Kansas slashes food aid for children of illegal immigrants

[proud2BlibKansan]

Pedro moved to the Kansas City area about 13 years ago and has held the same job for 11.

Though he sometimes struggles to pay bills, he knows most people think he should receive no public aid. He’s an illegal immigrant. He doesn’t deserve handouts. He understands that.

“I’ve never asked for anything for myself,” said Pedro, who didn’t want his last name used to protect his family. “Never. I just work. Work hard.”

A new debate swirling around Kansas, though, isn’t about Pedro. It’s about two of his three children. They were born here, and one day they will have driver’s licenses and the right to vote, just like any other U.S. citizen.

Early last year, when they needed food assistance, they got it. Pedro’s family received nearly $300 a month in food stamps. Enough to buy milk, eggs and meat, fruit and yogurt.

Now, they get nothing. Neither do hundreds of other Kansas families who, like Pedro’s, are a mix of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

At a time when Gov. Sam Brownback has vowed to reduce child poverty, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services — a state agency the governor controls — made a policy change that eliminated food stamps for hundreds of low-income U.S. children whose parents are illegal immigrants. For more households, benefits were reduced.

more . . . http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/21/3384400/kansas-slashes-food-aid-for-children.html

[ohheckyeah]

1. How nice...

let's punish kids by starving them because of their parents actions. People suck.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. They really should just shoot them at birth

It's far more humane than letting them starve.

[ohheckyeah]

12. I wonder what the governor's

position is on abortion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I believe you know where he stands on abortion

[ohheckyeah]

20. Well, I can guess.

Amazing how the right will fight to save a fetus but then let a child starve to death. It infuriates me.

[11 Bravo]

55. Kansans? Present company excepted, I might be down with that.

[leftyohiolib]

9. "because of their parents actions. People suck."

blaming others for the actions of the parents? situation sucks and kids should be fed but what about the parent's actions.

[ohheckyeah]

10. Off with their heads I guess.

Seriously, what do you want to do with the parents whose children are U.S. citizens?

Frankly, I couldn't possibly care less about the parent's actions except for how it's affecting the children. Illegal immigrants are here because the U.S. wants them here - who else would provide the cheap labor that not only corporations crave but Americans in general demand? Certainly withholding help for feeding children isn't any way to deal with the situation.

[leftyohiolib]

13.

[EFerrari]

28. The truth is, it was the US Congress and Clinton who killed agriculture

both in southern Mexico and in Haiti with NAFTA and similar policies. Those people had to go somewhere to avoid starving. Where did we think they were going to go?

It's a little much to now castigate them as criminals for refusing to starve quietly where they belong. To my mind, these working people are not the criminals in the situation.

[leftyohiolib]

31. there are people,even people from mexico, who become citizens legally. they thought about their

children and the effects on them regarding a parent who's in hiding from the law.

since we know nothing of him we dont know he was starving victim of nafta. oh and people have been coming before nafta so nafta may not have anything todo with it.

he could have come here legally but apparantly it was easier to sneak in and worry about the children later. HE put these kids in the situation they are in not the people of whatever state this is.

[EFerrari]

34. Learn something about how difficult it is to come here from Mexico legally

before you forward this irresponsible b.s.

[leftyohiolib]

40. b/c a thing is difficult its ok to break the law?

and just b/c you feel this is irresponsible doesnt make it so. and for the record i dont think that food to children should be cut off

[EFerrari]

76. Yes, it is irresponsible, not to mention ignorant, to claim that the people dispossessed by NAFTA

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

in Mexico only have to try a little harder to come here legally. That's false. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with denying US citizen minors food assistance because of their parentage, which is fucking illegal under the Civil Rights Act.

Good god, if my kids were hungry, you'd have to shoot me to stop me from getting work to feed them.

[Spoonman]

85. "shoot me to feed my children"

We discovered 6 illegals (AGAIN) working for my company last Sep.

