The pulpit at First Lutheran Church in Fremont, Neb. Story by Ellen Jean Hirst, photo by Kyle Bruggeman Nebraska’s Christian leaders are all hitting the same note in this year’s popular song: “Stop Sen. Charlie Janssen’s immigration bill.” But many of the church faithful aren’t singing along. Statewide, the immigration issue has emerged as the most significant – and controversial – message to come out of the pulpit this year. And church leaders across denominational lines have embraced it like never before, said Marilyn Meecham, director of Interchurch Ministries Nebraska for the past 11 years. “In terms of social issues it would be the leading topic coming out of the pulpit,” said the Rev. David Lux, senior pastor at St. Paul United Methodist in Lincoln. “It is one of those issues that is clearly addressed in the Bible and in our religious tradition.” Nebraska’s immigration bill, LB48, proposed by Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, would give law enforcement officers the right to check the legal status of anyone they thought reasonably suspicious. The Legislature’s first judiciary committee hearing for LB48 was March 2. Most Nebraska pastors have embraced the issue, because they fear the law would promote racism, whether intentional or not, with the “reasonable suspicion” justification dangerously unclear. Christian leaders fear the bill does not show compassion and love to those who come to the United States in search of a better life. But Janssen, who grew up Catholic, said he believes that sometimes it is OK to disagree with one’s church, since churches have supported immoral acts, such as slavery, in the past. “We can’t just pick and choose which laws that we are going to enforce or not enforce,” Janssen said. “I think there’s some times when it’s OK to disagree with your church.” The Rev. Lux has directly addressed immigration in his sermons. Although many are receptive to these sermons, a few have stopped attending his church. Lux said one man walked out of a Saturday night service at which Lux advocated for more compassionate laws. Lux said the Bible instructs Christians to be open to sojourners – modern day immigrants. Even illegal immigrants, he said. “What I believe politically comes from my faith,” Lux said. “That influences all of my life including what I believe and how I would vote on political issues. Our faith teaches compassion, so if an issue has to do with how people are being treated – compassion, justice, righteousness – they speak to how we behave politically. Politics is just how we get things done. I don’t see how you separate those.” But some Christian congregation members believe a bill like LB48 is just what Nebraska needs. “I don’t know what they mean by more compassionate and loving,” said Tony Primavera, a Catholic principal at Cathedral Elementary School in Lincoln. “Is it loving when we just give people things and don’t help them to learn how to take care of themselves?” The real world, Primavera said, has rules. Rules that sometimes, must be broken, religious leaders say. “When Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, that was illegal,” Lux said. The Catholic bishops in Nebraska agree in their 2009 statement on immigration. And Meecham said many Christians who disagree with Christian leaders on this issue, do so quietly. “We call it the dirty little secret, because people that are really supportive of the bill not going through are very vocal,” Meecham said. “You don’t see a lot of rallies the other way, but if it went to vote in the state right now… the bill would pass.” Meecham said many LB48 supporters aren’t vocal about their support for the bill because they don’t want to appear racist. “What you hear… you’re a racist because you’re going against people that are not Caucasian,” said Jerry Hart, 63, a Fremont resident, Christian and proponent of the bill. “I’m not a racist.” He said people should be treated humanely, but “trying to find a better life,” does not justify breaking the law. “People rob banks to have a better life. There’s all kinds of things people do to break the law to have a better life,” Hart said. So what would Jesus do? “I don’t think he’d stand at the border with a gun,” Cathedral Elementary Principal Primavera said. “But I also don’t think he’d say come on across and break the law.” Andrew Mock, 21, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln senior studying psychology, believes without a bill like LB48, continuing immigration will ultimately making everybody’s quality of life – including illegal immigrants’ lives – worse. “Adding millions of people who pay very little taxes and burden the emergency rooms will not help anyone’s situation,” Mock said. “And if illegal immigration actually hurts people, then it cannot be moral.” The Rev. Chuck Bentjen, senior pastor at Immanuel Lutheran Church in Beatrice, believes Christians who are for LB48 misunderstand their faith’s perspective, partly because some pastors fear the congregation will become upset if they discuss immigration and give less to the church. The bottom line, according to both Bentjen and Lux, is that Christians’ political beliefs should have their roots in religion. “How we view political issues ought to be driven by our faith. They’re not separate at all,” Bentjen said. “None of us in the Christian community who are opposed to this law say we don’t need to change things – we do. Just, let’s do it wisely.”

