Archive for Sunday, January 22, 2012

Kansas cuts food aid for illegal immigrants’ kids

January 22, 2012


— Kansas welfare officials have eliminated or slashed food stamp benefits for hundreds of low-income, U.S.-born children whose parents are illegal immigrants.

The cuts are the result of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services changing the way it counts household income when determining who is eligible for the food stamp program — now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The Kansas City Star reported that families affected by the change are those that contain a mixture of legal citizens and illegal immigrants. While illegal immigrants are not eligible for the food assistance, U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can be.

The issue is that the formula now includes the entire income of all members of a household, but calculates food stamp eligibility as if the citizen children are the only people in the household. Previously, SRS counted only a portion if one or more members did not provide proof of legal U.S. residency.


KS 5 years ago

"Previously, SRS counted only a portion if one or more members did not provide proof of legal U.S. residency." You mean you have to show proof of citizenship? Hummm?

DRsmith 5 years ago

Good..considering there are children whose parents are here legally going hungry. Maybe they will think twice about coming here illegally if they know everything isn't free.

DRsmith 5 years ago

Sure. Actually, you bring up a great point. Talk about a stupid law that should have been changed long ago.

parrothead8 5 years ago

Wow. I hope you don't have any kids. And if you do, I hope you've never done a single thing wrong.

Alceste 5 years ago

Nickle and dime "savings" like this will be eaten up by the increase in criminal activities.....not to mention the getting hit over the head with a pipe to take your money actions....(to buy food....and who can fault a a hungry person for so doing.....?).

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

"Suffer the little children?..." Sam's cult threw out the bible long ago; perhaps they kept this part.

jaywalker 5 years ago

It wasn't the church that cut the aid, gram.

jaywalker 5 years ago

Oh. Is "Christian" a reference to some old politician that used to do things like this? Or was she referring to Christian Slater? Bale? The saracen's nickname for Robin Hood?

jaywalker 5 years ago

Practiced in a church. Glad we've come full circle. Now quit bothering me with your contrary nothingness, if you please.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Sounds like the illegal alien breeders are in the arena of child endangerment.

usnsnp 5 years ago

DRsmith, unless you are native american, your ancestors were legal or illegal imigrants their children benifited from the law that children born in the United States are citizens.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years ago

And yet the Brownback administration won't man up and simply deport the illegals. They are clearly aware of specific individuals who are here illegally, but they are not acting to remove them from the country.

Instead, they attempt to starve children.

And whaddya you know, they have supporters for this policy. Takes a real big person to turn a blind eye to the illegal immigrant and deny food to children instead.

As a reminder: "My top priority is to end child poverty" -- Sam Brownback

Alceste 5 years ago

People can afford to have children because people who do NOT have children subsidize their education and total lifestyles: income tax deductions for dependents, blah, blah, blah, blah. Take your hand out of my pocket, FalseHopeNoChange.....

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

That's the ticket-- if we can get those dirty immigrants out any other way, we can starve their kids.

Republicans-- dontcha love their "compassionate conservatism?"

kernal 5 years ago

Way to go Sam, I'm sure your latest plan will work really well to get Mexican illegals out of the U.S. and back to Mexico, aka Heaven on Earth. Pretty dang cold hearted, Buster.

On a local level, are these kids at least still able to participate in the schools breakfast programs and are those programs state wide?

