Kan. House backs policy on food stamp...

Kan. House backs policy on food stamps, immigrants

There are 18 comments on the KCTV5 story from Mar 16, 2012, titled Kan. House backs policy on food stamps, immigrants. In it, KCTV5 reports that:

The Kansas House has given strong support to a state policy reducing or denying food stamps to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCTV5.

Right On

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Mar 16, 2012
Good!
Cat74

United States

#2 Mar 16, 2012
They cannot deny them. They are American citizens. Unless you make it impossible for the children born here to become citizens if born to illegals, they must give them all the freebies all the other grifters get.
LOL

De Soto, KS

#3 Mar 17, 2012
Excellent decision. As for the kids, they belong to their illegal alien border jumping parent(s) let them feed them!
Exactly

De Soto, KS

#5 Mar 17, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
They cannot deny them. They are American citizens. Unless you make it impossible for the children born here to become citizens if born to illegals, they must give them all the freebies all the other grifters get.
Thus the 14th Amendment needs a good overhaul!

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#6 Mar 17, 2012
Exactly wrote:
<quoted text>Thus the 14th Amendment needs a good overhaul!
No need for that. If we had a real president, he would stop birthright citizenship overnight by declaring immediate deportation of any illegal who gives birth in an american hospital.
right on

De Soto, KS

#7 Mar 17, 2012
Speeders Kill Kids wrote:
<quoted text>
No need for that. If we had a real president, he would stop birthright citizenship overnight by declaring immediate deportation of any illegal who gives birth in an american hospital.
Unfortunately we don't have one?
Cat74

United States

#8 Mar 17, 2012
Don't get me wrong, I am all for motivating the llegal to return home, by starving them out, but I think as long as their children are Americans they get what all other Americans get free.
ima

United States

#9 Mar 17, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for motivating the llegal to return home, by starving them out, but I think as long as their children are Americans they get what all other Americans get free.
Really, just cause you say so? well from the looks of it you're in for a rude awakening, you and your illegal counter parts. Hell you're probably one them which is why you're fighting tooth and nail to keep the freebies coming.

REWBA

“RelaxEverythingW illBeAllright”

Since: Mar 11

Hutchinson, KS

#12 Mar 17, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for motivating the llegal to return home, by starving them out, but I think as long as their children are Americans they get what all other Americans get free.
Nobody is going to starve. Before this rule, they wouldn't include the income of the illegals living in the household. For example, a household where both parents are illegal but their children are US born, they didn't include the income of the illegal parents when figuring eligibility for food stamps so the US Citizen children received food stamp benefits for a household income of ZERO even though their father earns a thousand dollars each week roofing homes and their mother earns five hundred each week cleaning rooms at the super 8 motel.

The same family except both parents are US citizens, their fifteen hundred dollar a week income would preclude them from assistance.

Now, Kansas counts the income of everyone in the household. What's not fair about that?

Since: Apr 10

Houston, TX

#13 Mar 17, 2012
Court says immigrant food-stamp cuts constitutional

"Feb 29 (Reuters)- Washington State did not violate the constitutional rights of legal immigrants when it discontinued their food stamp benefits, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld state budget cuts that eliminated food assistance benefits for certain legal aliens, reversing a lower court that had blocked the money-saving measure.

"States constitutionally can do precisely what Washington did here: provide supplemental benefits when the state's coffers bulge, but eliminate them when the state's resources diminish," the three-judge panel wrote.

Washington had participated in the federal government's food stamp program since its inception in 1964, distributing federal benefits to aliens and U.S. citizens alike. In 1996, the federal government dramatically scaled back the benefits for immigrants, requiring them to meet a host of prerequisites, including a five-year residence requirement. In response, the state of Washington decided to fill the gap, providing state food benefits to legal aliens who no longer qualified under the federal welfare program.

But facing budget reductions, Washington terminated its food assistance program in February 2011, stripping over 10,000 households of their state benefits. Qualified aliens and U.S. citizens continued to receive federal food stamp benefits.

Monica Pimentel, a legal immigrant and mother of three, sued in 2011 to block the new cuts, accusing the state of violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. As a victim of domestic violence, Pimentel was entitled to be in America, but did not meet requirements for federal food assistance.

The district court judge Marsha Pechman agreed with Pimentel, blocking the cuts and authorizing a group of 10,350 households, or 14,350 people, who no longer qualified for food stamps to sue together in a single class action.

But the 9th Circuit panel reached the opposite conclusion, overturning the lower court. It reasoned that Pimentel could not point to any other immigrants or U.S. citizens who received more favorable treatment than the class did from the state."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Cali...
Cat74

United States

#14 Mar 17, 2012
That is perfect.

REWBA

“RelaxEverythingW illBeAllright”

Since: Mar 11

Hutchinson, KS

#15 Mar 17, 2012
sterco wrote:
Swimming a river and dropping a turdittos on the American tax-payer does not make a citizen. SUBJECT TO THE JURISTICTION THER-OF hardly equates to pushing out a little brown biscuit after swimming the river!!! And then dropping the hospital bill on the American tax-payer to add insult to injury!!! This has to be dealt with and it will be by the Supremes. I am not naive enough to believe that it will go into past practice but it will not doubt be a ruling that puts and end to this absurdity!!!! After all this is how we got RICO!!! Enough said!!!
What do you believe the words: "SUBJECT TO THE JURISTICTION THER-OF" means? Please entertain me and write a thorough explanation, in your own words, exactly what you believe those words mean.