Check out our one-hour talk show each Monday night on KRNU radio, 90.3 from 8:00-9:00 p.m. Or listen on the web at KRNU.unl.edu. Your host is Gabriel Medina. Tonight you will hear from Rev. David Lux from Lincoln's St. Paul Methodist church and Rev. Check Bentjen from Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Beatrice. You may listen to portions of the broadcast below. An interview with Sen. Danielle Conrad, District 46 (note: the beginning portion was lost) Rachel Albin explains Rep. Council's resolution An interview with Sen. Ken Schilz, District 47 Preview for next week

Immigration issues were thrown to the center of public attention with the passing of Arizona’s hotly debated law, SB 1070, in April. The following timeline is a refresher, or a primer, for those trying to keep tabs on the issue nationally and in Nebraska.

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

Story by Andrea Vasquez video by Andrea Vasquez, Maureen Wurtz and Kyle Bruggeman.

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

Story by Maureen Wurtz video by Andrea Vasquez, Maureen Wurtz and Kyle Bruggeman.

Vivianne Chaumont, director of division of medicaid and long term care, testifies in disfavor of LB599 to the Health and Human Services committee on Mar. 16, 2011 at the Nebraska capitol. Story by Rachel Albin photo by Kyle Bruggeman A landslide of supporters testified Wednesday for a new law to restore prenatal care to mothers who do not qualify for Medicaid, including undocumented immigrants. “The baby doesn’t know what country he’s in or she’s in, but we do and we are good people,” said Omaha Sen. Gwen Howard, praising the bill’s introduction. LB599, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Kathy Campbell, would reinstate prenatal care the state cut off in March 2010 after realizing that unborn children are ineligible for Medicaid. For decades Nebraska had provided coverage for those unborn children and their low-income mothers. A similar bill, which Gov. Dave Heineman had threatened to veto, failed in the Legislature last year. On Wednesday, after hearing 15 of 16 people testify in favor, Campbell said the Legislature’s Health and Humans Services Committee likely will hold the bill until next session while the committee looks for funding sources. “The point is to be sustainable,” said Campbell, the committee chair. “We can’t find one-time money some place,” she said, adding that she would like to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to find those funds. Additionally, the potential year-long hold on the bill would give health care providers more time to gather data and patient stories like those heard at Wednesday’s hearing. For two hours, one person after another spoke in support of the bill, while one testified against it. Those in favor included religious leaders seeking a Christian approach to policy, pro-lifers defending the babies and health care providers who have seen how taking away prenatal care has impacted low-income pregnancies. Before testifying, the Rev. Howard Dotson of Omaha’s Westminster Presbyterian Church, asked for a moment of silence to remember babies he said were lost due to a lack of prenatal health care. “We need to be pro-life from cradle to grave, to err on the side of compassion and stay grounded in family values,” he said. Dr. Caron Gray, the Creighton professor and obstetrician-gynecologist, told of a pregnant, undocumented woman who lost her prenatal care and stopped seeing her doctor. Consequently, she said, the woman developed high blood pressure that threatened both her life and her baby’s. “The baby is a U.S. citizen,” Gray said. “We are putting U.S. citizens at risk with not passing this bill.” Justin Vossen, a March of Dimes board member, has a daughter in kindergarten who was born prematurely and spent two and a half years on oxygen. She also has had heart and eye surgery. "The effects of not providing the prenatal care will end up costing potentially the state more in the long run,” Vossen said. And if they’re born too prematurely, he added, the cost can run in the millions. But Vivianne Chaumont, representing the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, had a different take. Chaumont, the only testifier against the bill, said undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid funds, except in emergencies, such as labor and delivery. “We shouldn’t be spending any money for people who are here illegally,” Chaumont said. “That’s our position.” -Also contributing to this report were Gabriel Medina, Courtney Pitts and Asha Anchan

