Oregon advocates seek state food aid for immigrants excluded by feds
Farmworker Francisca Aparicio washes lettuce in July 2023 as part of an Oregon Food Bank program. The Food Bank and other advocates back a bill that would make food benefits available to more immigrants. (Oregon Food Bank)
Oregon lawmakers and food advocates are starting smaller this year in their bid to make cash food benefits available to immigrants who are ineligible under federal rules.
After failing to get a bill passed in 2023, they've narrowed the group who would be eligible for state aid to children and youth and older people at risk of hunger.
In 2023, supporters unsuccessfully lobbied for the passage of a proposal that would have provided state funding to provide food benefits to about 62,000 immigrants. Food for All Oregonians, a coalition of more than 160 organizations and the Oregon Food Bank, wants to see all immigrants get the food benefits they would otherwise qualify for through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
About 770,000 Oregonians receive SNAP food benefits, representing nearly 447,000 households. In November, $138.4 million in benefits were issued for food, an average of $309 a month for each family. To qualify, individuals can earn up to $2,510 and a family of four can earn up to $5,200 a month.
On Monday, advocates said they are pushing for a scaled-down version, Senate Bill 611, that would provide state-funded food benefits to immigrants who are under 26 years old or 55 and older and are ineligible for SNAP benefits because of their immigrant status. The 2023 bill which died in a budget subcommittee, would have included all ineligible immigrants, regardless of their age.
'This bill isn't just about food — it's about building a stronger, more equitable Oregon where everyone has the opportunity to thrive,' said Wlnsvey Campos, D-Aloha, and a chief sponsor of the bill.
The group includes undocumented immigrants and residents under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. It also includes legal permanent residents who have not yet been in the U.S. for five years, which generally is required for SNAP benefits.
'Our seniors who are very vulnerable to food insecurity, and our children – those are the two populations that this particular bill is focused on,' Andrea Williams, president of the Oregon Food Bank, said in an interview. Now we don't want to stop there. We would eventually like every age.'
Advocates don't yet know how many people of the 62,000 fall within the two age groups, or what the costs would be.
The Oregon Latino Health Coalition, part of the coalition, noted the role of immigrants in working to provide food for Oregonians, even as they cannot access SNAP.
'Access to nourishing food is a fundamental aspect of health,' said Andrea Vanessa Castillo, policy and advocacy manager at Oregon Latino Health Coalition. 'Immigrants and refugees are vital — they help put food on the table for families across our state. Yet, they remain excluded from essential benefits like SNAP.'
Outside the SNAP program, demand for food assistance is high. Oregonians made 2.5 million visits in 2024 to the Oregon Food Bank network's 1,400 sites, an increase of 31%. They distributed nearly 100 million pounds.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP unveil long-awaited SNAP proposals for Trump bill
Senate Republicans on Wednesday rolled out a suite of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a key component of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' – but it dials back some of the proposals sought by the House that drew intraparty concerns. The new legislative text from the Senate would require states to cover some of the cost of SNAP benefits, which are currently completely funded by the federal government, if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028, while allowing states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see its share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent to 15 percent. The House, by contrast, called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its agricultural proposal passed as part of a broader plan to advance Trump's tax agenda last month, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 to 25 percent. The softened proposal comes as Senate Republicans expressed concerns about how the House pitch would have impacted states. 'This bill takes a commonsense approach to reforming SNAP-cutting waste, increasing state accountability, and helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training,' Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman (R-Ariz.) said in a statement on Wednesday. 'It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed.' 'At the same time, our farmers and ranchers are facing real challenges,' he said. 'This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel, and fiber in the world. It's an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture.' Like the House bill, the Senate bill would also decrease the administrative cost the federal government is required to pay to help cover program operations in the states by 25 percent, but beginning in fiscal year 2027. The proposals in both chambers also seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future and beef up work requirements, as well as farm provisions that GOP leaders have argued will make it easier to craft a bipartisan farm bill in the months ahead – although Democrats have said otherwise. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee estimated the recent legislation would generate $144 billion in net savings in the years ahead as the party looks to ramp up cost-cutting measures in Trump's plan amid concerns about the overall deficit impact of his tax priorities. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Food Bank of Iowa is sounding the alarm while the fate of the President's 'big, beautiful bill' sits in the United States Senate. The concerns outlined by the organization are food insecurity and limited resources that food banks already have. 'We're gravely concerned about the one big, beautiful bill act as written,' said Annette Hacker, Vice President of Strategy and Communications for the Food Bank of Iowa. 'It stands to slash $267 billion with a 'b' from SNAP over ten years. And it takes 9.5 billion meals a year off of the table for people facing hunger.' New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa The bill has states pay for these federal benefits, in part, through a cost sharing method. Hacker said that this would be roughly $40 million a year the state would have to account for, which to her doesn't feel possible. The legislation also raises the age of SNAP work requirements to 65-years-old, extending those requirements to parents without children younger than 7-years-old. 