Kansas Senate committee hears bill to bar unlawfully present immigrants from state, local public benefits

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 254, which would bar aliens unlawfully present in the United States from receiving state or local public benefits. The hearing included an overview from the Legislature’s reviser and proponent testimony from Kansas Attorney General Chris Kobach, followed by extended opponent testimony from faith leaders, educators, county officials and civil‑liberties advocates.

Jason Long, the Legislature’s reviser, told the committee the bill would mirror existing federal restrictions by making unlawfully present aliens ineligible for most state and local public benefits while preserving federal exceptions such as emergency medical care, certain disaster relief, public health immunizations and short‑term shelter or food programs approved under federal law. Long also said the measure explicitly lists reduced tuition and fees at postsecondary institutions as a state/local public benefit subject to the bar; it would not change issuance of driver’s licenses or identification cards.

Attorney General Chris Kobach, testifying remotely as the bill’s main proponent, said Kansas currently violates two federal statutes passed in 1996 and that the bill is needed to bring state practice into alignment with federal law. Kobach said the bill would require applicants for public benefits to submit proof of citizenship, permanent residency or lawful presence and would require agencies to verify lawful presence using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. He told the committee the bill also amends criminal procedure to require verification of immigration status for anyone charged with a crime and would create “a rebuttable presumption” that a person determined to be unlawfully present is a flight risk for purposes of appearance bonds. Kobach said the new sections would take effect July 1 if enacted.

Kobach cited a fiscal estimate from the Federation for American Immigration Reform and said "it's about $603 million net that Kansas gives to those unlawfully present in our state" and that the figure equates to "about $509 per Kansas household." He also quoted federal statutory language, saying "it is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits." Kobach pointed to neighboring states that have passed similar laws, including Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma, and urged the committee to adopt the measure.

Opponents delivered extended testimony. Sister Therese Banger of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth said the bill fails the community’s moral obligations and urged lawmakers to consider the human and family consequences. "These are the children that the ways of the world brought to us, and they are now ours," she said.

Mike Taylor, speaking for Kansas county elected officials, raised practical enforcement concerns. Taylor noted the SAVE system carries a per‑case charge and warned the bill could impose an unfunded mandate on counties and cities. He asked whether routine local services such as admission to a county pool, rental of a picnic shelter or connection to municipal utilities would require immigration verification.

Roshanae Hamby of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas objected to portions of the bill she described as novel and constitutionally problematic. "This bill would introduce the concept of rebuttable presumption, meaning that someone would have to prove their innocence in order to not be considered a flight risk," she said, and she added that she is not aware of SAVE being used routinely in criminal‑justice contexts as the bill proposes. Hamby and other opponents cited prior litigation around similar measures and cautioned the committee about legal risk.

Educators and advocates stressed economic and workforce effects. Tim Graham of the Kansas National Education Association said the bill’s inclusion of reduced postsecondary tuition would remove a pathway to higher education and urged lawmakers to temper enforcement with mercy. College and community representatives — including Justin Gust of El Centro and Alejandro Rangel López of New Frontiers — said in‑state tuition for students raised in Kansas helps produce graduates who contribute to the state economy and that the measure would create new barriers.

Several witnesses described the bill’s projected fiscal savings as overstated or incomplete; board members and teachers urged lawmakers to consider the costs of decreased educational attainment and local enforcement burdens. A high‑school teacher identified in testimony as Dr. Silva asked, "What do I tell my students?" and said the bill would force educators to confront new barriers for pupils seeking college access.

Committee members questioned both technical and policy elements. Senators asked whether K–12 public education is considered a public benefit (committee staff and the attorney general replied that K–12 schooling is not classified as a public benefit under the cited federal provisions), how in‑state tuition rules interact with federal law, and what data support the fiscal figures. The attorney general told the panel the $603 million figure is a net estimate from FAIR and that the bill’s language is intended to implement existing federal authorization for states to verify lawful presence by using the SAVE system.

The committee received written testimony from multiple additional organizations and individuals, which members were told is available to the committee on the committee S‑drive and on the committee website. No committee vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing; committee members indicated they would review submitted materials and follow the committee’s usual legislative process for next steps.

The hearing included multiple rounds of public comment and several speakers were limited to a timed block for in‑person testimony; one portion of the public comment period ended with audience disruption that the chair moved to control before proceeding to the remainder of the scheduled testimony.