Story by Courtney Pitts photo illustration by Kyle Bruggeman Although Nebraska’s congressional leaders are reluctant to weigh in on an Arizona-style immigration bill, some see the legislation as the state’s cry for help to the federal government. In a series of recent interviews, Nebraska’s U.S. senators and representatives agreed that states have the right to take immigration matters in to their own hands. “It is the federal government’s responsibility to secure the borders of our country, and when it fails to fulfill this responsibility, states have no choice but to act in their own interests,” U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns said in an e-mail. Nebraska’s controversial immigration bill, LB48, would require police to stop or arrest someone to check whether that person is in the country legally if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe otherwise. The bill is modeled after Arizona’s SB 1040, which was signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund sued Arizona for overstepping federal authority while encouraging racial profiling. The Arizona law is tied up in courts and has yet to go into effect. While U.S. Rep. Lee Terry understands immigration as a federal issue, he believes the states have the right to enforce laws, said a Terry spokesperson in a phone interview. However, Terry also is concerned about placing a burden on private businesses to check immigration status of employees. Replied U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson: “Both the states and the federal government have the authority and responsibility to issue and enforce immigration laws.” U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith expressed similar views on the issue. “The federal government has a responsibility to enforce and protect our nation’s borders,” Smith wrote in an e-mail. “Because it has failed, states and localities have moved forward with their own legislation to protect their citizens, and I support their rights to do so.” As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Smith said he will advocate for immigration reform, which he defined as strong borders, effective enforcement and no amnesty. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry also offered solutions to Nebraska’s and the nation’s immigration problems – including tougher borders, punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants and ending birthright citizenship. Closer to home, Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen, who introduced LB48, said he expects the immigration bill to die in committee, but he hopes legislators can at least have an open discussion about the issue. Either way, a message has reached Nebraska’s congressional leaders. “I’ve always made it a practice to respect our state officials and not give opinions on Unicameral issues,” said Johanns, a former Nebraska governor. “I can tell you that I understand the sense of frustration among the states.” Nelson, also a former Nebraska governor, echoed similar sentiments. “Understandably this has ratcheted up the rhetoric on both sides of the immigration debate,” Nelson said. “Regardless of the merits of the law, it highlights that the federal government has more work to do to secure the border.”

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

Story by Maureen Wurtz video by Andrea Vasquez, Maureen Wurtz and Kyle Bruggeman

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

Story by Maureen Wurtz video by Andrea Vasquez, Maureen Wurtz and Kyle BruggemanStory by Andrea Vasquez video by Andrea Vasquez, Maureen Wurtz and Kyle Bruggeman

Michael Barges testifies in support of LB48. Story by Rachel Albin, Asha Anchan and Gabriel Medina photo by Kyle Bruggeman A former federal magistrate and a murder victim's brother were among the lineup of testifiers at an intense public hearing Wednesday on LB48. Testifiers, onlookers and media took every seat in the hearing room. Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, who introduced the Arizona-style immigration bill, was first to speak before the judiciary committee. The crowd hung on every word. At one point, they laughed. At another, they gasped. His testimony and questions lasted more than an hour. Michael Barges, 45, of Omaha, was emotional when he showed the judiciary committee a picture of his nephew, whose father was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant from Mexico in January 2009. Barges testified in favor of the bill. "I think it’s very difficult to have illegal immigrants in our society because if they do something wrong, they can’t be caught,” Barges said. “My brother Peter was stabbed by a man because he was dating his ex; but then he went back to Mexico." Barges said the police have a warrant for the alleged killer's arrest, but he hasn’t been extradited yet. University of Nebraska Regent Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons, Neb., said excluding Latinos would only worsen the shrinking of Nebraska's small towns. Hassebrook is the executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs. Stories on the front pages of the state's largest papers Wednesday showed a 77.3 percent growth rate in Nebraska's Hispanic population in the last 10 years. Counties who have seen their Hispanic populations double aren't thriving because of immigrants, he said, but the influx of immigrants for now is a stop gap in what could be a much worse population loss. Carl Schaffner testified in favor of LB48. But in the hallway outside, he said he was certain the bill would die in committee, referencing the "snarky attitudes" of senators. "Breaking the law has always been illegal in the United States," Schaffner said. "Why is driving drunk bad for me, but if you drive drunk and you might possibly be Hispanic, somehow it's OK. You're actually negative profiling, you're profiling everybody that doesn't appear Hispanic which is illegal." Former U.S. Government Magistrate Judge David Piester of Lincoln said he doesn't think LB48 is worth the legal battles that would result. "I think that if the bill passes, it basically means the state is going to buy a lot of lawsuits," he said. "There are sometimes causes that are worthy of buying lawsuits, but this isn't one of them."