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Let's use a little common sense here. Many illegal immigrants are paid in cash, under the table. In that circumstance, determining household income, and by extension, eligibility for the food stamp program, would be very difficult. Add into that the fact that some in the household are eligible while others are not, and you have a system where it's going to be impossible to follow certain criteria and rules. Now, having put the state in a no win situation, we are all free to criticize them no matter what they do. They might cut off people who are eligible, give food stamps to those not eligible, who knows. It's the natural consequence of having a system where we expect some laws to be followed and encourage other laws to be ignored. You put people, organizations, governments in no win situations and then criticize them no matter what they do. Great little Catch-22 we have here.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

And Brownback has decided to err on the side of cutting off food aid to kids, in part so he can give tax cuts to the wealthy.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Listen to the comments on this thread and others. Listen to your own voice. Brownback errs no matter what he does. No matter when he does it. If his daughter marries, he's criticized. If he attends church, he's criticized. His name is mocked. Some criticism is earned. Some not. But when you consistently put people in no win situations, and then criticize them no matter what, that's not fair. I've said many times I'm no fan of Brownback. I didn't vote for him and I see no reason to vote for him in the future. But I'm also opposed to illegal immigration. I'm opposed to people getting paid under the table. I'm opposed to cheating the government which cheats the taxpayers.
The choices given our government in this situation were bad and bad. He chose bad. Now we can all say Brownbackistan, his daughter is ugly and he believes in sky gods. Feel better?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Now we can all say Brownbackistan, his daughter is ugly and he believes in sky gods. Feel better?"

I've said none of those things. I criticized him for this measure, which is part of his overall goal of greatly reducing the social safety net and using the savings to fund tax cuts to the wealthy.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

If your comment is for me, I don't believe in blanket condemnations of any politician. And I believe their families should be kept out of the discussion. If your comment was made to Bozo, he/she will have to answer for him/herself.

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

"It's the natural consequence of having a system where we expect some laws to be followed and encourage other laws to be ignored." === Good points. Legislators love to pass laws; they just don't want to talk about their consequences, or how to fund them. The big boys work in a different sphere, trying to keep laws from getting passed, messing them up in the regulations phase, or trying to get ones off the books (environmental protections, for example) that are bad for "biddness." See ALEC, Americans for "Prosperity" and the good old boys from Wichita for some examples. Most laws have unintended consequences.

bd 5 years ago

If they don't like it,,, go home or better still become legal!

Tea anyone???

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

From the original article in the KC Star:

'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.”

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

In all fairness, the Catholic church is one of the most pro-illegal, pro-open borders activist groups in America.

The reason is obvious.

rtwngr 5 years ago

In all fairness, your statement infers that the Catholic Church advocates illegal immigration and a "no border" policy which is totally incorrect. The church will never turn away those in need and seeking shelter. Nor will the church work to deport families or individuals. To say the church is complicit in illegal immigration would be accurate.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Progressives" want to help people in ways that actually work, which is why they support social safety net programs supported by taxes and run by government agencies.

You're welcome to fill in around the edges through your church, if you like, but don't pretend that a little bit of feel-good, but generally no more than symbolic, aid through your church is going to help much once you are able to re-establish the Dickensian nightmare you so crave.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Translation: You want to spend other people's money to solve problems you believe in.

chootspa 5 years ago

Oooh, I like this distortion game! Let's do yours.

Translation: It's perfectly ok to let babies starve, as long as they're brown.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Do you really believe that my comments to Bozo was a distortion? Bozo was advocating for tax dollars to be spent on causes for which he/she believes in. I said nothing about staving children, be they brown, green or purple. It seems you're the only one playing the distortion game. Have fun.

chootspa 5 years ago

Framing taxpayer money and government spending as "other people's money" whenever it's for something you don't support is, indeed, a distortion, and I'm tired of seeing the intellectually lazy idea being bandied around as if it's somehow clever. Only anarchists advocate for a budget of zero. The money belongs to We the People, and that's a group that includes you, me, and Bozo.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Speaking of intellectual laziness, do you criticize all such remarks. Or do you limit your criticism to people and topics where you fall the other of the argument?

chootspa 5 years ago

Am I more likely to point out an intellectually lazy argument against someone with whom I disagree? Sure, I'll own that (and anyone who wouldn't is most likely blind to their own biases), but in this particular case, the "spending other people's money" phrase is mostly used sarcastically by people with whom I don't "fall the other of the argument." [sic]

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

My "translation" comment was made specifically to Bozo, because he/she has a particular habit of answering by saying "translation" and then distorting the person's comment and/or intent. I was just giving a little medicine back in kind.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I believe we all have a responsibility to share the costs of a humane society, and as long as we have an economy that's designed to have very unequal distribution of wealth, a system of progressive taxation is the best way to do that.