“Work hard at work worth doing.”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#16 Mar 18, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for motivating the llegal to return home, by starving them out, but I think as long as their children are Americans they get what all other Americans get free.
The illegal parents are applying for these perks since the kids can't do it for themselves. At least one parent should be a legal citizen before applying for said freebies. Why can't that aspect be the loophole needed to exclude illegals from dipping into coffers in which THEY never contributed? It is pretty apparent that illegals use these freebies more than the kids for whom they applied.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#20 Mar 18, 2012
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>The illegal parents are applying for these perks since the kids can't do it for themselves. At least one parent should be a legal citizen before applying for said freebies. Why can't that aspect be the loophole needed to exclude illegals from dipping into coffers in which THEY never contributed? It is pretty apparent that illegals use these freebies more than the kids for whom they applied.
Yep that's why we need to change birthright citizenship to require one parent to be a legal citizen before they even receive a birth certificate for their children, otherwise a "non-citizen" birth cert of live birth is issued which would NOT be accepted at any government office.

REWBA

“RelaxEverythingW illBeAllright”

Since: Mar 11

Hutchinson, KS

#21 Mar 18, 2012
sterco wrote:
<quoted text>Subject to the juristiction thereof means do you have permanent residency and citizenship in the USA. If you are to fukin stupid to understand that please do not respond. It does not mean that you just back crawled with your pregnant belly sticking up in the air into the hospital ER still soaking wet from you float across the river.
That is the WHOLE problem here. You are illiterate.

Go back to school and learn what being subjected to the jurisdiction of a state means. Better yet, go take your neighbors car and crash it into the local police station. The fine men and women working there will show you what being subjected to their jurisdiction means.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#23 Mar 18, 2012
Offer free healthcare, education, welfare and voting registration to illegal immigrants, then bust them when they try to collect.

Stop voter fraud.

REWBA

“RelaxEverythingW illBeAllright”

Since: Mar 11

Hutchinson, KS

#24 Mar 18, 2012
sterco wrote:
<quoted text>The problem here is that you are an arrogant beotch and a minority one at that!!! You are a specific part of the female anatomy that you can figure out for yourself. You advocate the invasion of the United States by another country and race. YOU SUCK more than you can ever imagine. NOW STFU!!! Take your own car and crash it into whichever pole you choose.
I didn't realize that you were functionally illiterate before. I respect the fact that you are trying to improve your reading and writing skills here on Topix. Keep up the good work! I know you are trying.

Interesting

Saint Louis, MO

#28 Mar 18, 2012
spytheweb wrote:
Court says immigrant food-stamp cuts constitutional
"Feb 29 (Reuters)- Washington State did not violate the constitutional rights of legal immigrants when it discontinued their food stamp benefits, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld state budget cuts that eliminated food assistance benefits for certain legal aliens, reversing a lower court that had blocked the money-saving measure.
"States constitutionally can do precisely what Washington did here: provide supplemental benefits when the state's coffers bulge, but eliminate them when the state's resources diminish," the three-judge panel wrote.
Washington had participated in the federal government's food stamp program since its inception in 1964, distributing federal benefits to aliens and U.S. citizens alike. In 1996, the federal government dramatically scaled back the benefits for immigrants, requiring them to meet a host of prerequisites, including a five-year residence requirement. In response, the state of Washington decided to fill the gap, providing state food benefits to legal aliens who no longer qualified under the federal welfare program.
But facing budget reductions, Washington terminated its food assistance program in February 2011, stripping over 10,000 households of their state benefits. Qualified aliens and U.S. citizens continued to receive federal food stamp benefits.
Monica Pimentel, a legal immigrant and mother of three, sued in 2011 to block the new cuts, accusing the state of violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. As a victim of domestic violence, Pimentel was entitled to be in America, but did not meet requirements for federal food assistance.
The district court judge Marsha Pechman agreed with Pimentel, blocking the cuts and authorizing a group of 10,350 households, or 14,350 people, who no longer qualified for food stamps to sue together in a single class action.
But the 9th Circuit panel reached the opposite conclusion, overturning the lower court. It reasoned that Pimentel could not point to any other immigrants or U.S. citizens who received more favorable treatment than the class did from the state."
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Cali...
Most interesting, thanks!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sam Brownback Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump to nominate Kansas governor to serve as r... 19 hr mr gleeble 10
News Trump Nominee Won't Say Whether Foreign Laws Cr... Mon Love is the Answer 12
News Kansas governor made unpublicized trip to Israe... Oct 11 USS LIBERTY 2
News Trump election-fraud official running for Kansa... Oct 11 congress indabag 5
News Kansas political leaders debate Brownback's legacy Oct 11 palmach congress 10
News Trump nominee defends move to void gay worker p... Oct 9 spud 8
News Murderer sues Kansas prison for 'imposing Chris... Oct 1 St Rick Saintpornum 40
More from around the web