A packed crowd attended the Mar. 2 Judiciary Committee hearing in the state Capitol. story by Paige Cornwell photos by Kyle Bruggeman In a contentious three -hour hearing Wednesday, some state legislators vigorously challenged a proposed Nebraska immigration bill, questioning its cost, enforceability and racial implications. For more than an hour, judiciary committee members questioned Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen about LB48, his proposed Arizona-style immigration bill. Sen. Amanda McGill of Lincoln questioned whether the bill would be an additional burden on taxpayers who would have to pay for detaining those arrested. “Even if we were to take in more illegal immigrants, if the federal government is just going to let them sit in our jail and that ends up costing us money, do you have a response to that?” McGill asked. Janssen said that the need to enforce immigration laws would outweigh the costs. “If we had a lot of murders and rapes going on, yes it would cost more to take more police officer time, but should we be enforcing the laws? Yes,” Janssen said. LB48, the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, would require police officers, when enforcing other laws, to verify the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. The bill is modeled after an Arizona measure. Judicial members questioned the bill’s language and what it means when it states that police officers must have “reasonable suspicion” when determining a person’s status while enforcing other laws. Sen. Burke Harr asked what would happen if a police officer pulled over someone, found out they were illegal, then during investigation determined they had not committed an offense. “A person is stopped, and the offense is an infraction, however, the investigation discovers the person is unlawfully present, what does that law enforcer do at that point?” Harr asked. Omaha Police Lt. Todd Schmaderer later expressed concern that reasonable suspicion had been well-defined, so it would be difficult for officers to enforce the bill. “Omaha police does not believe they have the manpower to assume this additional law enforcement role,” Schmaderer said. Sen. Brenda Council asked Janssen how reasonable suspicion would be determined. She said the bill would increase racial profiling because officers would use skin color or lack of knowledge of the English language as factors in determining whether someone might not be a citizen. “I am one who believes that LB48 promotes racial profiling,” Council said. At the end of the hour, Sen. Brad Ashford, judiciary committee chairman, said that the states would never have immigration reform until the federal government worked for reform, too. A bill with “numerous constitutional issues” would not fix the problem, he said. “We’re never going to get there, Charlie, we’re never going to get there until the House and Senate vote,” Ashford said. After Janssen’s testimony six pro-bill supporters focused on what they said illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers. John Freudenberg, representing the Attorney General’s Office, said Attorney General Jon Bruning supported the bill and that the state had the manpower to enforce the bill. He said, in his opinion, the bill was constitutional. Susan Smith of the Nebraska Advisory Council said that if a person is pulled over and doesn’t speak English it would still be cause for a police officer to reasonably suspect them of being an illegal immigrant. “If a person is here and is pulled over and they’re driving and they don’t speak English, I would think that would be a big concern. If they don’t speak English, how do they read the signs, how do they get around?” Smith asked. “I would think that would make the streets more dangerous.” Then, nine opponents of the bill testified, citing many of the same concerns of the judiciary committee. Civil rights attorney SA Mora James said that the bill would break a trust between law enforcement and immigrant women and children. “The atmosphere this bill has created,” she said, “…is making it an open season on immigrant women .”

Sen. Charlie Janssen defends his bill, LB48, to the Neb. Judiciary Comittee Story by Ellen Jean Hirst and photos by Kyle Bruggeman A public hearing for Nebraska’s immigration law Wednesday afternoon gave the Nebraska Judiciary Committee an opportunity to question Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen about his bill. The Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, LB48, would require police officers, when enforcing other laws, to verify the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. The bill is modeled after Arizona controversial law that’s tied up in court. For more than an hour, Janssen answered questions and listened to comments from the judiciary committee before proponents and opponents of the bill had their chance to speak. Sen. Amanda McGill of Lincoln began the questions, asking Janssen about potential economic implications of the bill. This bill, Janssen replied, would ultimately produce a “positive economic impact.” McGill also said she thinks Janssen is ignoring the population of legal citizens who may be suspected of being illegal based on skin tone or accent. Chairperson Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha said he believes the bill’s language, specifically the term “reasonable suspicion,” is not clearly defined. “When you can’t define reasonable suspicion… we can’t reasonably enforce this thing,” Ashford said. Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha asked Sen. Janssen about a similar concern. “Other than skin tone and command of the English language, what would be cause for reasonable suspicion?” Lathrop asked. Janssen initially said skin tone would not be cause for reasonable suspicion, but later said that skin tone, in conjunction with other factors, such as failing to provide a driver’s license, could. Former U.S. Magistrate David Priester ruled on many cases involving reasonable suspicion and testified in opposition of the bill. He said “reasonable suspicion” is something determined on a case-by-case basis. “It is more than a hunch, but less than reasonable suspicion,” Priester said. Janssen said it is up to the police to define reasonable suspicion. But Deputy Omaha Police Chief Todd Schmaderer expressed concern about this in his testimony. He said that because it is not well-defined, it will be hard to train officers. Schmaderer said he thinks the bill is an “unfunded mandate.” He fears that he does not have the manpower to enforce it, but that if it became law, of course, he would. Schmaderer’s final concern was that citizens, legal and illegal, would be afraid to work with the police in investigating crime. The constitutionality of the bill, which is similar to Arizona’s immigration bill, was questioned extensively. John Freudenberg, representing Attorney General Jon Bruning, said he believes the bill is constitutional. Janssen said in February that he did not expect his bill to get the required five votes in the Judiciary Committee to advance to the legislative floor. A majority of the eight-member committee view illegal immigration enforcement as a federal issue, Janssen said. “We’re never gonna get there Charlie,” Ashford said. “We’re never gonna get there until the House and the Senate vote... I understand your (Janssen’s) pain... We got it – something has to be done.” Sen. Burke Harr asks questions during the hearing.