Careful, jay, your inner dickensian spirit is showing.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

I have absolutely no problem with providing food stamps to American born children who are in need. I have a big problem providing food stamps to illegal immigrants. Now if someone makes it very, very difficult for that policy to be implemented, that's on them, not me.

Katara 5 years ago

The children affected by this are American born children. They are U.S. citizens

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

OK, but the 'progressives' will have opt out of benefitting from national defense. Thanks in advance for your fatal demonstration of your beliefs. I admire your convictions to passively stand there and die like that for such a questionable cause.

Oh were just posturing, weren't you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Only a small fraction of the "Defense" budget is really for defense. The vast majority is used to protect the interests of corporations that the .01% own.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

Interesting that after 18 years of service, you would deem it not important to support with tax dollars. Was it such a horrible experience that you consider it a waste of time in retrospect?

tomatogrower 5 years ago

Actually I give quite often to food banks. I guess I'll have to increase the amount. I'm so glad you love to see children starve. Don't get an abortion, but after that who cares. You conservatives are nothing but hypocrites. You want to be called pro life, instead of anti-abortion. What is so pro life about this action?

50YearResident 5 years ago

The first and most important thing that needs to be changed is the Law that says "any child born in the United States is a citizen of United States. That law is the quickest and easiest way for illegals on any nationality or race to get a foothold inside the US to start the process of bringing the rest of the family over because one member is a citizen. Have any of you noticed the influx of pregnant women in their last month that come here illegaly? They are ariving, on foot, by car, in airplanes and any other way to get their baby born here for the citizenship benefits. Change that law! Children of illegals should remain illegal and that means no benefits designed for citizens.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Go ahead and wipe your rear with the Constitution. It's what you want to do.

ebyrdstarr 5 years ago

It would require a constitutional change. The 14th Amendment provides "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." So while the children of official foreign diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction, pretty much everyone else. Yes, even children born to illegal immigrants. Seeing as how we exert jurisdiction over immigrants and their offspring all the time, it would be hard to argue otherwise.

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

"Let's use a little common sense here. Many illegal immigrants are paid in cash, under the table." ==== Another good point. So are many politicians, but their payments are usually much larger.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

If politicians are being paid in cash, under the table, not paying taxes on that income, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if we believe that we are all equal under the law, then we should do the same to the illegal immigrant who is paid under the table, in cash, and does not pay taxes. And we should do the same to those making such payments, whether it is to the politician or the illegal immigrant.

thebigspoon 5 years ago

And we should get tough on those who do the paying. It will never be that the illegals stop coming here if we, as a nation, stand passively by and let them, even encourage them, by paying them as we do. It doesn't, however, make sense to starve the children who were not responsible for getting her in the first place. Let's start by, if we must, getting rid of the illegals through legal channels, but let's not punish (starve) the kids. That's not sensible, let alone moral. Then, we can begin enforcing the laws we already have aimed at punishing the enablers, i.e., the employers who hire these people. It's just like any reward/punishment issue: no reward for coming here, they don't come. Punishment for those who hire them, they'll quit hiring them. The problem is, though, that we have to accept higher prices or lower productivity based upon whether "Americans" will take those lower-paying jobs or demand higher wages to do them. Ain't as easy as it seems, is it?

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

Punish the enablers, that's what you said. The enablers are the employers who hire them and the government that provides services. They are both enablers. I specifically said to punish those that hire illegal immigrants. I also said to have the government get out of the enabling business. Both.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

So ol' Sam is going to go with the strategy that if he can't get rid of them any other way, he's going to starve them out. Believe me, treating people like they are kudzu isn't going to work.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years ago

Sorry to see the children starve, but it won't be long. Their freeloading parents will move to a state that does not have this law, thus opening jobs and services for those Kansans who are more deserving.

