeared she was disqualified from federal benefits solely because of her married name.
“I’ve never been to another country. I don’t even have a passport,” she said. “I have to take chemo for my arthritis and I have COPD, so I can’t travel.”
Del Carmen said she checked with the Des Moines Social Security office, and no one had applied fraudulently for her benefits. ...
"She says Colbert told her that her benefits were flagged after a “systems run” after she reported making some income in 2017 as an in-home caregiver for two men."
ReplyDeleteOnly reason could be this income that I doubt is even SGA. Sounds like how cops can always find something to pull someone over in a car if they want to harass someone.
This seems like Hispanic or Latino harassment. I am sure the Orange One has something to do with this.
I have seen this out here in California. But usually it is at the hearing level with ALJs. They will make Latino claimants jump through hoops at the hearing like checking their ID and making sure they are legal.
Never heard of a local SSA doing this. Probably because a majority of their clientele are legal Latinos. This would probably cause an outcry.
The SSA is slick in trying to get this blatant racial profiling past in Iowa. Kudos for the newspaper calling them out. Pretty sure the SSA will cave and turn on her benefits.
No actually they have been in suspension again.
Delete@5:25pm lol, keep up with that NPC mindset
ReplyDeleteInstead of jumping to conspiracy, jump to incompetence.
She was probably being contacted by SSA in a notice that went unresponded to, or the response was left on another person's desk. The claim representative wanted to suspend benefits, but couldn't actually get the failure-to-cooperate suspense in, so they suspended for miscellaneous reasons.
When a miscellaneous suspense is done, the notice has to be completed by the regional program center. Technician in the program center saw her married named, read no further and stereotypically inferred the reason for suspense was due to unlawful presence in the U.S.
Stop looking for conspiracy and look for consistent incompetence first. It makes more sense in the end.
7:45 on the mic drop
ReplyDelete@ 7:45
ReplyDeleteThere can be both a conspiracy and incompetence. Both are just as deadly to claimants.
@ 525--We check for permanent residence status any time a US citizen files for benefits or requests a SSN or replacement SSN. If the person is a citizen, there has to be some proof in our file or they will be requested to prove that as well.
ReplyDelete@2:10
ReplyDeleteI am curious, the article says proof of citizenship was not required for applications taken prior to December 1996. The recipient in the article was receiving benefits for RA which had been "crippling" since the age of 19. Given she is 62 now, assuming she applied for benefits prior to 1996 is reasonable, so wouldn't her proof of citizenship not be requested?
It seems like when SSA makes these kind of changes, they are not implemented retroactively, and individuals currently on benefits are not required to meet updated standards until something goes wrong. That also fits with the fact she is only receiving a proof of citizenship request 22 years after the change was implemented.
Put simply, I do not find it troubling proof of citizenship is required, but the unknown reason for requiring it at this juncture is troubling. Then again, maybe she applied last month, and the article is just written based on extremely limited information.
My vote is incompetence rather than conspiracy.
ReplyDelete@ 10:20 AM Never seen someone asked for citizenship that was already receiving before the change in 1996 but if she applied for widows benefits, she would have to prove her citizenship or there would have to be some proof in our records or those benefits would be suspended but not her disability that she was already receiving.
ReplyDelete