Sen. Brad Ashford listens to testimony. Tweets by Courtney Pitts, photo by Kyle Bruggeman Hassebrook: Rural Nebraska is changing. Hassebrook: For many of our rural communities, immigrants have helped revitalize the eroding population. NU Regent Chuck Hassebrook next to testify. LB48 He works for Center of Rural Affairs. McGill: Why don't you pay more attention to immigration status? Schmader of OPD: We have few resources. Todd Schmader from Omaha PD says the police do not currently check immigration status. They usually have no idea when dealing with crimes. David Brown, immigration attorney, said he's had cases where ICE has held ppl with "fraudulent" id only to find they were here legally. Jones: What does an immigrant look like in a country where people are naturalized citizens or ancestors were immigrants? Dr. Jeanette Jones, social action chair of delta sigma theta is now speaking. LB48 will increase profiling and more sundown towns in NE. Dr. Jeanette Jones, social action chair of delta sigma theta is now speaking. LB48 will increase profiling and more sundown towns in NE Lanford: Is there anyway to get reasonable suspicion in LB48 w/o including race or language? Piester: Yes. Race and language not sufficient. Lanford asks about reasonable suspicion. Piester: It is more than a hunch, but less than probable cause. Piester: I see no reason to subjugate Nebraska cities and officers to undergo such litigation. These opinions are not of his court, he adds. Judge David Piester is speaking next. This bill would have to be defended in court. Police officers could be sued he says. Michael Noland from Fremont talks about the the costs of defending laws like LB48 and the Fremont Ordinance. James: We need to support victims of crimes despite status. Ppl who have suffered from these acts are not aliens. James: I've had 2 immigrant women who have come forward to ask for help. One was questioned about her immigration status. James: LB48 will strain the relationship between undocumented people and police. Cites case of a family afraid to cooperate in murder case. S. A. Mora James, a civil rights attorney in LNK, is speaking opposed to LB48. Now onto opponents of LB48 in the Nebraska legislature judiciary committee hearing. Carl Schaffer: When you try to call ICE as a citizen you are put through Homeland Security then FOIA office & told to write a letter. Barges: I applaud Sen. Janssen for having the guts to do this. Who's going to stand up for Nebraskans? Mike Barges is the next speaker. He says the bill mirrors federal law and we all have a stake in illegal immigration. Kagen: Anchor babies born to illegal immigrants are given permanent residency. They suffer from drug-resistant strains of TB. The judiciary committee had no questions for Smith. Next speaker is Doug Kagen of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom. Smith: LB48 will deter illegal immigration in Nebraska. It will protect Nebraska's jobs and benefits. Smith: If someone is pulled over and doesn't speak English that would be a concern. How do they read our signs? Susan Smith of the Nebraska Advisory Group is now speaking in favor of #LB48. Freudenburg: The absence of a driver's license would not be a reasonable suspicion alone. Freudenburg tells Sen. Landford that the command of the English language would be a consideration for reasonable suspicion Council: What database exists that would allow a police officer to check the status? E-verify only verifies lawful status. Harr: Is a lack of identification part of reasonable suspicion? My concern is we're going to be dragging children in to the police station. Harr: What happens with a two-year-old or 12-year-old doesn't have identification? Is being brown reasonable suspicion? Harr asks Freudenburg, who is an attorney, if he thinks #LB48 is constitutional. He says yes. Freudenburg: Bruning believes the issue of constitutionality is up in the air. He will defend it if there's a suit. John Freudenburg the bureau chief of the attorney general's office is speaking now Questioning of Janssen is over. Now hearing from proponents of the bill. Janssen: The federal government needs to enforce immigration laws. They get paid more than us. Janssen's news conference may not starting any time soon. Committee still questioning impact on law forces and reasonable suspicion. What's reasonable suspicion? Janssen: Ex. could be an unlicensed vehicle, who knows where they are going, there are too many ppl in the car. Ashford: What is in the laundry list of reasonable suspicions? Sen. Brad Ashford: Under your bill if officers suspect someone they pick up for a traffic ticket is undocumented what would the officer do? Harr: Tell me where it says it will be detained? I'm not trying to play gotcha. Janssen: If a person is here illegally they will be detained and ICE will be notified. Will be added to the bill if it's not in there now. Harr: Points out that #LB48 doesn't say a suspected illegal immigrant would be detained. Harr: What happens to witnesses who come forward and there's reasonable suspicion they're undocumented? Harr: If a woman came forward to report sexual assault & didn't have documents, would she be detained? Janssen not sure. Sen. Burke Harr is now questioning Sen. Janssen and his bill LB48. Council: Law enforcement officials know where their financial resource should be going. Council tells Janssen she's troubled by Janssen's statements about law enforcement officials "shirking their duties" b/c they oppose LB48. Council: ICE focuses and prioritizes deportation efforts on illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes Council: You (Janssen) do nothing to criminalize behavior of the employers who provide the primary reason ppl enter the country illegally. Council: All of us are frustrated that the fed govt has failed to enact immigration reform but state doesn't have authority. Sen. Brenda Council: Provide me with one example where the gov. has issued sanctions that require the police to engage in racial profiling. Janssen: The federal government should be paying for this, but we are stuck with the costs Sen. Colby Coash: Where is our closest federal ICE facility? Janssen said he assumes Omaha. Does anyone know if this is correct? Janssen says he's not concerned about economic impact McGill: Racial profiling does take place. There are people who will leave #Nebraska if (#LB48) passes. It will impact economy. McGill: Our budget is already tight enough in Lincoln. If my best friend who is a latina is pulled over will she be asked for papers? Sen. Amanda McGill asks Janssen about the costs of detaining illegal immigrants, cites story about Lincoln Police Chief. Janssen: "Waiting for congress to act is unrealistic. Janssen: As of 2006 the U.S. accepts more immigrants than any other nation. Janssen: "If racial profiling occurs due to #LB48 we would know about it and stop it. Janssen's intro: LB48 would prohibit sanctuary cities and peace officers would determine status if reasonable suspicion.

