Kansas slashes food aid for children of illegal immigrants

reply to post by mtnshredder

You have a very condescending and demeaning tone of post to the people that don't see eye to eye with your point of view.

I'm not in California.
The people I knew and worked with 'shoulder to shoulder' are not the same people you are talking about.

I've stated repeatedly that there are different sub-groups.

reply to post by np6888


You do realize that people take their kids to McDonolds to eat because its cheap, right? You do realize that when you have an inflated country with inflated prices with a 4-5 dollar price tag before tax on bread, and a 10 buck per pound price tag on lunchmeat, the dollar menu at McDonolds makes the money last longer, right?

Watch Food Inc....will explain in GREAT detail.

People overeat because the crap GMO'd food that this government has condoned since the 1980s is not nutrient rich. Check ATS threads on Codex Alimentarius. So even if you eat a sack of White Castles, you still may be hungry because they are empty calories.

But in this day and age, people are not picky about where their Ramen noodles come from, since its a KNOWN fact by anybody at the grocery store that the crap foods are a hellava lot cheaper and last longer than fresh hybrid produce.

reply to post by wildtimes


I have to say that I think Brownback made a good decision on this issue. No, I don't like the idea of starving children, either, and I like less the idea that children of citizens starve because illegals take the funds. There are a LOT of poor people, citizens, in Kansas. Many, in fact, are military families. When there are not enough funds for those, we cannot afford to pay out funds to people that should not be here. The fault here is with the parents that brought their children here, that came illegally, with no respect for our laws, that take and take from citizens. I know people, in various states, that needed aid and could not get it, because of the overloaded system, overloaded with illegals taking the money. When workers in the system tell you that you may as well not apply if you aren't hispanic, there is a big problem. One state I lived in (not Kansas), people I knew looking for any work, including day labor, could not get it, because the illegals took those jobs. I don't want to sound cold, but we have to take care of our own first. Same thing for foreign aid, really. We can't pay our bills, so how can we pay for the needs of other countries? This is no different. When there are no Americans going without, then we can discuss helping others. When people entering the country do so legally, I will respect their needs.

reply to post by apollo7keep


Why is it fair for the US to dump its # on the rest of the world?

Your logic makes no sense, go take a look at your military spending, THAT'S what's wrecking America. Not food stamps, for crying out loud, get your head out of ....

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by apollo7keep

 

Why is it fair for the US to dump its # on the rest of the world?

Your logic makes no sense, go take a look at your military spending, THAT'S what's wrecking America. Not food stamps, for crying out loud, get your head out of ....

Excessive military spending does not excuse excessive spending on immigrants. I think both should be adressed, but not in this thread.

Why is it fair for the US to dump its # on the rest of the world?

Its not. But the opposite is also true, they have no obligation to accept anyone.

reply to post by Maslo


The US needs to take care of home first and deal with the homelessness crisis on its own front doorstep. The breadlines and job lines are starting to resemble 1930 America and Russia under Nicolae Cescaeu.

At some point, those bootstraps that they keep telling the natural born folks to pull on should stop being given in droves to the non conformist immigrants who are not productive on this economy but self defeating via cheap labor and excessive drain on public policy.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

I don't want to sound cold, but we have to take care of our own first. Same thing for foreign aid, really. We can't pay our bills, so how can we pay for the needs of other countries? This is no different. When there are no Americans going without, then we can discuss helping others. When people entering the country do so legally, I will respect their needs.

I agree with you completely, LadyGreenEyes; we absolutely should not be giving anything to anyone until our own house is in order -- whether food aid, free razing services (like bombing entire countries to smithereens), free rebuilding service (after bombing other countries to smithereens), free military bases, free play money, or guns or jets or technology or dictator-removal....or ... any of the number of things our leaders withhold from we natural born citizens, and/or charge to us, to give to others, at our expense.

It embarrasses and astounds me. The answers, however, are not as simple as some have suggested, nor are the sources of the problems as straightforward as someone sneaking over the border. The first issue needing to be addressed in this particular situation is whether or not those children are rightful citizens, or are not. If so, they have the same rights as the rest of us. If not, then .... well, but they are.

Secondly, the Mexican and Central-American governments need to see to their own people's welfare. If anything, the US should be offering advice and assistance to their leaders. Not happening that I can tell.

Third, if the USA wants to retract the mandatory medical attention to anyone on our soil with a life-threatening condition, so be it. Either remove "childbirth" from the list of legitimate 'life-threatening conditions', or stop offering that aid to any foreign national.

Too many Americans are homeless, jobless, hungry, and hopeless .... to be doing anything but looking after them, their security, and the safety and humane conditions we hope for our children and grandchildren in the future.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by mtnshredder

 

.

I'm not in California.
The people I knew and worked with 'shoulder to shoulder' are not the same people you are talking about.

I've stated repeatedly that there are different sub-groups.

Doesn't matter if you are in Ca or not, your federal tax dollars are still going there, i.e.; gov grants that support programs that cater to illegals. That was the point.

