SNAP is a hot topic of conversation these days, especially since it’s separation from the Farm Bill. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) itself has brought up several controversial issues with Americans and our law makers. Not the least of which involves ex-convicts and their rights to SNAP. In the last few years there have been those (Rep. Alma Allen, D-Houston) who have rallied to prevent ex-drug “offenders released from jail from qualifying and receiving benefits” from SNAP. This issue has re-emerged this year with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who wants to create another amendment where “anyone convicted for a violent crime or sexual assault will be shut out of the program for life, even if they served their time or committed the crime long ago.”
Ex-convicts are not a popular discussion and at first glance most Americans might agree with this, however, there are serious implications that arise from this amendment. One blogger reiterated a statement that explains why instead of rooting for we should be fighting to eliminate this amendment.
“Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, these sentences have historically been handed down to more minorities than white offenders:
Given incarceration patterns in the United States, the amendment would have a skewed racial impact. Poor elderly African Americans convicted of a single crime decades ago by segregated Southern juries would be among those hit. The amendment essentially says that rehabilitation doesn’t matter and violates basic norms of criminal justice.”
There were no disagreements about this amendment from any Senator. This law brings up issues of racial disparities and wrongfully convicted people within the justice system as well as the basis for jails: rehabilitation. On top of Vitter’s amendment, in May 2013, “Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reintroduced his amendment to require every member of households receiving SNAP show a birth certificate or passport [13]. If one member cannot produce the required documents, the whole family would be disqualified.” This requirement can adversely affect many of the SNAP recipients. In my work on the Hunger Study I have come across many people who are receiving less and less money from SNAP and the food pantries have seen a consistent increase in clients. The current discussions in the House and Congress does not bode well for present and future SNAP participants, and has created, what one article stated “Republican [efforts,] to criminalize low-income people who need food and welfare assistance said the criminalization of poor people.”
Shockingly I discovered that in most states ex-convicts have immediate access to a gun license. So in essence the American government doesn’t mind if violent criminals have weapons but they do mind if the government has to pay for them to have food.
SNAP is still in debate, however at this rate common sense issues seem far too complicated for our government to pass let alone high budget issues of SNAP. Who knows what can happen in the coming months, we can only hope it will not be too devastating for ex-convicts and SNAP recipients.