Story by Asha Anchan and Rachel Albin, illustration by Kyle Bruggeman Question: What do 2,000 new Rolls Royces, the Pentagon’s cyber-security investment and deporting all of Nebraska’s illegal immigrants have in common? Answer: The same price tag—about $500 million. Currently, about 45,000 undocumented immigrants live in Nebraska, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. And it costs the federal government $12,500 to deport one person, an immigration official recently told a congressional subcommittee. So the projected total to deport all of Nebraska’s undocumented immigrants is about $562.5 million—or $175.5 million more than the production and marketing costs of the blockbuster “Avatar.” Some Nebraskans are on board with this theoretical cost, seeing it as a good investment. Others find it outrageous. Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, who has introduced an Arizona-style immigration bill in the Nebraska Legislature, said he’d be quite willing to write the check because of its long-term benefits. “If you could give me that option right now, I would exercise that option at ($562.5 million) …” Janssen said at a Feb. 15 press conference. “When you extrapolate the cost of having somebody here … they come here, they have children, then they become citizens and then we have issues of health care forever, we have education issues, security issues. It is much less expensive, although semi-impossible, to deport everybody that’s here illegally,” Janssen said. Additionally, Janssen said he fears the “culture of lawlessness” created when illegal immigrants remain in the United States and break federal laws. According to Janssen, this— coupled with the social cost—is well worth the potential investment. But Charlie Clark, a former Lexington police chief, balked at the figure. “I wouldn’t be thrilled at all to pay $12,500 for each person to be deported,” said Clark, a police officer for nearly 33 years. “That’s totally unreasonable.” Jose Soto, a member of the Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, had a much different take. He said the cost of deporting Nebraska's undocumented immigrants wouldn't stop at $562.5 million—and it also would hurt Nebraska’s economy by taking away workers. "I think it's wholly unreasonable that we would spend that amount of money to round up individuals who are, for the most part, contributing positively to our economy and our social life in our communities," Soto said. Said Sen. Brad Ashford, chairman of the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee: “…The cost is exorbitant, but I don’t think that’s all the cost … I think it’s much more than that.” Ashford said that figure doesn’t include legal and local law enforcement costs. And even if money wasn’t the issue, there’s a better way to use tax dollars than to “catch 45,000 people.” “The best use of taxpayer money is to secure the borders so that you don’t get people lured in here,” Ashford said. Instead, the state needs to “prosecute employers who try to entice workers here—that’s the best use of taxpayer money.” Meanwhile, Jason Thomas knows first-hand about the arduous journey through immigration bureaucracy. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln senior started his citizenship path when he was about 5 years old and finished it when he became a citizen at 19. Thomas' grandparents moved to the U.S. from India in the late 1980s. Once they became citizens in the mid-1990s, they sponsored his family for legal immigration. The family didn't get to move to the U.S. until 2002, when Thomas was 13. The process was long and expensive, he said, wiping out his parents' savings. After jumping through all the legal immigration hoops, Thomas has little sympathy for those who come to the U.S. illegally. Rather than spend $562.5 million deporting Nebraska's undocumented immigrants, Thomas said he'd prefer putting his tax dollars toward incarceration or other punishment —even if it proves more expensive than deporting them. "Deporting them, in my eyes, is not a punishment. It's just sending them back to a country where they came from anyway and it's not like they're going to be punished there ... They'll be free in their own country," said Thomas, a pre-med biology major. "If I'm going to be paying ($562.5 million), then I want it to be a stricter punishment."

