The Inability to Speak English Shouldn’t Qualify as "Disability" for Social Security

macgeek

macgeek

Member
Can you imagine someone coming to our country, never paid into social security or paid very little, and they get disability benefits because they can't speak English?

Does not shock me one bit. How many years has this been going on? Way too long it looks like. Just one reason of many the system is going broke I guess. Hopefully it's been changed in April 2020, but knowing our government I have my doubts. Common sense is not so common.

As a former administrative law judge described it, if a claimant were 45 years or older, limited to sedentary work, and claimed an inability to communicate in English, they were a “slam-dunk for benefits.”

https://www.heritage.org/social-sec...h-shouldnt-qualify-disability-social-security
 

What an inflammatory & misleading opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger. Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.

The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers. It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.

Here is an article from the real world of non-fake media, the AARP:
AARP article:
Starting April 27, the government will no longer consider the inability to speak English as one element in determining whether a person should receive Social Security disability benefits.

The new rule, announced Monday, changes a policy created in 1978 that required the Social Security Administration (SSA) to assess English proficiency as part of someone's education when deciding whether they would be able to rejoin the workforce or should receive disability benefits instead. For people age 45 and older, inability to speak English was a supporting factor the agency used when making this decision. (Lack of English proficiency was not sufficient on its own to make someone eligible for disability.) The inability to speak English was also considered to counteract a worker's level of education — another factor in the decision to award Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits.


"We are required to consider education to determine if your medical condition prevents work,” Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul wrote in the Social Security Matters blog. “Research now shows the inability to communicate in English is no longer a good measure of a person's education level or the ability to engage in work.” The data supporting the rule, which is final, and not a proposal, is in the Federal Register.


The SSA says the research it used in making the decision included data from people who applied for SSDI benefits, noting that “claimants who report an inability to read, write, or speak English often report having a high school education or more.” And a Brookings Institution study shows that lack of English proficiency does not generally prevent low-skilled workers from obtaining employment.
Click to expand...
 
Nathan nailed it. Inability to communicate in English in itself does not qualify an individual for SSDI or SSI disability. The primary factor is the degree of severity of an individual's impairment. If it prevents performance of past relevant work, then the vocational factors of age, education, and acquired skill level are factored-in. Inability to communicate in English is one of the educational levels considered.
 

Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?
 
Nathan said:
What an inflammatory & misleading opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger. Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.

The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers. It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.

Here is an article from the real world of non-fake media, the AARP:
AARP article:
Click to expand...
as usual, when a story sounds so outrageous, it's usually not true. Nathan, thanks for the clarification.
 
Nathan said:
What an inflammatory & misleading opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger. Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.
Click to expand...

well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like. :)
 
Last edited:
Rosemarie said:
Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?
Click to expand...

Learn our language and assimilate use to be the rule of thumb for coming here many decades ago, but not anymore I don't believe. They have more opportunity here then they would by staying in their own country. I have seen many that live here but don't speak our language. Some I guess are not interested in learning our language I suppose.
 
Damaged Goods said:
Nathan nailed it. Inability to communicate in English in itself does not qualify an individual for SSDI or SSI disability.
Click to expand...

But that article says up until recently, they were getting disability approved for not speaking English. That is how I read the article which is why I shared it. I'm not a lawyer so I can't verify if its true or not.
 
Rosemarie said:
Such a person should only receive benefits if they are willing to learn English. Why are they living in an English-speaking country if they do not speak the language?
Click to expand...
SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion. As a side note my son with DS has a high school education and a diploma from special school, of course. He neither reads nor writes, he has an IQ of 53. He gets SSDI.
 
Aneeda72 said:
SSDI is not understandable to anyone in my opinion. As a side note my son with DS has a high school education and a diploma from special school, of course. He neither reads nor writes, he has an IQ of 53. He gets SSDI.
Click to expand...
God bless you and your son. As someone who has paid dearly into the SS system for many years I have zero problem with this. Conversely, I have all kinds of issues with an immigrant who has not participated in our system at all in obtain SS benefits.
 
