By Paul Bean
In a special meeting last week, the House Committee on Human Services grappled with the repercussions from the federal One Big Beautiful Bill cutting SNAP benefits for Afghan refugees with Special Immigrant Visas (SIV).
The benefit cut has drawn non-partisan criticism over a perceived moral betrayal of those who risked all for U.S. troops.
The cuts took effect October 1 under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). They stripped eligibility from refugees and asylees nationwide, including an estimated 50 Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders in Vermont.
These individuals, who arrived as lawful permanent residents, were previously exempt from the program’s five-year waiting period for non-citizens.
State officials interpreted the OBB’s dense language as ending that exemption, consequently cutting benefits for 119 households overall, with 86 losing benefits entirely and 33 facing reductions.
“It’s not a suspension of any type,” said Representative Anne Donahue of Northfield by phone (I.) “They’re permanently terminated, unless at some point in the future the law changes. But under current law, they are permanently terminated.”
Donahue also wanted to make it very clear that this issue and the government shutdown are entirely different.
The OBBB said these special categories of refugees were ineligible, but many states found the wording obscure and needing direction from the feds. So, in those states, the payment continued.
However, the State of Vermont promptly suspended the food stamps payments to these Afghans.
We were tipped off to this story by Donahue when she called into Feedback Friday on Hot of the Press on WDEV on October 31st. Donahue, a member of the House Human Services committee said she and other committee members were “dumbfounded” when they learned the news. The committee promptly passed a resolution asking the state of Vermont to restore the food benefits.
“They came here because we promised them safety and support after they saved American lives,” said Donahue, a veteran legislator and ranking member of the House Human Services Committee.
“Let’s remember who these folks are.” she continued. “Vermont took a very active role in welcoming these immigrants. Phil Scott, in two different state of the state addresses, made these strong statements about how important it was for Vermont to be welcoming these people. And they were the parts of the speech where he got 100% ovation. It was a very big deal about us being welcome to immigrants, really welcoming these Afghan heroes, basically the ones who protected our American troops.”
“Some of them have gone on and, you know, have have been able to be very successful, but many of them are employed, but they’re in minimum wage jobs, learning the language, getting their driver’s licenses, all those things that mean that for a little while longer you need some extra support.”
“You’ve got the National Guard, the Adjutant General, I think is certainly concerned. Like, wait a minute, what about our commitment to the people who, who saved American lives, American troops lives, how could we be turning our back and why would we Vermont turn our back on them when it’s not clear?”
In the Afghan community of about 650 resettled since 2021, the impact has been immediate and
challenging. In Montpelier alone, 12 families, including more than 30 children, lost access to 3SquaresVT, the state’s name for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as reported by Vermont Public.
Speaking on WDEV Radio’s ‘Hot Off the Press’ program hosted by Guy Page, Donahue recounted how she and her colleagues were “dumbfounded” upon learning of the suspension.
“These are working families, parents holding down multiple jobs to build new lives. To pull the rug out now feels like a betrayal of our word.”
“We can’t wait for Washington to sort this out,” Donahue said. “Vermont has a moral obligation to these allies, and an economic one too, these families are contributing to our farms, schools, and workforce.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Benefits
Sorry for the apparent lack of empathy here but isn’t a broad program of allowing large numbers of people from a third world, islamic hellhole to come and live in the most prosperous, most opportunity-rich country on the planet enough of a “benefit”? Every business in the area has a “help wanted” sign up. Sorry, but denying them free food is not “turning our backs on them”.
Exactly. Get a job!
Rich, I’m pretty sure I agree with your philosophies based on other comments on this site. But I take issue with you on this one:
““These are working families, parents holding down multiple jobs to build new lives. To pull the rug out now feels like a betrayal of our word.””
““We can’t wait for Washington to sort this out,” Donahue said. “Vermont has a moral obligation to these allies, and an economic one too, these families are contributing to our farms, schools, and workforce.””
From what I’m reading, these folks are working, it’s a tough go in this state mostly thanks to the Marxists and carpet baggers regulating us to death. I had a good paying job (42 years) and always had a self employed side gig. Finally retired early (62). It was difficult getting by on a single income while wife did the hard work of homeschooling our kids. I don’t owe anyone $$$, but I’m still finishing the house I built and paying exorbitant rent to the town (property tax). I have less of an issue helping these folks than the homeless tourists that have come here in droves. It was easier for my Dad in the 60s-70s, harder for me in the 80s-90s, harder still now for my kids. As a 9th generation VTer, I feel like I’ve got a dog in the fight. As long as these people are working I support giving them a hand up.
