Latest news with #communitiesofcolor
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Food insecurity rates rise 15.5% in Vermilion County
Food insecurity rates rose 15.5% in Vermilion County over the last year, topping Champaign, Iroquois and Peoria Counties. The findings are part of Feeding America's annual Map the Meal Gap study. The study shows that food insecurity affects every county in the United States, with rates reaching almost 50% in some areas. At the local level, Map the Meal Gap finds that 1 in 6—more than 39,000—children are experiencing hunger. What is food insecurity and what does it look like in America? Food insecurity occurs when a household cannot access enough food due to a lack of money and other essential resources. It is often linked to one or multiple factors that lead to food insecurity, creating a cycle that can be hard to break. These factors can be related to household income, expenses, access to affordable health care, the surrounding social and physical environment, and barriers to opportunity which play a role in preventing some households and communities from being food secure. People disproportionately impacted by food insecurity include, but are not limited to, children, many communities of color, households with low incomes, immigrant communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, people in certain geographies (e.g., rural areas, cities, the South), people who are formerly incarcerated, and single-parent households. Eastern Illinois Foodbank (EIF) is part of the Feeding America nationwide network of more than 200 food banks, 22 statewide food bank associations and 60,000 agency partners, food pantries and meal programs. Map the Meal Gap, now in its 15th year, is the only study that provides local-level estimates of food insecurity and food costs for every county and congressional district. The study builds upon USDA's most recent report of national and state data, which showed 47 million people, including 14 million children, experienced food insecurity in 2023, the highest rate in more than a decade. Map the Meal Gap emphasizes the need for the public to join the movement to end hunger. 'The insights from this year's study will help us address challenges shared with us by people facing hunger and identify opportunities to support the communities we serve and call home,' said EIF President & CEO Kelly Daly. 'This is a powerful tool that empowers us to make informed decisions to effectively alleviate hunger at a time of historic need, and help ensure that all of our neighbors, including children, have access to the nutritious food they need to thrive.' At the local level, Map the Meal Gap finds that within EIF's 21-county service area, more than 143,000 people—13.3% of the population—live in food-insecure households. Of those people, nearly 40,000 are children. Food insecurity rates rose in every county in EIF's service area; from low to high, these rates were as follows: Piatt (9.9%), Woodford (10.3%), Douglas (11.5%), McLean (11.7%), Cumberland (11.8%), Moultrie (11.8%), Tazewell (11.8%), Jasper (12%), Clark (12.1%), DeWitt (12.4%), Livingston (12.6%), Crawford (13.1%), Champaign (13.9%), Ford (13.9%), Edgar (14.3%), Iroquois (14.5%), Peoria (14.5%), Mason (14.6%), Vermilion (15.5%), Clay (15.8%), and Coles (16.5%). Other key findings include: Food insecurity impacts communities in every county, parish and congressional district in the U.S. Food insecurity is experienced by people from all backgrounds and demographics, but disparities exist. Estimated food insecurity levels vary across the country, influenced by income-related factors, like unemployment, poverty, high cost of living; community- and health-related factors; and systemic barriers to opportunity that have created disparities in food insecurity. Nationwide, nearly 9 out of 10 high food insecurity counties are rural, indicating regional disparities. Nationally, more than 2 out of 5 people facing hunger may not qualify for SNAP benefits due to income limits. In eastern Illinois, more than 44% of people facing hunger may not qualify for SNAP and 29% of children facing hunger may not qualify for free or reduced-price meals. The national food budget shortfall, which reflects the extra money that people who are food insecure report needing to cover their food needs, is $32 billion. This translates to $22.37 a week per person, on average. Residents of Woodford County feel this firsthand, with an estimated food budget shortfall of $26.16. Individuals who were food secure in 2023 reported spending an average of $3.58 per meal. Meal costs vary significantly by county throughout the nation, ranging from $2.60 to $6.09, showcasing the diverse economic challenges faced by communities. In McLean County, the average cost per meal is $3.66, and in Woodford County, the average cost per meal is $4.19, which reflects the growing need we see at Eastern Illinois Foodbank. The Map the Meal Gap study is supported by Conagra Brands Foundation, Enterprise Mobility Foundation, and NielsenIQ/NIQ. Additional key takeaways from the report can be found on the Map the Meal Gap website along with an interactive map that details food insecurity by geography, income, race and ethnicity. Methodology Map the Meal Gap uses publicly available data from USDA Economic Research Service, U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate local food insecurity at the county, congressional district and state levels. The study also estimates local meal costs and food budget shortfalls using food price data from NIQ, based on USDA's Thrifty Food Plan, and grocery sales tax data for every county and state in the country. To learn how food insecurity impacts your community, visit For more information about Eastern Illinois Foodbank and how you can help alleviate hunger, visit
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?