The lowest paid had earned $78,472 for 2011, the highest paid had earned $123,956 for 2011.
All 6 had worked for us for over 3 years, and had made as much as $148,000 in a year.

We turned them in, and come to find out, 4 of their wife’s (illegal too) were receiving welfare benefits. (small east texas town - law enforcment are close friends)

So how many of you would like a job earning over $100K (plus $276 a month full health insurance, dental, optical, and 6% dollar for dollar matching 401k) a year to feed your children?

Jobs americans don't want to do my ass!

[EFerrari]

86. I love these bullshit stories.

They show how gullible people think we are. lol

[Spoonman]

87. Your love of "bullshit" is clearly indicated by your own posts

You have no clue what you’re talking about, and you have no clue how in depth the problem is.

You simply buy whatever "bullshit" is spewed out by the pro-illegal crowd and have zero knowledge of the facts.

Illegals spend thousands of dollars acquiring documents that will pass scrutiny, items such as commercial drivers licenses, birth certificates and social security cards.

Once they have them they can pass any on boarding program for any company out there, and begin working.

Like I said before, the employees we caught this last time had been with us for years, and had we not told them they were going to have to work a project south of the Sarita checkpoint, they would still be employed today.

"Bullshit Story" - Try again, only next time try to dispute me utilizing more than an 6 year olds mentality.

Try doing a little research on the matter as well, there's several really nifty sites like google and bing that can help you. Try researching who gets to pay the IRS the taxes due on wages earned using a stolen SSN.

(Hint) - The IRS does not give a shit if your SSN was stolen!

BTW - Before you throw out the "racist" bullshit at me, I'll dial you in to the fact that I am Hispanic.

My maternal grandparents and my mother were deported in 1954 during "operation wetback", but having being born here, my mother was allowed to return after a lengthy process of proving she was born here.

[EFerrari]

88. Lmao.

You go, hermanito.

[ohheckyeah]

38. How do you know he could have

come here legally?

How much time have you spent in Mexico?

[leftyohiolib]

41. fact is we know nothing about this person who has been hiding here illegally. also if

he couldnt come here legally it might be an indication that he's a criminal there as well. problem is we dont know.

[ohheckyeah]

42. The real problem is

his kids may go hungry because of authoritarian assholes.

[leftyohiolib]

51. yes their irresponsible father puts his kids in danger. he should have done this legally

[ohheckyeah]

53. You don't know a thing about the father

and why he is here. Maybe being in the U.S. is the most responsible thing he could do regardless of his legal status.

[leftyohiolib]

60. "You (we)don't know a thing about the father" is what i said 2u in post 41

"Maybe being in the U.S. is the most responsible thing he could do regardless of his legal status." apparantly not cause now he has a lotta trouble and now that trouble has roped in his kids. he was here 11 years and did nothing about being a legal resident and i am done with thread. apparantly some people think breaking the law is ok if you have a good reason to ( or at least a reason you think is good enough)that the ends justify the means.

[ohheckyeah]

62. Yes, I do think some laws

can and even should be broken. I'm not much on the authoritarian everything is black and white point of view.

[uppityperson]

80. I'd like you to answer these questions please. Let us know more...

pedro must have taken the consequences of illegally entering the us into consideration when having kids. what do you suppose he thought about when commencing on fatherhood? what did pedro think would happen to his children if he commited a crime then became a father. what about other criminals with kids should they be let out of jail?


What do you think should happen to children who are US citizens when their parents are not and are here illegally?

[a la izquierda]

43. You need to do some research before you spout.

After NAFTA, immigration skyrocketed, in some places by more than 300%. The bill suggested immigration would decline and it certainly did the opposite. http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Portes/
You have a horribly skewed view on immigration. There are entire towns in Mexico that are depopulated of men of working age. These are towns in which entire extended families live in one house with a roof made of tarpaulins.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/illegal-immigration-and-nafta
You, like I, live in Ohio. I know the rhetoric spewed here. "They're taking American jobs, we could be doing those jobs."
Know what? That was the same exact thing said about Mexican workers in the 1930s.