Why should US citizens be responsible for the welfare of illegals when we can't even take care of our own? We are not supporting just mom but entire families of illegals that are living on our tax dollars. What they are doing is wrong and they know it. Do we really need "new" citizens that could care less about the health and welfare of our country?

reply to post by wildtimes

First of all, any essay regarding undocumented immigrants that still uses the inflammatory and archaic phrase 'illegal aliens' MUST, immediately, be considered biased.

So what you are telling me is that I must be PC and call them undocumented workers because it makes liberals feel uncomfortable. No Im sorry I dont have to do that.
And while I am thinking of it, I don't have to call Pro abortion pro choice and I dont have to call an unborn baby a mass of cells or a lining in the uterus.

reply to post by wildtimes

Secondly, you have ignored the fact that these people's children are still citizens, for now

yes I understand what you are saying. It seemed to me that the article you posted was focused more on the children of the "undocumented workers" than on other children of citizen parents. And that is a typical liberal ploy I'm sorry to say. Everything is a two edged sword. While this may have been a convenient mechanism for protecting people who want asylum from evil dictatorships, it also gives a way for people to abuse the system. There was no welfare State when our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution. This all came along in the century after the Bolshevik Revolution and after Marxism was imported by members of Skull and Bones at Yale University. It came during the reign of Wilson and FDR. And I challenge the plot of redistributing wealth as a socialist mechanism and Cloward/Piven as a way to overburden the system and push us over the edge to accept a complete Marxist way of life. That is why I oppose this stuff. Our Founding Fathers were for the Hidden Hand and Free Enterprise, private property, not for collectivism and the welfare state.
That is always where I stand.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I don't want to sound cold, but we have to take care of our own first. Same thing for foreign aid, really. We can't pay our bills, so how can we pay for the needs of other countries? This is no different. When there are no Americans going without, then we can discuss helping others. When people entering the country do so legally, I will respect their needs.

I agree with you completely, LadyGreenEyes; we absolutely should not be giving anything to anyone until our own house is in order -- whether food aid, free razing services (like bombing entire countries to smithereens), free rebuilding service (after bombing other countries to smithereens), free military bases, free play money, or guns or jets or technology or dictator-removal....or ... any of the number of things our leaders withhold from we natural born citizens, and/or charge to us, to give to others, at our expense.

It embarrasses and astounds me. The answers, however, are not as simple as some have suggested, nor are the sources of the problems as straightforward as someone sneaking over the border. The first issue needing to be addressed in this particular situation is whether or not those children are rightful citizens, or are not. If so, they have the same rights as the rest of us. If not, then .... well, but they are.

Secondly, the Mexican and Central-American governments need to see to their own people's welfare. If anything, the US should be offering advice and assistance to their leaders. Not happening that I can tell.

Third, if the USA wants to retract the mandatory medical attention to anyone on our soil with a life-threatening condition, so be it. Either remove "childbirth" from the list of legitimate 'life-threatening conditions', or stop offering that aid to any foreign national.

Too many Americans are homeless, jobless, hungry, and hopeless .... to be doing anything but looking after them, their security, and the safety and humane conditions we hope for our children and grandchildren in the future.

Mexico is a very, very, very wealthy nation. It just so happens that it's wealth is insanely concentrated. Mexico has the most Billionaires out of all the countries in North America.

By allowing Mexico to "solve it's problems" by flooding America, all your guaranteeing is that America will be in the same position as Mexico. With a few billionaires holding literally all the wealth and the rest little better than squatters.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

There was no welfare State when our Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution.

What do you call SLAVERY?
A slave, whether purchased outright and whose children inherited the same status, or an 'indentured' one who was bound for a certain length of time to pay off 'debts covered', was cared for by their Master...their OWNER.

When they drafted the Constitution, only white males with educations were allowed to vote. Others were considered inferior with insufficient brains to be given a voice.

Non-whites (slaves) and women (also slaves of the domicile) were not considered 'whole people.'

Horus, I see that you are passionate on your stance. We have widely divergent positions based on our individual knowledge base and 'take' on history. Thanks for participating in the thread. Go ahead and sling 'illegal aliens' around...much like using 'the N-word.' Uncomfortable? Yes. It makes me VERY uncomfortable when people degrade others. Why do you insist on using that term? They are HUMAN BEINGS, here on Earth; not from some other planet. They are here without permission, yes. That happens to be illegal. How hard is it for you to put yourself in the shoes of those parents for two minutes?

I dare say you have never experienced abject destitution, poverty in a place where a nearby hill is the 'village toilet', knowing that if you become ill, or your family members do, NO ONE is going to help you...
How about just saying "Foreign Nationals"? Why must you be derogatory and deliberately use an inflamatory and ugly term?

reply to post by korathin

By allowing Mexico to "solve it's problems" by flooding America, all your guaranteeing is that America will be in the same position as Mexico. With a few billionaires holding literally all the wealth and the rest little better than squatters.

America is already like that, korathin....just not as far along the path.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wildtimes

 

First of all, any essay regarding undocumented immigrants that still uses the inflammatory and archaic phrase 'illegal aliens' MUST, immediately, be considered biased.