If they’d clean up the waste and corruption (30 year recipients buying soda and Little Debbie cakes) they’d be able to consider special cases BUT for short term periods only. The Afghans should be assimilated by now.
Re: No SNAP benefits for VT Afghans who supported our troops
Yet another classic false dichotomy. The people who created the scenario for the government shutdown, the possibility (not certainty) that SNAP benefits will permanently be denied to any group of people (not just ‘Afgans who supported our troops’), are hypocrites beyond the pale.
What most people don’t realize is that the goal of Democrats early on in the shutdown was to make temporary ACA subsidies permanent. And almost no one seems to know that the ACA subsidies were deemed to be ‘temporary’ in the first place because the Democrats passed the subsidies in 2021 as being temporary so they could avoid a filibuster by Republicans. The temporary subsidies were enacted in 2021 by Democrats, through budget reconciliation, a legislative process that allows certain fiscal bills to pass the Senate with only 51 votes instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Go figure.
Now the Democrats are using the very same filibuster threat they avoided in 2021, to force Republicans to make the temporary subsidies *they* created permanent – by shutting down the government.
Democrats deliberately made the enhancements temporary (2021–2025) to:
– Comply with reconciliation rules.
– Pass the Senate without any Republican votes.
– Avoid a filibuster that would have killed the entire package.
This was a strategic choice, not just a policy preference. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a key architect, said in 2021:
“We used every tool in the reconciliation toolbox to make this help as generous and far-reaching as possible—within the rules.”
Well, what goes around, comes around, Bub.
Today the Democrat’s hypocrisy has come back and bitten them in the derriere. The SNAP issue is a sidebar. A diversion. Especially the remark that VT Afghans who supported our troops are the only people being affected. Hogwash! The Democrats created the SNAP dysfunction in order to deflect the reality of their own stupidly deceptive political maneuvering. And now we know that’s what they’ve done. And now we know Vermont’s three stooges; Welch, Balint and Sanders are complicit in the ruse.
Maybe some people should spend more time to become an American citizen, but why would want to be held liable for a thirty eight trillion dollar debt???????
To be clear, this is unrelated to the shutdown and even to the “Big Beautiful Bill” itself. Vermont made its own decision to interpret the bill to mean this small group of Afghans had to be included with other refugees and asylees who were no longer eligible. Most other states (red and blue) looked at the same law and said it did not remove them from eligibility, or at most, it should not remove them until the federal government gives guidance on what the bill intended. It involves interpreting parts of previous laws, including the federal bill that directly created special visas for those who were facing retaliation for having helped our troops. The issue is, if there are different interpretations of the law, why would we act, along with only three or so other states, to choose to end this small bit of help before we know whether the law even requires it?
……..”Afghans who supported Vermont American troops denied SNAP benefits”……..Ok Mr.Bean,that’s a very political/bias title/opinion. Should we help them that helped us? Sure! But the issue goes way beyond that. WTF were we doing in Afghanistan????
Our reaction to 9/11, our presence in and withdrawal from Afghanistan, and our opinions regarding the ideologies of Islam are irrelevant for this issue and discussion. You and I and the Afghans living in VT had no power in decisions on US international military or other involvement. We actually may agree on some things as to our military involvement, but alas, that’s not the point.
The government offered an immigration package to certain Afghan individuals under a special visa which included immediate SNAP benefits, and we are reneging on that promise. The reasons are petty and the amount is insignificant. I guess we should listen to Indigenous Americans – our government cannot keep a promise.
I commented in another post as to why these people are living here, so i wont repeat that.
WTF? Maybe the Bush Family and CIA can explain that foreign policy decision. Let’s just help feed the people living legally on US Soil TODAY.
Apparently, these refuges have been receiving assistance for years. The next question is how did these refuges get to America? I assume they were flown over by the Vermont National Guard at Governor Scott’s request. If my memory serves me right, American allies were left behind, as our governor released a statement that the VNG brought back refugees, not allies. This means that Vermont taxpayers have made significant fiscal contributions to this community over a number of years. It is not unreasonable for taxpayers to question how long public services will continue. Please note all of the language that has has permitted our culture such as xenophobia, equity, social justice, and so on.