[leftyohiolib]

52. i.d.k. where that came from i never said anything about "them" taking jobs

i didnt bring up nafta that was someone else making assumptions about someone he never met. my original post was in regards to someone blaming everyone in kansas for the problem, all i did was point out (or try to ) that the father was at least as much to blame. i then started getting links to charts and graphs on nafta and excuses for his breaking the law. i dont live in mexico only been across the border once but i bet he could have gotten here legally. many people still do and to excuse his entering this country illegally is a slap in the face to all who do things the way they are supposed to be done. nothing about taking jobs nothing about nafta. and most of all i dont beleive his children should be penalized they are us citizens.

[a la izquierda]

56. It is exceedingly difficult to come here legally from Mexico/Central America...

if you are an unskilled laborer.

[leftyohiolib]

57. that may be but that doesnt make it ok to break the law.

esp if you plan to have children

[a la izquierda]

68. Get back to me when you're family is starving...

and you need to flee to another country to work.
I realize that this is a slippery slope.
If you actually want a little education on the trends in immigration, I'd be happy to oblige. I teach immigration history. Otherwise, the good Lord did not put me on earth to force you to think like I do. I just will impart what I know based on my knowledge and experiences.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. +1

Thank you

[ohheckyeah]

39. The situation in Mexico is

grim for many if not most Mexicans. I lived 7 miles from the border and spent a lot of time in Mexico and the thing that struck me is EVERYBODY seems to take advantage of these hardworking, decent people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. How about we hold those PARENTS accountable for THEIR actions instead of starving their CHILDREN?

Just a thought.

[leftyohiolib]

32. that has been my point.

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Feed the parents, too! Why should ANYONE ANYWHERE GO HUNGRY? Illegal or not NO ONE SHOULD

have to go without food because they can not afford food.

I really hate Repugs!

[jwirr]

30. Change it to "punish kids (who are citizens of the USA) by starving them...... Until the law is

changed these children are legal citizens.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. More importantly, they are human beings.

[jwirr]

46. Absolutely. The point I was trying to make is that they can come after us to - being a citizen does

not seem to mean much anymore.

[hobbit709]

2. If you kill off enough of the poor, you have reduced poverty.

Don't you love that logic?

[xchrom]

3. how humane. nt

[RKP5637]

4. About time this guy was kicked out of office. KS, the new WI.

[EFerrari]

5. How is it even legal to deny US citizen kids food assistance

based on their parentage.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Good question

But I doubt anyone will fight back asking that.

I don't know what's worse in this state - the evil GOP or the failure of the rest of the state to fight back.

[RKP5637]

11. The GOP just does what they damn well please, it's like much of the

state has their head in the sand or brainwashed. I just don't know, it's a sad mix. As one person once explained it to me, it's like most people in Kansas think they're still in Eisenhower times when they vote republican.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Standing room only at our last county Democratic Party meeting

SOME are waking up. It's not enough, but it's good to see.

[RKP5637]

22. That is soooo good to hear!!!

[Saving Hawaii]

26. The economy's so bad they had to sell the chairs!

[xmas74]

48. Really?

I hope Missouri follows. Most don't even seem to know there's a meeting in my county, except for the hardliners.

[EFerrari]

14. This is a violation of the Civil Rights Act Title 6, at a mininum.

Of course, we haven't signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, along with Somalia and Sudan.

[msanthrope]

66. No, it really isn't. It actually corrects an EP problem that benefited only some households.

Under the new policy, SRS changed the way it counts household income when determining who is eligible for SNAP benefits. The formula now includes the entire income of all members of a household. Before the change, SRS counted only a portion if one or more members did not provide proof of legal U.S. residency.

SRS officials say the policy change, which is allowed under federal guidelines, is fair. The old formula gave households with illegal immigrants more benefits than some households with all U.S. citizens, said Angela de Rocha, SRS director of communications.