So what you are telling me is that I must be PC and call them undocumented workers because it makes liberals feel uncomfortable. No Im sorry I dont have to do that.
And while I am thinking of it, I don't have to call Pro abortion pro choice and I dont have to call an unborn baby a mass of cells or a lining in the uterus.

edit on 27-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Calling illegal's undocumented 'immigrants' is an insult to the immigrants who came here through the proper channels and with respect to our laws.

reply to post by Night Star


Did they immigrate? Yes. = Immigrant
Are they aliens from another planet? No. = Immigrant
Are they legal? No. = illegal
Are they undocumented? Yes = undocumented.

Up to you how inflammatory you want your speech to be, regardless of who it is you think you are 'insulting' or 'defending.'

For my part, I will dismiss those who use ANY sort of negative, finger-pointing terminology as I see fit; their vocabulary accurately portrays their attitude and education. I won't use the most rude label I can think of to do it, however.

Oh, and one more thing....guess who those "undocumented" immigrants stay with when they arrive....
that's right. Their family members or friends/neighbors who came here 'legally.' That equates to the illegal act of 'harboring a fugitive'.


Woops, two more things......who is it who hires those undocumented immigrants when they arrive?
Employers who know full well those people are not eligible to work in the US. Who look at their fake IDs for about two seconds and then hand it back to them. That's an illegal act. Federal offense "employing those who are not lawfully eligible to work in the US."

And who is it who looks the other way when those employers are exposed as doing so? The government. An illegal act known as "conspiring/colluding to employ (= TAX) those who are undocumented."

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

yes I understand what you are saying. It seemed to me that the article you posted was focused more on the children of the "undocumented workers" than on other children of citizen parents. And that is a typical liberal ploy I'm sorry to say. Everything is a two edged sword. While this may have been a convenient mechanism for protecting people who want asylum from evil dictatorships, it also gives a way for people to abuse the system.

Thank you, Horus.
The article may very well be biased toward a liberal bent, but I have attempted in this thread to explain the issue as much bigger than just "food for children."

The system is abused at ALL LEVELS....
and it is the SYSTEM that needs to be changed.
Peace

I find some irony that you don't like the term "illegal aliens" and you see them as human beings( which they are). Yet, in your own words, you said repeatedly there are sub categories of illegals and the illegals I spoke about were not the same as the ones you have dealt with. Could you please tell me your criteria for segregating illegals into your subcategories and how many subcategories there are for illegals? I'm curios by your own definition on whom you feel we should help?

There are a lot of countries with much worse living conditions than Mexico. What about those poor families or is it an issue of proximity and convenience for those lucky enough to walk across the border and pop out a kid? I'm all in for saving the less fortunate on this planet but fresh out of ideas on how to go about it :pus:

Not sure where you get your facts, no, they don't always stay with "legals" when they get here. That's about as far from the truth as you can get. Are you also aware that if we give amnesty to illegals that they can now sponsor other illegals to come here. Do the math, it's a scary proposition if you care about the welfare of our country.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Night Star

 

Did they immigrate? Yes. = Immigrant
Are they aliens from another planet? No. = Immigrant
Are they legal? No. = illegal
Are they undocumented? Yes = undocumented.

Up to you how inflammatory you want your speech to be, regardless of who it is you think you are 'insulting' or 'defending.'

For my part, I will dismiss those who use ANY sort of negative, finger-pointing terminology as I see fit; their vocabulary accurately portrays their attitude and education. I won't use the most rude label I can think of to do it, however.

edit on 28-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Oh, and one more thing....guess who those "undocumented" immigrants stay with when they arrive....
that's right. Their family members or friends/neighbors who came here 'legally.' That equates to the illegal act of 'harboring a fugitive'.

edit on 28-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Woops, two more things......who is it who hires those undocumented immigrants when they arrive?
Employers who know full well those people are not eligible to work in the US. Who look at their fake IDs for about two seconds and then hand it back to them. That's an illegal act. Federal offense "employing those who are not lawfully eligible to work in the US."

And who is it who looks the other way when those employers are exposed as doing so? The government. An illegal act known as "conspiring/colluding to employ (= TAX) those who are undocumented."

edit on 28-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

You can dismiss me and anyone else who uses the term and goes against what you think and feel, but obviously there are two sides to this story. Those of us against the illegals are looking out for our own citizens and those who choose to come here through the proper channels and with respect for our laws.

Is it right for corporations to hire illegals, treat them badly and pay them poorly? is it right for them to send away a qualified citizen and replace them with an illegal? No it is not. Is it right for our government to look the other way, pick and choose which laws to enforce and cater to illegals while our citizens are in desperate need of jobs and benefits? No it is not. It doesn't take much of an education to figure that out. Common sense.

reply to post by Night Star

Is it right for corporations to hire illegals, treat them badly and pay them poorly? is it right for them to send away a qualified citizen and replace them with an illegal? No it is not. Is it right for our government to look the other way, pick and choose which laws to enforce and cater to illegals while our citizens are in desperate need of jobs and benefits? No it is not. It doesn't take much of an education to figure that out. Common sense.

Thanks very much for supporting my points.