I would like to add insight into the expectation that the host nation of migrants/refugees are fiscally responsible As dictated by the United Nations. America has Constitutional and Civil Rights, and is not subject to the concept of Human Rights under its founding documents.
ChatGPT was extremely helpful in providing insight.
Question: Under the context ofmigrant justice why is the host country of migrants have the buren of paying for the said justice?
Response:
Migrant justice isn’t just about legal migration systems; it’s rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and rights, regardless of nationality or immigration status. The term usually implies:
Ending exploitation or discrimination against migrants,
Providing fair access to housing, healthcare, and labor protections,
And addressing root causes of forced migration (e.g., poverty, conflict, climate change).
In that framework, the host country is seen as having moral and legal obligations once it accepts or benefits from migrants’ presence.
🔹 2. Why the “burden” falls on the host country
There are several interrelated reasons — moral, historical, and practical.
Legal and human rights commitments
Most host countries are signatories to international treaties (like the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that obligate them to uphold basic protections for everyone on their territory.
Once a migrant enters a state’s jurisdiction, that state becomes responsible for ensuring their human rights.
Historical and economic responsibility
From a justice perspective, many scholars argue that wealthier host countries — especially those in the Global North — bear historical responsibility for global inequalities that drive migration:
Thus, paying for “migrant justice” is framed not as charity, but as rectification or shared accountability.
Economic self-interest; Migrants frequently contribute more than they cost in the long run (through taxes, labor, innovation, and demographic renewal).
Investing in migrant justice (e.g., fair wages, legal pathways, social inclusion) reduces social tension, increases productivity, and prevents exploitation that undercuts local workers.
So, the “burden” is actually a strategic investment in stability and fairness.
🔹 3. Counterarguments & ongoing debate
Critics argue:
That host societies shouldn’t be financially or socially responsible for global inequality;
That domestic citizens’ needs should come first;
Or that migration should be limited to maintain cultural and economic cohesion.
Proponents respond:
That justice isn’t zero-sum — human rights extend beyond borders;
And that migrant justice is inseparable from global justice, since migration is a symptom of larger systemic inequities.
🔹 4. In summary
The reason the host country bears the cost of “migrant justice” is because it holds sovereign control over its territory and benefits from the global systems that migration flows through.
Therefore, the moral, legal, and practical frameworks of justice assign responsibility — not blame — to the host state to ensure fairness and dignity for all people under its jurisdiction.
The UN’s “Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations” (2006) framework, which is the foundational text linking social justice to migrant justice and global equity.
🔹 1. The UN’s starting point: justice is global, not national
The UN defines social justice as:
“The fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.”
It explicitly states that no society can claim justice in isolation — because economic, environmental, and migratory dynamics are interconnected across borders.
So when migration occurs, the “justice” question extends beyond national responsibility. The host country is seen as part of a global system that produces both prosperity and inequality.
🟩 Key quote:
“The pursuit of social justice is an integral part of the broader quest for global justice. The inequities among nations are mirrored in the inequities within nations.”
🔹 2. Migrant justice as a subset of social justice
The UN text frames migration as both a symptom and a mechanism of global inequality. Migrants often move due to:
Unequal access to economic opportunity,
Political instability or conflict,
Environmental degradation — all of which are systemic and transnational problems.
Because of this, the duty to ensure justice for migrants is placed on:
The sending country, for protecting its citizens and creating fair conditions;
The global community, for addressing systemic inequities; and
The receiving (host) country, for ensuring dignity, rights, and fair treatment once migrants arrive.
Thus, the host country “pays” not as a penalty, but as a participant in an interdependent moral economy.
The principle of shared but differentiated responsibility is borrowed from environmental and trade frameworks, the UN applies this principle to migration too: Countries that have benefited most from globalization and capital mobility have greater obligations to uphold justice for those displaced or marginalized by those same processes.
That means:
Wealthy host nations have the capacity and moral duty to provide protections, because they have gained most from global systems that generate inequality.
This isn’t redistribution for its own sake — it’s a correction of structural imbalance.
Citizenship, sovereignty, and moral responsibility
The UN argues that sovereignty carries ethical obligations, not just rights.
When a migrant enters a host state, that state exercises sovereign control — and therefore assumes jurisdictional responsibility for that person’s welfare under international human rights norms.
