Kansas proposal would restrict benefits and weigh immigration status in release decisions

The proposal would bar people unlawfully present in the United States from receiving state or local public benefits. The ban would cover state and local public benefits, including reduced tuition and fees offered by postsecondary schools to residents. The ban would not apply to benefits federal law requires states or local governments to offer. Driver's licenses and identification cards are excluded from the bill's definition of public benefits. Reduced tuition and fees offered by postsecondary schools to residents are included. The proposal says it would take effect after publication in the statute book.

Agencies would require proof from adult applicants and check an alien's status before providing benefits. The proof rule would apply to people age 18 or older applying for any state or local public benefit. The agency check would determine whether an alien is lawfully present and a qualified alien. Applicants age 18 or older would have to show they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or lawfully present. Acceptable proof could include documents recognized by the motor vehicle division or a federal document confirming lawful presence. Agencies would use the federal verification program and cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security. The proposal says it would take effect after publication in the statute book.

Courts would verify immigration status and treat a finding of unlawful presence as a rebuttable sign of flight risk when deciding on release. The status check would cover people charged with crimes who are not U.S. citizens or nationals. The flight-risk presumption would apply to a person determined to be unlawfully present. A person charged with a crime who is not a U.S. citizen or national would have their immigration status checked with the federal government. A rebuttable presumption is an assumption that can be challenged. It would apply only after the person is determined to be unlawfully present and would concern whether to grant or set an appearance bond. The proposal says it would take effect after publication in the statute book.