“Now, all households’ incomes are treated equally,” de Rocha said. “Prior to the policy change … U.S. citizens were being discriminated against.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/21/3384400/kansas-slashes-food-aid-for-children.html#storylink=cpy

Pedro can reapply for SNAP. But he will now have the same accounting as a US citizen for household income.

[treestar]

15. It is not

I doubt that this would stand up to any challenge whatsoever.

[dems_rightnow]

44. The article seems to indicate

That the change puts them on equal footing with that of US citizens, and that before they were somehow able to get more.

[msanthrope]

64. It will stand up to challenge. It's a legal guidelines change that corrects an EP

issue--
From the link--

Under the new policy, SRS changed the way it counts household income when determining who is eligible for SNAP benefits. The formula now includes the entire income of all members of a household. Before the change, SRS counted only a portion if one or more members did not provide proof of legal U.S. residency.

SRS officials say the policy change, which is allowed under federal guidelines, is fair. The old formula gave households with illegal immigrants more benefits than some households with all U.S. citizens, said Angela de Rocha, SRS director of communications.

“Now, all households’ incomes are treated equally,” de Rocha said. “Prior to the policy change … U.S. citizens were being discriminated against.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/21/3384400/kansas-slashes-food-aid-for-children.html#storylink=cpy

[treestar]

71. The citizen children would still count

I would hope.

[msanthrope]

73. Of course they count. What has changed is how family income is determined.

Prior to this change, it seems that undocumented income was not counted when calculating a means test. Now it will be.

For example, take family 'A', family 'B'---

Family A is comprised of 5 individuals, three of whom are minors. All are American citizens. All income accrued is counted in their means test. This does not change with the rules change.

Family B is comprised of 5 individuals, three of whom are minors. All minors are American citizens. Parent 1 is working legally. Their income is counted. Parent 2 is working, but is undocumented. That income used to NOT be counted. With the rule change, that income will be counted.

Now let's not fool ourselves here...this will undoubtedly affect families adversely. But as a rule change, on its face, it is, IMHO, one that will pass a rational basis test. Perhaps a higher-scrutiny test.

[treestar]

78. In a way that sounds fair enough

It illegal alien parent's income is there, then the children may not be in need.

Then strangely enough, the government has an interest in not deporting the illegal alien. Without that person's income, there could be more children qualifying for benefits.

[liberal N proud]

6. Starve them out -what a fantastic plan!

What did the children ever do to deserve this? WHAT???

[Terra Alta]

16. more proof Repukes are "pro-life" only until birth.

They want to save the blastocysts, but deny food to already born children simply because their parents aren't here legally. It disgusts me.

[EFerrari]

17. Brownback's 2011 Thanksgiving Message

[Odin2005]

21. All that pesticide most be rotting Kansans' brains.

[RKP5637]

23. Naked Lunch (1991)

"Director David Cronenberg brings William S. Burroughs' hallucinatory, "unfilmable" novel to the screen. Part-time exterminator and full-time drug addict Bill Lee (Peter Weller) plunges into the nightmarish netherworld of the Interzone, pursuing a mysterious project that leads him to confront sinister cabals and giant talking bugs."

http://www2.netflix.com/Movie/Naked-Lunch/60032450

[lindysalsagal]

24. Because they're such good, god-fearing church-goers, and

Jesus really doesn't love them unless they were born on this side of the texas border.

[EFerrari]

27. Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me,

and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

[tawadi]

29. "At a time when Gov. Sam Brownback has vowed to reduce child poverty"

Empty promises.

[justabob]

33. he didn't say anything about child mortality though

if the kids are dead from starvation, they won't be counted in the poverty stats.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Good point

Seriously, I wouldn't put this past any of the crazy rethuglicans in this state.

[justabob]

37. I know

It is really mind blowing. I can't believe any of these people are in office, anywhere. I feel like a stranger in a strange land anymore.