Lets go a step further, and cut off all welfare to those who are able to work. Send those folks to another state and watch our taxes go down!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

If you're an undocumented immigrant in this country, if you're lazy, you don't survive. Any food stamps they get just make the sub-minimum wages they get paid stretch just a little farther.

So, in reality, the food stamps they get are really subsidies to the employers of these folks.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years ago

Get your checkbook out Bozo. How compasionate of you to spend other peoples monies on your progressive agendas.

woodscolt 5 years ago

Great, Blowsalot got a message from his god to starve children. Wonder how far a starving kid can walk. Probably not back to Mexico. Shooting people from helicopters to starving children and they think thats the christian way. I would like to hear how the republicans have justified this to the god they claim as their own. Republican party contiues its assault on people. Thats how they can maintain their anti-people platform.

Truly Amazing what manifests from the greed and hate republicans.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

Starving? Shooting people from helicopters?

I see that histrionic drivel is all you can bring to the table. Guess what...that dish is over-served. Most of us aren't eating any more of it.

woodscolt 5 years ago

Right, you just put it through the "no spin" spin zone and pretend it isn't what it is so you can digest the republican's despicable behavior. Sorry, don't subscribe to your spin zone. If you didn't just spin away the right wing fanatic kansas republicans actions and behaviors you would have to deal with it. Try justifying without denying it.

yourworstnightmare 5 years ago

Under our Constitution, children born in the United States are citizens of the United States, despite the status of their parents. See the 14th amendment.

Denying services to children of illegal immigrants, services that children of legal citizens receive, is a gross violation of the equal protection guaranteed by our Constitution.

ebyrdstarr 5 years ago

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm not sure that this article is long enough to accurately explain the change. As I understand it, the income of illegal immigrants was previously not being counted, thus meaning that their US-born children were actually receiving disproportionately more aid than US-born children of citizens were receiving. Say a family had a citizen parent earning $8 an hour and a non-citizen parent earning $12 an hour. The old rules would have looked only at the $8 an hour income to establish need. Now need will be established looking at all household income, regardless of proof of legal US residency.

yourworstnightmare 5 years ago

I understand this. These children are still being "punished" because of their parents' status.

While illegal immigrants are indeed paid under the table and their income is not recorded, so too does this happen in the "legal" community. Also, the "legal" parents might get help from relatives, grandparents, and friends that also doesn't count toward their household income.

This measure singles out undocumented income of illegal parents, not all undocumented income of legal and illegal parents.

Thus, it is punishing children, US citizens, for having illegal parents. This is a violation of the Constitution.

ebyrdstarr 5 years ago

I'm not sure about that. I think the old system was possibly treating children of immigrants more favorably than children of citizen parents. The 3 different articles I have read on this have all explained it differently, so I'm not convinced I yet understand the actual impact, but I'm not yet ready to say this is denying equal protection to children of immigrants. I think it might just be restoring an equal footing. Or at least trying to close a loophole.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

You need to read the original article in the KC Star (linked in my other posts).

The hard cold fact is that before this new measure, we were giving illegal aliens a 60% cut in income requirements to get the same benefits as American citizens.

Do you understand that we were punishing the legal children of legal parents with the old system...or are you so wrapped in PC dogma that you don't even care?

repaste 5 years ago

Article is pretty muddy, but it looks like undocumented folks income is counted but now they do not count as members of household, causing the percentage income per to fall. "Kansas would use only a portion of that income (two-fifths, or $640) when determining whether the household was eligible for food stamps. (A family of five U.S. citizens earning $1,600 a month also would qualify.) " " So while SRS counts the family’s full $1,600 income, it calculates food stamp eligibility as if the two citizen children were the only people in the household."