As part of a sweeping crackdown on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day that tries to end, for some, the right to US citizenship for children born in the United States. The order was blocked as 'blatantly unconstitutional', in one judge's opinion, after immediate legal challenges. Appeals failed and four months later the issue has made its way to the increasingly divided US supreme court as an emergency case. The administration is pressing it to allow Trump's restrictions to partially take effect, withholding citizenship for children born in the US without at least one parent being a legal permanent resident (green card holder) or US citizen. In a country where birthright citizenship regardless of lineage is a deeply held value, if the president succeeds in cutting off that right for future generations could create a permanent underclass, through policy change that would specifically target communities of color. That said, the crux of the administration's argument before the court during the oral session on 15 May actually focuses less on the principle of birthright citizenship and more on trying to curtail the power of lower-court judges – so that any injunctions are applied narrowly, not across the whole nation. If successful that would further Trump's agenda on immigration and a bevy of other issues, while birthright citizenship itself continues to be litigated. Here's what to know: When Trump and his allies reference birthright citizenship, they're usually alluding to the legal principle of jus soli – which means 'right of the soil' in Latin. Put simply, it allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen. As a concept, jus soli comes from English common law, which held centuries ago that people born in England were natural subjects. But unrestricted birthright citizenship in the US that includes people of color – not just white Americans – derives from the US constitution. In 1857, the supreme court ruled that Black descendants of enslaved people could not be US citizens. To right this injustice, just over a decade later, the US ratified the 14th amendment. The first line of the 14th amendment reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Known as the Citizenship Clause, this phrase – alongside a number of related statutes and regulations – establishes the modern basis for birthright citizenship. Even as the 14th amendment was ratified, Americans were starting to turn against immigrants in the US, especially Chinese workers. Soon, Congress had enacted legislation to heavily restrict further Chinese migration and make life difficult for those already stateside. Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in San Francisco to immigrant parents, went to China to see his family. When he tried to return home to the US, he wasn't allowed into the country based on the allegation that he wasn't a US citizen. But the supreme court saw the situation differently. In an 1898 precedential decision that has withstood the test of time, the justices ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark's US citizenship claim even though his parents were Chinese immigrants unable to naturalize. There are exceedingly rare exceptions to the principle of jus soli, where people born in the US are not automatically granted US citizenship. Until the enactment of a law in 1924, Indigenous peoples born in the US were excluded. In 2021, the supreme court decided that people born in American Samoa's unincorporated territories are not automatically guaranteed birthright citizenship, unless Congress enacts legislation. And the children of foreign diplomats – or, in a more violent scenario, the kids of enemy occupiers – also lack a right to US citizenship by birth. In comments criticizing the US's version of birthright citizenship, Trump has said: 'We have to end it. We're the only country that has it.' In fact, dozens of countries have a right to citizenship based on place of birth. Like the US, most of these countries are within the western hemisphere, including Canada and Mexico. That said, nowadays birthright citizenship is less common in other regions of the world. The executive order signed in January tries to make it so that children born in the US, but without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or US citizen, are no longer automatically extended US citizenship. It also disallows federal agencies from issuing or recognizing documentation proving US citizenship for such children. Notably, the executive order targets kids born to both unauthorized immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas. Maybe – although probably not, and almost definitely not through executive order. The Citizenship Clause is part of the US constitution, the nation's founding document. Generally, legal scholars strongly suggest that neither executive action nor legislation should be able to supersede the constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on US soil. According to the Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman: 'The president has no authority to change the citizenship rule at all. Congress can change the rule, but only to the extent of making it broader. Neither Congress nor the president can reduce it below the constitutional minimum.' However, because the legal precedent set by Wong well over a century ago is so fundamental to how birthright citizenship relates to the children of immigrants, the current court battles erupting from Trump's executive order could – in the most extreme scenario – jeopardize the US's understanding of birthright citizenship as we know it. In fact, forcing the supreme court to reinterpret the 14th amendment is probably part of the long game that the Trump administration is playing with its executive order, although we are not there yet. And even with the White House raring for a fight, a complete overhaul of case law around birthright citizenship remains improbable. The other way to override an existing part of the constitution would be to ratify another amendment, which would require a level of political support that is unlikely for such a fringe, rightwing issue. The justices are hearing arguments after three lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, pausing enforcement of Trump's executive order. So far, no newborns have had their right to US citizenship revoked by the policy change, thanks to these nationwide injunctions – which are viewed as controversial by some of the justices, from the conservative and liberal ends of the bench – that have been upheld on appeal. But Trump hopes to change that. Depending on what the majority opinion eventually says, the supreme court could be flirting with disaster for families across the nation. If, for example, the justices limit the current injunctions against Trump's executive order to only apply to people and entities involved in the lawsuits challenging the policy, that could create significant logistical issues. Babies born to immigrants at the same hospital may have different citizenship statuses, depending on whether their parents had the ability to engage an attorney and participate in litigation. Or a newborn in New Jersey could derive birthright citizenship, while one in Mississippi didn't. And the ensuing turmoil could render birth certificates essentially useless for proving US citizenship, even for children born to Americans. Even if the administration is unable to completely undo birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, officials have reportedly been exploring other ways to tackle the topic. For instance, they could try to restrict short-term visas for pregnant travelers, so those travelers couldn't give birth in the US.
The Guardian
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?
