Correct me if I'm wrong, S-CHIP doesn't cover American citizens who happen

[RB TexLa]

to be sons and daughters of illegal immigrants?

American citizens by birth are denied a benefit because of who their parents are?

I have to ask are there any restrictions denying American citizens coverage due to the race or religion or sexual orientation of their parents as well?

[Solon]

1. If they are born here, they are citizens and qualify...

The part that DK and some others objected to was legal immigrant children not being covered, these are kids that were born elsewhere, and aren't citizens when they immigrate to this country(with parents/guardians, I assume).

[Blaze Diem]

3. I am in favor of SCHIP but have also seen abuses of it over the years.

The State of Oklahoma had to address poliices covering low income medical assistance due to an increase of nearly 200 % in applicants over a few years.
When tracking who were the greatest of the new applicants they revealed it was due to immigrants and their children.
Sorry, this is not to say they are not entitled to care, just that in this particular situation the choice was to either cover children who were citizens or reduce their coverage in order to include illegals.
This a very real issue and perhaps where the above argument got its start.

Not the intent to abuse a stressed system, but a case of states unable to handle theinflux of immigrants applying for health assistance fo rtheir children.

A tough and touchy issue, Of course all children should receive care, but when citizenship is the defining line, and funds are not forthcoming from the Federal level, cuz of that whole Iraq thing, animosity spreads and nobody is happy.

Don't know the solution to this.

[Solon]

5. See, its posts like this that piss me off so much...

Let's see if I can simplify this for you, children BORN IN THE UNITED STATES are CITIZENS, they even qualify to run for President, for crying out loud, it doesn't matter if their parents are legal or illegal immigrants. So, S-CHIP wouldn't be covering ILLEGAL immigrants in this case, would they?

[Lasher]

7. Now Solon, be cool.

Of course you are right. Children of legal and illegal immigrants, as well as all other children, are US citizens if they are born in the USA. There is a debate whether this is proper if a child is born to a mother who is not here legally, but let's talk about that some other day.

And so, children of illegals would not qualify for SCHIP only if they were not born here. Maybe there would be less confusion if we labeled these children according to their own status and not that of the parents: Illegal/undocumented immigrant children?

[Blaze Diem]

8. I don't know what you are refering to . I am talking about a situation that

caused the Staqte of Oklahoma to have to rethink who they were going to cover. The children that added 200% were illegal. The dilemma became one of not having enough funds to cover everyone.
What is a state to do when this happens? It is such a sensitive issue, and expect people to be pissed off - on both sides of the issue.
HEy our Fed Govt could really give a crap about those i need in the USA.
The more money that can be pilfered from SS programs to sustain a life, and laundered into a Bush crony's pockets under the guise of a no-bid contract..the happier those at the top are.

I truely wish I could change the way mankind thinks.
I watched thevideo of Naomi Wolf, speaking at WSU. If what she says is true, we need to unite against Bush policy rather than fight against each other..which is what his policies want us to do.

There is a cause for all this and there is a solution.

[onenote]

4. I believe you are correct: citizens are covered

I believe that children born in the US (citizens) are covered. In addition, as I understand it, the version of the bill enacted (and vetoed) does not substantially change current law with respect to coverage for legal immigrants. Specifically, both current law and the new law do not impose an absolute bar on SCHIP coverage for legal immigrants. What it does is impose a five-year 'waiting period'. Here is one explanation of the law that I found:

Currently: Permanent documented immigrants are eligible for public coverage but are subject to restrictions and stipulations. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 restricted documented immigrants arriving after August 22, 1996 from receiving federally-matched Medicaid coverage for their first five years in residence.

See also http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/downloads/Fi...

As I understand it, an earlier version of the SCHIP bill passed by the House would've given states the option of covering legal immigrants during their first five years of residence, but that provision didn't make it into the final bill enacted by both houses.

[mntleo2]

2. Illegasl Immigrants' kids are barred from most benefits

...and also are legal immigrants. Legal or illegal immigrants can't get food stamps, medical, or cash grants. The only thing LEGAL immigrants can receive is housing like Section 8 and they have to be legal. This pits poor Americans against immigrants because housing is such an expensive commodity. When low income Americans realize why they are being passed over while waiting in line for housing assistance, and that this is the only benefit legal immigrants can get, this almost always spurs them to work to reinstate the other benefits, since the working poor cannot afford housing no matter who they are and immigrants need the housing because they have no other help. See?

Hate to say it but "Thank-YEW Bill Clinton for signing Welfare DEformed and Hillary for going around the country with Joe LIEberman a couple years ago so they can applaud how well it worked. Yeah right, plunging women and children into permanent and hopeless poverty, and forcing 2 week old babies into daycare where they will never have a real mother is SO successful!

Cat In Seattle, advocate for low income people.

[Blaze Diem]

6. Well said..The issue of poverty is generally granted a band-aid

and a pat on the head by our Fed govt.
"plunging women and children into permanent and hopeless poverty" as you stated, is a sad truth in any city, state, legal or illegal.
The line between who gets, and who doesn't get in this nation is sinful.