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

+1 “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

WAIT!! WTH is going on here?

We have been giving illegal immigrants a giant advantage in meeting food stamp requirements all along! We have only been counting 40% of their income, as compared to 100% of US citizen parents' income to get these benefits to begin with.

Unbelievable! Why isn't this in the LJW article. Are they deliberately being deceptive?

"Before the October change, the state did what Missouri and the vast majority of other states do: In households with ineligible members (including non-U.S. citizens), adjust the income for the reduced household size.

Under the old system, when Pedro’s family applied for benefits for his two U.S. children about a year ago, he was making $1,600 a month.

Kansas would use only a portion of that income (two-fifths, or $640) when determining whether the household was eligible for food stamps. (A family of five U.S. citizens earning $1,600 a month also would qualify.) Pedro said his daughters received $280 a month in food stamps.

Under the new policy, SRS doesn’t adjust the household income to account for the three non-citizen member. So while SRS counts the family’s full $1,600 income, it calculates food stamp eligibility as if the two citizen children were the only people in the household. At that income level, Pedro says he was told they don’t qualify."


DRsmith 5 years ago

Now KawRiverCrow, stop throwing those silly facts out there. Bozo and boys/girls don't want to hear those. They just think we should give hand outs indiscriminately. And would you expect anything different from the Lawrence newspaper? It is a liberal rag. I get on here because it is entertaining as all get with Brownback in office. What a bunch of whiners.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Both Medicaid and foodstamps are paid for out of Federal funds. This will have no impact whatsoever on the state's own bottom line. This is a grandstand gesture and may very well be illegal.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

"This will have no impact whatsoever on the state's own bottom line. "

False, the feds match us dollar for dollar on Medicaid.

John McCoy 5 years ago

Cutting food aid for children? You people are acting like Texans now. This is the kind of thing our Governor Rick Perry does. I would hope that you would be embarrassed.

realisticvoter 5 years ago

That explains where brownie got the idea. Somebody needs to explain, he will never be on a Perry ticket as VP. And for sure, not even someone as ignorant as Newt would have him.

verity 5 years ago

I am not arguing one way or the other about the SNAP policy, but there seems to be a lot of misinformation being disseminated here about "illegals."

There are illegals who have been in the U.S. working at the same full time job for years. They are both brown and white. Their employers are paying them "over the table" so both employer and employee are paying the required taxes and the "illegals" will never see a penny of those taxes for social security, etc. Property taxes are being paid on their houses. The employers are frustrated because (1) even though the jobs are well paid and with good benefits, they rarely can find U. S. citizens to do them and when they have hired citizens the results have been disastrous and they have had to let them go, and (2) they have tried to get the employees legalized and are very frustrated with the system. Other than this the employers and employees are law abiding and upstanding members of the community. The jobs are ones that U.S. citizens apparently don't want to do or are incapable of doing.

Everybody (including the law) knows about this. They are welcomed in the community as equals. Their "anchor babies" are benefiting from the school system, but no doubt they will grow up to contribute more to the system than they take out, just as their parents are.

I have no idea of the percentage of illegals who are in this situation, but I don't think anybody knows how many people "are paid under the table" either. It certainly sounds good though to accuse many people of this.

In conclusion, any solution to this situation will have to take into consideration the people who are here full time and the migratory workers who are essential to our economy. I think the situation in Alabama last summer shows that. There is no way that we can export all illegals anyway. We need to come up with a sensible solution, not based on knee-jerk reactions to what in many cases isn't even fact.

The ethics of how we treat others has already been discussed, so I see no need to go into that.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

I have done the math on unclaimed remittances for Social Security. Yes, they put in money that they won't get out, but it comes out to 0.8% of the total annual receipts. This is hardly enough to make up for the overall effects of wage suppression and under-the-table income (totally tax free in all regards). I moved here from Phoenix AZ, where I rubbed shoulders with half a million illegal aliens and the people who knowingly hire them while using an array of fraudulent techniques to avoid paying taxes. I could give you names and numbers if it were appropriate to do so in a public forum.