As part of a sweeping crackdown on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day that tries to end, for some, the right to US citizenship for children born in the United States. The order was blocked as 'blatantly unconstitutional', in one judge's opinion, after immediate legal challenges. Appeals failed and four months later the issue has made its way to the increasingly divided US supreme court as an emergency case. The administration is pressing it to allow Trump's restrictions to partially take effect, withholding citizenship for children born in the US without at least one parent being a legal permanent resident (green card holder) or US citizen. In a country where birthright citizenship regardless of lineage is a deeply held value, if the president succeeds in cutting off that right for future generations could create a permanent underclass, through policy change that would specifically target communities of color. That said, the crux of the administration's argument before the court during the oral session on 15 May actually focuses less on the principle of birthright citizenship and more on trying to curtail the power of lower-court judges – so that any injunctions are applied narrowly, not across the whole nation. If successful that would further Trump's agenda on immigration and a bevy of other issues, while birthright citizenship itself continues to be litigated. Here's what to know: When Trump and his allies reference birthright citizenship, they're usually alluding to the legal principle of jus soli – which means 'right of the soil' in Latin. Put simply, it allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen. As a concept, jus soli comes from English common law, which held centuries ago that people born in England were natural subjects. But unrestricted birthright citizenship in the US that includes people of color – not just white Americans – derives from the US constitution. In 1857, the supreme court ruled that Black descendants of enslaved people could not be US citizens. To right this injustice, just over a decade later, the US ratified the 14th amendment. The first line of the 14th amendment reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Known as the Citizenship Clause, this phrase – alongside a number of related statutes and regulations – establishes the modern basis for birthright citizenship. Even as the 14th amendment was ratified, Americans were starting to turn against immigrants in the US, especially Chinese workers. Soon, Congress had enacted legislation to heavily restrict further Chinese migration and make life difficult for those already stateside. Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in San Francisco to immigrant parents, went to China to see his family. When he tried to return home to the US, he wasn't allowed into the country based on the allegation that he wasn't a US citizen. But the supreme court saw the situation differently. In an 1898 precedential decision that has withstood the test of time, the justices ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark's US citizenship claim even though his parents were Chinese immigrants unable to naturalize. There are exceedingly rare exceptions to the principle of jus soli, where people born in the US are not automatically granted US citizenship. Until the enactment of a law in 1924, Indigenous peoples born in the US were excluded. In 2021, the supreme court decided that people born in American Samoa's unincorporated territories are not automatically guaranteed birthright citizenship, unless Congress enacts legislation. And the children of foreign diplomats – or, in a more violent scenario, the kids of enemy occupiers – also lack a right to US citizenship by birth. In comments criticizing the US's version of birthright citizenship, Trump has said: 'We have to end it. We're the only country that has it.' In fact, dozens of countries have a right to citizenship based on place of birth. Like the US, most of these countries are within the western hemisphere, including Canada and Mexico. That said, nowadays birthright citizenship is less common in other regions of the world. The executive order signed in January tries to make it so that children born in the US, but without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or US citizen, are no longer automatically extended US citizenship. It also disallows federal agencies from issuing or recognizing documentation proving US citizenship for such children. Notably, the executive order targets kids born to both unauthorized immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas. Maybe – although probably not, and almost definitely not through executive order. The Citizenship Clause is part of the US constitution, the nation's founding document. Generally, legal scholars strongly suggest that neither executive action nor legislation should be able to supersede the constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on US soil. According to the Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman: 'The president has no authority to change the citizenship rule at all. Congress can change the rule, but only to the extent of making it broader. Neither Congress nor the president can reduce it below the constitutional minimum.' However, because the legal precedent set by Wong Kim Ark well over a century ago is so fundamental to how birthright citizenship relates to the children of immigrants, the current court battles erupting from Trump's executive order could – in the most extreme scenario – jeopardize the US's understanding of birthright citizenship as we know it. In fact, forcing the supreme court to reinterpret the 14th amendment is probably part of the long game that the Trump administration is playing with its executive order, although we are not there yet. And even with the White House raring for a fight, a complete overhaul of case law around birthright citizenship remains improbable. The other way to override an existing part of the constitution would be to ratify another amendment, which would require a level of political support that is unlikely for such a fringe, rightwing issue. The justices are hearing arguments after three lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, pausing enforcement of Trump's executive order. So far, no newborns have had their right to US citizenship revoked by the policy change, thanks to these nationwide injunctions – which are viewed as controversial by some of the justices, from the conservative and liberal ends of the bench – that have been upheld on appeal. But Trump hopes to change that. Depending on what the majority opinion eventually says, the supreme court could be flirting with disaster for families across the nation. If, for example, the justices limit the current injunctions against Trump's executive order to only apply to people and entities involved in the lawsuits challenging the policy, that could create significant logistical issues. Babies born to immigrants at the same hospital may have different citizenship statuses, depending on whether their parents had the ability to engage an attorney and participate in litigation. Or a newborn in New Jersey could derive birthright citizenship, while one in Mississippi didn't. And the ensuing turmoil could render birth certificates essentially useless for proving US citizenship, even for children born to Americans. Even if the administration is unable to completely undo birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, officials have reportedly been exploring other ways to tackle the topic. For instance, they could try to restrict short-term visas for pregnant travelers, so those travelers couldn't give birth in the US.