'The crushing need this would create is not possible for the charitable food system, that's us, to absorb. If you look at every Feeding America food bank in this country, of which Food Bank of Iowa is one of 200 and all the partners and pantries we stock across the entire country, that's 6 billion meals a year distributed. This would be 9.5 billion more meals, a gap that would have to be filled. And the math just doesn't work,' said Hacker. U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said that the goal is for the chamber to take it up on the Senate floor in the last week of June. To volunteer or donate, visit the Food Bank of Iowa's website. Iowa News: Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Winner named in Coolest Thing Made in Iowa contest New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline Third case of measles in Iowa this year reported by HHS Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers scale back proposal for unemployment strike payments amid blowback
Hundreds of educators, parents and students joined a rally Nov. 1. 2023 at Roosevelt High School in north Portland to support striking teachers. Teachers like them could soon receive up to 10 weeks of unemployment benefits under a compromise negotiated by Oregon lawmakers.(Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A particularly controversial measure that would give unemployment benefits to public and private Oregon workers during labor strikes survived a key Wednesday hearing after lawmakers agreed to cut the length of time in which workers on strike could cash checks by more than half. Senate Bill 916 would have limited striking workers to receiving benefits for 26 weeks, in line with the current caps on unemployment checks for Oregonians. But after the Senate rejected an amended version of the bill on Tuesday, a bicameral conference committee voted Wednesday to set a new cutoff at 10 weeks after a two-week waiting period. Committee members voted along party lines, with the sole Republican present voting against the amendments. 'I do feel like this is a massive compromise,' said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, the bill's lead author. 'It's not something I'm entirely thrilled with.' The measure would be a first-in-the-nation move by Oregon, establishing a right to strike for public and private employees while ensuring them the ability to apply for unemployment benefits. Aside from traditionally strike-exempt public employees such as firefighters and police, workers such as nurses and teachers could claim benefits after two weeks of striking. The bill has been among this session's most controversial measures, laying bare deep divisions over how best to use the state's $6.4 billion unemployment insurance fund. The changes come after support for a Democrat-led bill collapsed in a concurring Senate vote on Tuesday amid concerns from Republicans and a key dissenting Democrat. It had already drawn opposition from school board leaders who help negotiate teacher strikes, business groups, and local government leaders who contribute to the state's unemployment fund. 'We have a healthy fund today due in no small part because all the agreements in the years have been honored,' committee member Sen. Daniel Bonham, R- The Dalles, told his colleagues before voting against the amended bill. 'It is a healthy enough fund that I don't know that this will be a massive draw on it, but again the kids will lose if teachers are incentivized to strike.' House Democrats got the bill over the finish line in their chamber last week, arguing that the benefits would be used sparingly and not as a tool to prolong strikes, but to shorten them. A change made in a House committee would cap benefits to eight weeks if the state's unemployment fund is at risk, and lawmakers also included an amendment that mandates deductions in backpay for benefits claimed by teachers during strikes. Grayber on Tuesday repeated a promise she has made to continue monitoring the bill's implementation if it were to pass, but also signaled that she hoped to move past concerns that the bill would promote misuse of the unemployment system or dramatically hamper school life and public facilities. She said she's been 'guided by the math' behind the bill from the beginning, a subtle nod to the estimates from the state's employment department that the bill would not change existing tax structures for businesses and government agencies paying into the state's unemployment funding. 'I have heard the opposition,' she said. 'I very much look forward to moving past what feels like a worst-case scenario focus that we've maintained for several weeks now.' Oregonians who have lost a job can currently apply for unemployment weekly checks ranging from $196 to $836. The bill would allow benefits to kick in immediately if workers are locked out of facilities by their employer during negotiations. Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, is a sponsor of the legislation, but withdrew his support when it came up short in a 15-14 Senate vote on Tuesday. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to comment on whether he supported the proposed changes. He referred to another attempt at a transportation and infrastructure funding bill that the Legislature has taken up in the final weeks of the session: 'If there's time to pass a transportation package, there's time to get this right,' he said. The new amendment pushes the bill closer to a similar law passed in Washington that caps benefits at six weeks, but which doesn't go so far as to protect public employees like Oregon's proposed legislation. New Jersey and New York have also passed laws in recent years to provide unemployment benefits to striking private sector workers, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar effort in 2023 over fiscal concerns. Another bill extending benefits to striking workers in Connecticut is currently sitting on Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, but he is expected to veto it. The bill passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote. Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, was excused. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