As far as housing tax, sales tax and all that other stuff you want to lavish praise on them for...even meth heads pay tax on ephedrine. Can I use your argument to condone meth abuse?

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

"I could give you names and numbers if it were appropriate to do so in a public forum." === Good point, and one could do the same in Kansas or any other state. The Republican's have a problem with this because the same people who scream about "them illegals" are the same ones who are hiring them at low wage with no or minimal benefits to save money. It's a fright, I tell ya!

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

You are only half right when you assign these behaviors to 'Republicans only'. There is plenty of guilt to go around both sides. Perhaps we can all agree that our own citizens of either party need to be held legally accountable for their illegal actions.

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

I stand corrected, sir or madam. You are right. There are crooks on both sides of the aisle; all it takes is a love of money and a distain for laws and human rights.

verity 5 years ago

Kawrivercrow, I was lavishing praise on no one. I was pointing out that there are other sides to the issues. I object to the attempt to put everyone, employers and employees into one box and am saying that this is not going to solve the problem.

We need to realize that there are different kinds of illegals and not put them all in the same category. Some have subverting the law as their primary reason. There may be some who come merely to game the system and get all free stuff without working. Then there are the ones---and I suspect this is the majority---who come out of desperation, many of whom are willing to work harder and under much worse conditions than we are. All other things equal, most people would probably rather stay where they are than move away from their homes and families. Whether the benefit to our society overall balances out with what they cost, I don't know and I don't think anyone does because so much of it isn't and can't be recorded.

I repeat what my point was---making out that all illegals and their employers are terrible people, mooching on our society, is not going to solve the problem. We need to deal with this both in a rational and in a humane way---and try to ascertain what the unintended consequences might be before we make laws.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

I must agree with kawrivercrow. My experiences in California were much the same as his in Arizona. One could drive through any major city and see a hundred illegal immigrants at every Home Depot, every Sherman Williams, etc. On any given day, their numbers could easily swell into the thousands in just one city. These potential workers, and I call them that because on any given day, they may or may not get hired, but they will suppress the wages of legitimate contractors and those in the building trades. And they will get paid under the table, often by unlicensed contractors. Those that hire them will get substandard work done by unqualified workers who are being supervised by unlicensed contractors. And if they don't get work, then what. They get services in sanctuary cities who have as their official policy requirements against even asking if a person is here legally.
The thing is this, the illegal immigrants sometimes provide a net benefit to our society and to our economy. Sometimes they don't. Most are good, decent human beings. A few are not. In almost every way I can think of, they're just like Americans born here, with one exception. They weren't born here and as such, they are not American citizens. And they've broken the law to get here. And in my opinion, it's bad public policy to send the message that it's O.K. to break some laws because that only encourages people to break more laws.

verity 5 years ago

I never said that this doesn't happen or that it isn't a problem.

Neither of you has answered my question about a good way to solve this problem.

And I will add, do you never, ever break a law? And with less reason to do so than some of the illegals have? (speed limits, not reporting cash income when you did a small job for a neighbor, sliding through a Stop sign when the law isn't around, etc).

But we can always justify it when we break a law.

The laws need to be changed so that: (1) They can be enforced. To enforce what we have now has proven to be impossible, (2) They are humane.