[pampango]

45. Two guesses as to which party controls Kansas - and the first guess doesn't count.

The Kansas Legislature is the state legislature of the U.S. state of Kansas. It is a bicameral assembly, composed of the lower Kansas House of Representatives, composed of 125 Representatives, and the upper Kansas Senate, with 40 Senators. Republicans hold a long-standing supermajority in both houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Legislature

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. Bingo

[Yo_Mama]

59. Then the Kansas GOP has been overly generous to children with illegal parents

I would never defend giving these kids less in the way of benefits, but this rule change puts children of illegal immigrants on the SAME basis of children with parents that are legally resident.

Seriously, read the article. Read the part where it says that before, Kansas didn't count the income of those without papers when they figured out who qualified for food stamps and how much.

How CAN you defend such a policy? Is it remotely fair that a child of two US legal residents should get less in the way of benefits than a child with an undocumented parent and one documented parent? Because that's what they were doing.

[EFerrari]

77. No, you are as wrong as possible.

Seriously. If everyone has papers in a household, everyone is counted as a resident along with all the income.

If two working people in a household don't have papers, their income is counted but their hunger is not. And that kind of counting hurts all the children in the household. How can YOU defend such a policy? I swear, now I've seen everything.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Exactly

Those defending this policy are defending deliberately starving human beings.

[EFerrari]

81. Not to mention, I don't see Brownback saying he will return the tax money of the immigrants

whose families he is refusing to serve. So, he rigs the system to exclude them and their kids and collects tax on their wages. Scumbag.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. And everyone who employs them saves a bundle

on salaries.

[Solly Mack]

49. K&R

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. Unbelievable. I was just kicked off my newspaper's comment board

because I believe it's cruel to starve children.

Some liberal media, eh?

[suffragette]

54. Quite simply inhumane

K&R

[Yo_Mama]

58. So US kids of illegal immigrant parents should get MORE benefits than those of legal residents?

I see all the outrage. Either almost no one bothered to read the article or you're just into professional outrage. This is an excerpt:

Under the new policy, SRS changed the way it counts household income when determining who is eligible for SNAP benefits. The formula now includes the entire income of all members of a household. Before the change, SRS counted only a portion if one or more members did not provide proof of legal U.S. residency.

SRS officials say the policy change, which is allowed under federal guidelines, is fair. The old formula gave households with illegal immigrants more benefits than some households with all U.S. citizens, said Angela de Rocha, SRS director of communications.

People on DU really believe that kids of illegals need MORE nutrition than kids of legal residents? They're not getting less! Before they could get more.

I hope you people just didn't bother to read the article. Otherwise, you have mental problems.

[msanthrope]

67. Um, I read it--and quoted the same section, above.

May I politely suggest you edit your last line--your post deserves to stay, but won't with that last line, I fear.

[EFerrari]

75. Remedial reading seems to be in order here.

First off, "kids of illegal immigrant parents" can be US citizens. It is illegal to deny US citizens ANYTHING based on their parentage.

Second, what the thugs in Kansas are doing is counting all the income and only some of the hungry bellies of a household to fix the system so they can cut food assistance to children.

Under the old system, those nasty kids with ILLEGAL PARENTS didn't get MORE than anyone. They got as much as anyone because all the mouths in the house were counted as well as all of the income.

If you still don't understand that, I will be happy to keep explaining it to you.

Good fucking grief.

[Quantess]

61. Meanwhile RWers are cheering "No more anchor babies!"

That is the whole intent, to throw a wrench into the sinister "anchor baby" scheme.
(please note my ironic use of language)

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. Read the comments after the story

You are exactly right.

[killbotfactory]

63. They are FINALLY sticking it to our exploiters!

Take that, children!

[lpbk2713]

72. So whatever happened to Compassionate Conservatism?

(snap) Oh ... that's right. It never existed.

It was just a catchy phrase the rethuglicans used to invoke when they were bullshitting, as usual.

[Vinca]

74. Nothing says Christian values like starving children.

[n2doc]

83. toon

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Love that!!