| 10 Defining Votes Of 2009 Session Continued...
I first raised my concern with LB403 way back in the first week of February when doing my initial overview of the most eye-catching legislation that had been introduced in the 2009 session. At that time, the media was touting this Heineman-endorsed bill to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving most public benefits as some great compromise because it would supposedly leave Nebraska's controversial DREAM Act legislation intact, keeping the door open for children from undocumened immigrant families to receive in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities.
In 2008, both Gov. Heineman and Attorney General Jon Bruning blew up and went on the attack against the Legislature's Judiciary Committee when it refused to advance a similar bill that would have expressly repealed the state's DREAM act provisions. Only 28 students had then relied upon this program, which passed in an override of Heineman's veto just three years prior. Heineman and Bruning were evidently eager to refight this battle and rejected any sort of compromise that would have kept this opportunity available for these disadvantaged Nebraska children who surely deserve no blame and should not suffer for their parents' choices.
Well, the powers-that-be and the press would have evidently had us believe that LB403 represented a radical departure for Heineman and a much more moderate piece of legislation. But, as introduced and as it emerged from committee, there are very real doubts whether that was actually the case. I explained my skepticism here - based primarily on the strained logic by which in-state tuition could possibly be understood as anyhing but one of the "postsecondary education benefit[s]" specifically prohibited by the proposed statute. The fact that LB403 specifically defined its exceptions without protecting the state's DREAM Act program left it on even shakier legal ground.
Some may believe that this controversial issue has been rendered moot by the 2008 election as a wider Democratic majority in Congress and a new Democratic president pave the way for the DREAM Act's finding its way into federal law. At this level, the bill would also provide a route to permanent residency for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and pursue at least two years of college or military service.
President Barack Obama has declared his support for this legislation. However, right now the DREAM Act is still being lumped in with larger plans for comprehensive immigration reform that may not come to a vote for a very long time. It's certainly also worthwhile to note that the last time part of the DREAM Act was voted on by the Senate in 2007, it actually came up eight votes short of overcoming a filibuster. Even with the new Congress, the numbers still might not be there to overcome a filibuster considering that three essential votes in support had come from Republicans who are no longer in office - including Nebraska's own Chuck Hagel.
The point is that the fate of the DREAM Act is hardly settled as one might have imagined from LB403 and its proponents' approach. By staying silent on Nebraska's in-state tuition program, the bill might have opened up the possibiliy of a real mess. It may seem a recurring theme, but I again have to give credit to State Senator Brenda Council, who cast the sole vote against LB403 in the Judiciary Committee because "the bill need[ed] to be specific" on the DREAM Act.
Interestingly, the first effort to define the Legislature's intent for LB403's effect on the DREAM Act came from the ambitious State Sen. Charlie Janssen. Eager to make a splash with the anti-immigrant right-wing groups he'd allied himself with as a Fremont City Councilman, Janssen offered an amendment to limit the in-state tuition benefit to those lawfully present in the United States. This essentially caused pandemonioum on the floor as tempers flared, a laptop was killed, and it became clear that some unstated but fragile compromise might have just been jeopardized.
Janssen quickly found himself confronted by Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Ashford and was later accused in the press of hijacking two years of work investigating how the state might best address the immigration issue. Defending himself on the floor, Janssen even acknowledged whispers that Gov. Heineman was likely to take him to the woodshed for upsetting whatever plan had been in place.
Were it not for a counter amendment offered by Sen. Tom White that could have turned LB403 into a very dangerous bill for powerful corporate interests, it's hard to guess how this debate might have ultimately been resolved. Rather than going down that road any further these generally unrelated amendments appeared to have cancelled each other out as those threatening to open up the debate backed down at the risk of opening it too far.
To his credit, the introducer of LB403 - State Senator Russ Karpisek - proved responsive to concerns about its effect on the DREAM Act. Although personally opposed to in-state tuition benefits for children who are in the country illegally, Karpisek wasn't playing games with this legislation and led the way in clarifying its intent with an amendment limiting its prohibition on postsecondary education benefits to those "involving direct payment of financial assistance." On the record, in a well choreographed dialogue with Sen. Danielle Nantkes, Karpisek went out of his way explaining that this only meant undocumented students should not be getting financial aid or scholarships from public sources.
This was how LB403 had been sold to the public, and Karpisek did his part to deliver on that promise. His amendment was adopted with 36 ayes, 0 nays, 12 present and not voting, and 1 excused. No roll call was even taken. But, it was this vote that paved the way for the bill to move forward and ultimately find its way to the Governor's desk and into law.
Of course, the actual bill in its final form borders on completely inconsequential, primarily demanding that state and local agencies do what federal law already requires verifying the eligibility of non-citizens for public benefits. Public employers, contractors, and certain tax incentive recipients will also be required to check their employees' legal status once hired, using E-Verify or an equivalent federal system.
The bill is what it is. It gives Heineman and the Legislature political cover from those frustrated and fed-up by illegal immigration. It provides the appearance of action for which everyone can take a little bit of credit. But, for our purposes, I'm most interested in what LB403 isn't and what it doesn't do - as it leaves open a tiny little door to hope and opportunity for some young students who need it the most and might otherwise be lost to the shadows. |