jhawkinsf 5 years ago

We don't know if the current laws can be enforced since we haven't tried.
We had a one time only amnesty and people are advocating for another. Common sense tells me that if we do, we'll need another in another generation. Over and over we're told that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won't do. Half true. The things I saw described people in the trades, jobs many Americans will do. Jobs Americans want to do. Yes, working in fields, picking fruit is indeed something Americans don't want to do. Maybe we should import them like we import everything else.
And among the illegal immigrant population are substantial numbers who don't work. Whether they are currently unemployed, old, young, sick, whatever. In that way they're like everyone on the planet. I don't mean to disparage them. Just don't call them undocumented workers. They're not workers at all. So of the 12 million, some work full time, some part time and many don't work at all. I doubt there is a net benefit to our society and having them here illegally sends the wrong message about obeying the law. And as to being humane, I don't think it's fair to put someone in a no win situation and then expect them to behave well. An illegal comes here and has an American citizen child and I'm accused of breaking up a family should the illegal be caught. No. They put us all in a terrible situation. The fault lays squarely at their feet.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years ago

The new SRS policy pretends non-citizen household members do not exist.

Under previous policy, utilized by 46 other states, household earnings were divided by the number of eligible citizens to determine income.

Now, SRS simply pretends the non-citizen household members do not exist. As stated in the Star article, a household earning $1,600/month with 2 citizen children is now treated as a two-person household earning $1,600/month.

Now there's a wonderful immigration policy -- just pretend the immigrants aren't real.

And yet the folks are lined up to support that lunacy. Dear Brownbackers -- your dear leader knows the names and addresses of illegal immigrants and he is doing nothing about it but trying to starve their children.

"My number one priority is ending child poverty" -- Sam Brownback

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

Why would you read the Star article and then deliberately ignore the fact that we had been giving the illegal alien a 60% cut in meeting requirements for eligibility?

Prior to the change, "Kansas would use only a portion of that income (two-fifths, or $640) when determining whether the household was eligible for food stamps. (A family of five U.S. citizens earning $1,600 a month also would qualify.) Pedro said his daughters received $280 a month in food stamps."

Bob_Keeshan 5 years ago

Golly, you are proof that math is hard. Pedro was not getting a cut, the household income was reflective of the total members of the household. Only a lair, like SRS spokeswoman Angela DeRocha, would infer otherwise or suggest that somehow a 5 person household with illegal immigrants was getting more benefits than similar household with no illegal immigrants.

There are 5 people living in that household. Under the new guidelines, SRS is assuming it is the two citizen children earning $1,600/month for a two person household and pretending nobody else lives there.

Makes you wonder why SRS is not placing these parentless children into state custody. Also makes you wonder about why child labor laws are not being enforced.

kawrivercrow 5 years ago

I believe you may be correct on that one. After re-reading it closer, it appears they may be be specifically talking about the family of 5 with with 3 illegal aliens (IAs) and 2 citizen children. I interpreted it to mean they only counted 40% of all IAs' income regardless of family size. I am still not sure, as it is worded unclearly, but what you say does make sense.

Regardless, having watched a massive influx of IAs turn the state of AZ into a giant seething cesspool in one short decade, I agree with most measures that dissuade more from coming here illegally and removing those already here. Until the feds do their constitutionally-mandated job of controlling the nation's borders, each individual state will be forced to do whatever is in their power to push them somewhere else. If I truly believed that people would go suffer hypo-caloric malnutrition from this measure, I would not support it. However, I do not believe that will happen, here or elsewhere in the USA. Food is the cheapest and most plentiful here as it has ever been in the history of mankind. People only need to spend their food dollars wisely in order to meet their basic needs.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years ago

So then you are angry at Brownback, who knows where they live but is neither rounding them up nor moving them out.

RonBurgandy 5 years ago

An yes, the ever helpful "you're either with me or against me" comment. Compromise be damned.

Sunny Parker 5 years ago

Does the word 'Illegal" not mean anything to you people? Geez..

RonBurgandy 5 years ago

Why don't some people see the problem with this? It's children that are affected, children that can't "go get a job."

Children that are US Citizens. Ridiculous.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years ago

"My top priority is ending child poverty" -- Sam Brownback

ivalueamerica 5 years ago

Brownback misunderstood what the Bible meant when it said Suffer the children.

He thought it was his order to send children to bed without supper based on the sins of the father.

Brownback sucks.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.