Nathan said:
What an inflammatory & misleading opinion piece, from a heavily slanted media source to provoke outrage and anger. Freedom of expression being abused, and used to divide a nation.

The change in policy merely eliminates the decades old discriminatory policy of denying S.S. benefits to non-English speakers. It DOES NOT make the inability to speak English a "disability", as the Heritage.org article loudly proclaims.

Here is an article from the real world of non-fake media, the AARP:
AARP article:
Click to expand...

I agree with you on substance -- English proficiency should not be a requirement for someone who otherwise qualifies for SS benefits.

However, the AARP is just as slanted and "fake" a source as the Heritage Foundation. AARP lobbies for seniors and espouses liberal policies; Heritage lobbies for and espouses conservative policies. Fox News is "fake" because it is biased, but so is MSNBC. I don't know of any truly objective sources of information, and I'm not sure there ever were any.
 
its funny how we all trust the news we have watched for years, but everyone else's news source is fake or biased. Interesting how that works. I question everything these days, even Fox news.
 
JimBob1952 said:
I agree with you on substance -- English proficiency should not be a requirement for someone who otherwise qualifies for SS benefits.

However, the AARP is just as slanted and "fake" a source as the Heritage Foundation. AARP lobbies for seniors and espouses liberal policies; Heritage lobbies for and espouses conservative policies.
Click to expand...
Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies. Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?

JimBob1952 said:
Fox News is "fake" because it is biased, but so is MSNBC. I don't know of any truly objective sources of information, and I'm not sure there ever were any.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Try AP or Reuters or BBC for more fact based reporting, and less opinion tainted content.
 
Nathan said:
Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies. Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?


I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Try AP or Reuters or BBC for more fact based reporting, and less opinion tainted content.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, AARP is well known to lean left. While they may not lean as far left as the cited outlet in the OP leans right, they are decidedly left of center.
 
Nathan said:
Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative,
I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.
Click to expand...

Seniors where I live are mostly democrats. Not sure where you get this info that they are conservative.

Fox news is no more fake than CNN ABC CBS NBC NY Times etc. AARP is left which is why I never joined it.
 
Nathan said:
Seniors as a group are decidedly conservative, AARP would not exist if they were touting "liberal" policies. Liberal Policies....like supporting Social security and Medicare?


I agree with you, FOX news is fake, MSNBC is left leaning now, originally featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Try AP or Reuters or BBC for more fact based reporting, and less opinion tainted content.
Click to expand...

MSNBC "left-leaning?" I'm doubled over in laughter. They gave the anti-Semitic, fact-challenged Joy Reid a nightly slot! I suppose Pravda leans a bit to the left, as well.

I watch the BBC a fair amount although their US coverage is absurdly leftist. I used to watch the PBS Nightly News but since Gwen Ifill died and Judy Woodruff took over as sole anchor, they have lurched left as well.

I do like Eamon Javers, the CNBC White House reporter. I find him refreshingly straightforward.

AARP's liberal bias is well established, I'm not going to argue about that here.
 
macgeek said:
here u go. no longer a factor, which means it was. so my post was correct.

English Language Ability Dropped as Factor for Social Security Disability

Inability to speak the language was one determinant that had been considered.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...ange-for-disability-benefits-eligibility.html
Click to expand...

The change tightens the requirements but the original post implies that an inability to communicate in English in itself qualifies a claimant. As the ALJ referenced in the original post, adjudicators consider residual functional capacity (RFC) (sedentary work in the ALJ's example) and age. Also, the The ALJ omitted the vocational factor of skill level derived from past work -- skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled -- and if skilled or semi-skilled, whether such skills are transferable to work within claimant's RFC.
 
macgeek said:
well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like. :)
Click to expand...
of course media sources have a bias/slant/agenda. i don't think anybody said they didn't.
 
macgeek said:
well then their doing what all the other media outlets are doing daily then. AARP also can be a heavily slanted media source come to think of it. They all have their bias and agendas. When I turned 50 I never joined AARP for this very reason. Bias. But you think AARP is not biased? We can all believe what we like. :)
Click to expand...
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Daniel Moynihan
That you believe something does not make it true.
 


Back
Top