So even if the migrant’s hardship originated elsewhere, justice shifts to the host’s hands upon entry. This aligns with the UN’s stance that:
“Social justice cannot be realized if human rights are denied.”
Therefore, migrant justice is a test case of whether a society’s commitment to human rights is genuine or conditional on citizenship.
🔹 5. Economic logic: justice as sustainability
The UN warns that social justice is not sustainable if confined to citizens.
Excluding migrants from rights and services:
Creates informal labor markets and wage suppression;
Fuels social resentment and xenophobia;
And ultimately undermines democracy by normalizing inequality.
Thus, host countries’ spending on migrant justice is framed as:
An investment in systemic fairness and social stability, not a fiscal loss.
Social justice Fair distribution of opportunities and outcomes globally Justice cannot stop at the border. Migration A product of global inequality Shared responsibility to correct imbalance
Sovereignty Entails human-rights duties Host must ensure migrant dignity
Responsibility “Shared but differentiated” Wealthier hosts bear more moral cost
Outcome Sustainable, equitable global order Migrant justice as an ethical investment
In short:
Under the UN’s “Social Justice in an Open World” framework, the host country bears the financial and moral responsibility for migrant justice because it is both a beneficiary and a custodian of the global order that migration emerges from.
Paying for justice is therefore not an act of charity — it is an act of maintaining global equity and human dignity.
But within the UN’s framework, those costs are reframed as obligations of justice, much like domestic welfare, public education, or healthcare — redistributive tools that sustain social cohesion.
The host country “pays” not to compensate, but to normalize equity.
Read what Chatgtp had to say, and I disagree, it’s garbage, sophisticated propaganda promoting socialism.absolute garbage.
Take Haiti and the Dominican Republic, you can see the difference form space and it’s not because of wealthy countries.
One country has embraced from its beginning to present day voodoo and Catholicism, which craft and theocracy. They are completely corrupt, they are a garbage dump that can be seen from space, there surrounding are a manifestation of what is inside the citizenry and the country.
Ai is going to be a bigger propaganda tool than the regular internet, garbage on, garbage out.
I responded to your comment without the help of AI. You can actually read about this history, read about our withdraw and the refugee crisis and humanitarian crisis, and current issues in the country. You could look up the recent UN vote on adopting a resolution to try to stop some of the actions of the Taliban declaring a humanitarian crisis. The vote was interesting. US and Israel voted no. 116 countries voted yes.
The history is available, the evidence is there about why Afghans are here and what their visas and agreements says. The bottom line is the government is reneging on promises made with special entry visas — and it’s about FOOD.
With all due respect, ChatGPT lacks any true research and critical thinking skills, as do most of these posts.
Next you will be giving support to the C. I. A, and the group that were protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan. Looks like the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY will never be discussed on this website. Comment from Richard Day.
Exactly what are the laws of the land? If they are lawfully entitled to these benefits, there’s a problem. If they are ineligible, I say, follow the law until it is changed. Far too many actions are taken because of feelings and not the law.
Why all the ballyhoo? Join our club of misfits and unfortunates, reap the benefits – wink wink. They trusted our government and so did we…perhaps all that talk of equity is coming to fruition after all. Equally ignored, equally indebted, equally miserable – Agenda 2030 is well underway!
responding to “ Apparently, these refuges have been receiving assistance for years. The next question is how did these refuges get to America? I assume they were flown over by the Vermont National Guard at Governor Scott’s request.”
my initial thought. what ignorance! and the audacity to copy and paste ChatGPT
my response, of which I did NOT have to use AI is this:
How we reacted to 911 is irrelevant here. Why we were in Afghanistan is irrelevant with respect to this discussion. The basic ideologies of Islam are irrelevant. And to have the assumption that Phil Scott had any control who was pulled out of Afghanistan to become a refugee anywhere in the world is hilarious. There seems to be a plethora of misconceptions about why Afghan people are living in the United States. The short answer is that they earned an invitation in ways that you can’t even imagine.
I will try to make this brief. When American soldiers and our allies had boots on the ground in Afghanistan, the Taliban communicated in Pashto and fought us in unmapped territory using techniques in combat that we were not so familiar with or expecting. Let’s just say the Taliban doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention. The country was very unstable, the Taliban was consistently threatening citizens and communities, and yes, alliances varied.
Our government hired very young “men” to be spies, to be snipers, to be guides, to be drivers and to teach the allied forces the way how the Taliban and Afghan people operate. We did not have that military intelligence, and we didn’t even understand the Pashto language. We had allies there as well, I’m specifically familiar with the Italians and the British. These young Afghan men were employed and paid by the US Army and fought side-by-side and kept Americans and our allies safer than what they ever could have been without these young men.
The mission was still woefully unsuccessful based on how rapidly the Taliban took over as we finally withdrew and the current status. So there were certain men who have been risking their lives, killing the enemy, saving American lives over and over again, these men were highly decorated and recognized by the US military, including generals. If you think there was a mass exodus from Afghanistan to America, you’re sorely mistaken.
These men were cherry picked because they had helped America so much that they would literally have been tortured and killed along with their families in Afghanistan as the US left. Even then, only a small portion was airlifted out. After a time in refugee camps, they were dispatched to host countries. How many refugees we brought to America was a federal decision. Where they settled in America, yes, the states did have some say in that. Thinking that Phil Scott could pluck somebody out of that hell over there is asinine; he can’t even clean up a homeless encampment under a bridge here in our state.
The US government made promises to these men as a thank you for saving American lives. These men never had the “American dream” of a white picket fence and never heard the stories of white immigrants coming through Ellis Island. their choice was to leave or stay and watch the Taliban torture and kill their families and then kill them. And if their country was safe, 98% of them would return to Afghanistan in a heartbeat. A small part of this incentive package to help them adjust here was waving the 3 year wait for SNAP benefits.
Number one, the number of immigrants is low; number two, they were brought down over here on a special visa; number three they were made promises by the US government and now we’re reneging on the SNAP benefits really aren’t monetarily significant to our overall budget.
I am embarrassed of our government for being so petty over feeding these people. For every Afghan family you see, there are a dozen men who had to abandon their family who are in hiding and are working to get them to immigrate here. Their women are hidden behind burqas and the last I heard was the Taliban had shut off the Internet and communications.
To make this even worse, if you enter the home of an Afghan family, please remove your shoes at the door. And if there is ANY food or chai in the house, and any fuel to make a cup of water hot, you’ll be offered chai and something to eat.
These Afghan men saved American lives, so the American men could return to their families and their mothers – and we are having a pissing contest over feeding them — over effing SNAP benefits.
@Laura Hall, in regard to your comment at 3:27 PM today… OUCH, to your last sentence!
Laura you are completely uninformed and make a lot of assumptions. My comment about Governor Scott sending the Vermont National Guard to Afghanistan to pick up refugees is accurate because he announced their return publicly. Yes, Vermont tax payers foot the bill. I never referenced the rest of America, or burkas, you did. All I said is that we have been feeding them for years, nothing more nothing less. You seem a little hostile. Maybe you should talk some deep breaths or have a cup of herbal tea.
All I can say is many lost the point of why I took the time to add the chatGPT commentary. The point was to point out why Western nations were expected to take on migrants and the expectation that Western nations would be fiscally responsible to provide for them. The documents referenced are not garbage, because I read them and purposely had ChatGPT use them. Everything ties to the corrupt United Nations and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as stated.
Yes, I wrote burqa and a lot of words not dumped from an AI app. Is burqa a forbidden or scary word for you? Do you know the difference between a burqa and a hijab? Your rambling is sophomoric and misses the point of the *exchange* of why these particular refugees are here on an SIV with the deal the US government made. The deal the government is reneging on. I’m not ok with that.
Your response is typical of those angry about SNAP in general, magnified with the inability to label the countries on a map of Western Asia (that would be “The Middle East”) — let alone know anything about the combat these men experience alongside American troops. 9/11, Islam, Bush policies, poppy fields and Kush cannabis are not part of this issue.
Most of these Afghan men are veterans of the US Army who deserve what they were promised, including SNAP. Its a food benefit! We are not even in the same league for an exchange of this nature, even with you being armed with ChatGPT. I’ll politely decline your offer of tea. Carry on Ms Stone, I wish everything for you that you wish for these refugees. Have a great evening and may your belly stay full. #ItsEffingFOOD
There something truly wrong in VT. The dem/lib s will provide medical care and food to Illegal aliens, but when it comes to legal immigrants that risked their lives to help our troops – no way jose. We need to rid our state of this disease.