Story by John Schreier, photo by Kyle Bruggeman After spending the first 50 years of his life in California, Ed Hernandez was stunned when he moved to Nebraska three years ago. His new home in West Point was a far cry from where he lived in California. No window locks. None on the doors either. In California, he said, “Our dog wasn’t a pet – it was a watchdog. And on several occasions, it stopped people from coming into the house that didn’t belong there.” The second-generation American heard about West Point from a neighbor who grew up there, and it was love at first sight for the 53-year-old farm foreman and his family to Nebraska. California’s culture of crime also molded Hernandez’s belief that tougher border control is necessary. He said he worked with illegal immigrants who had no desire to be in the U.S. – other than to earn money before returning home. “Laws are in place to protect us,” he said. “If everyone does whatever they want, it turns into California.” Although most Hispanics have united in opposition to proposed illegal immigration bills, the conservative Latino bloc remains divided. Overall, Republicans tend to support this bill, which will be heard at the Capitol on March 2, and similar Arizona-style immigration measures. But not all conservative Hispanics toe the party line. Bob Quasius is the Midwest director of Somos Republicans. The upstart group was designed to offer conservative Hispanics an alternative to the perceived extremism of Republicans in regards to immigration. Quasius jumped headfirst into the issue, one he admits he knew little about, when he married a Honduran woman. It took some prodding from former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman to finally secure the mandatory interview that helped his fiancée and her daughter into the United States. That experience, he said, was a startling revelation into the federal immigration quagmire. While he doesn’t condone illegal immigration, the electrical engineer turned consultant now feels federal immigration laws need a complete overhaul. Even after his wife and stepdaughter received their visas, the immigration problems continued. He said the chronic backlog at the federal level prevented them from receiving an extension on their visas until they had been expired for seven months. If Minnesota had an Arizona-style law when they Quasius shudders to think of what could have happened. “My wife and daughter could’ve been thrown in jail despite never breaking any federal immigration laws,” he said. Meanwhile, Hernandez said he worked extensively with foreigners who routinely broke federal immigration statutes on tomato farms in northern California. He admires those who come to America legally and learn English, as his grandfather did when he came from Mexico in the 1960s. “There’s one young man here who became a citizen and got his driver’s license even, and he’s learning to speak English,” he said. “So there are some who do things according to the law.” In those sun-drenched fields, Hernandez learned basic Spanish in three weeks to communicate with his co-workers. But many of those workers, he said, have no desire to become Americans. Many came to work in the fields during the summer to make some money before heading home. And some were sent home early – deported after immigration raids. Hernandez said they often returned illegally, and he feels that should raise eyebrows. “The federal government isn’t doing their job,” he said. “Their job is to protect that border. They don’t have any idea who’s coming across – terrorists or whatever.” But Quasius strongly disagreed, saying the “draconian” Arizona-style laws won’t curb illegal immigration because they don’t address the real issue – providing prospective immigrants an easier path to becoming American citizens. The real “folly” of the current immigration system, he said, is that it fights the free-market principles of supply and demand. His ideal system simply would require those who wanted to become Americans to have a job offer in hand and pass criminal and medical tests before coming to the United States “There’s no reason why most undocumented immigrants would illegally cross a border, cross a dangerous desert, risk their lives and put their security in the hands of their coyotes,” he said, “if all they had to do was fill out some paperwork and wait a reasonable amount of time to enter the U.S. in a legal fashion.” Quasius also compared the proposed legislation to the disaster that was Prohibition. In his analogy, the undocumented immigrants looking for work are the decent people of the 1920s who desired alcohol. He then likened the coyotes transporting truckloads of Latinos across the borders as bootleggers and mobs because both are criminals. “If people who want to work here come here legally, then they don’t have any reason to cross our borders illegally,” he said. “Then the government can focus on the small criminal element that presumably would continue.”

Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady Story by Asha Anchan and Rachel Albin, Photo by Kyle Bruggeman According to Lincoln’s longtime police chief, what happened in Arizona should stay in Arizona. The reason: Nebraska’s proposed immigration law is seriously flawed. “I fail to see this as a good return on investment,” Chief Tom Casady recently wrote in a detailed, two-page letter to Lincoln’s finance director. Casady, a Republican who has been in law enforcement since 1974, cited numerous concerns with the proposed law, including: • An inability to identify all illegal immigrants • Additional costs and workloads that would thin his ranks • The unlikelihood that federal agents could deport all illegal immigrants • A loss of police trust that could trigger more crime “For my own tax dollar, I would prefer that we focus efforts on the deportation of aliens who have already been convicted of crimes,” Casady wrote. “I am always concerned with unfunded mandates that increase our cost of doing business without new revenue to offset these costs.” Nebraska’s proposed immigration law—LB48—would make it a misdemeanor to be in the country illegally. When enforcing other laws, police also would need to verify the immigrant status of anyone they suspected of being here illegally. The bill, introduced by Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen, is scheduled for a March 2 public hearing. “This isn’t a knee-jerk reaction to what seems to be one of the hot topics of the day, and this certainly isn’t about racism or protectionism,” Janssen wrote on his legislative blog on Jan. 6, the day he proposed the bill. “This is about doing what’s right for the people of this state.” The identification problem Sen. Janssen and Chief Casady do agree on one point: Even with an immigration law, it would be a tall order to find and then deport all of Nebraska’s undocumented immigrants. In a Feb. 15 press conference, Janssen said it’s “semi-impossible to deport everybody that’s here illegally.” He would get no argument from Casady. The police chief said it’s a myth that there is some “mammoth database into which a police officer can submit a name and determine (someone’s legal status).” Instead, a database from the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) identifies only immigrants legally in the country and those previously cited for breaking immigration laws. That database, Casady noted, would likely have no record of someone who simply crossed the border illegally—rendering a Nebraska immigration law ineffective. “My guess would be that the plurality of people in the country illegally have never, ever in their entire life had their fingerprints taken,” Casady said in a recent interview. “(Checking the database) wouldn’t reveal them all. I think when you get right down to it, I’d be surprised if it’s half.” Costs of implementation And then there’s the issue of time and money—which at some point, Casady said, are one and the same. Specifically, police methods to investigate legal status are both complex and costly. “Determining someone’s immigration status,” Casady wrote in his letter, “requires computer database inquiries, phone calls, electronic messaging, interviews, the review of documentary evidence, and may require other investigative steps, including such things as the collection and submission of fingerprints.” From years of listening to the police scanner and reviewing reports, Casady estimated Lincoln Police would encounter 50 suspected illegal immigrants a month. If each required 45 minutes to evaluate, that eats up 37.5 hours—almost a full week of one officer’s time—which Casady called a conservative estimate. If LB48 became law, he also predicted most department employees, not just officers, would need two to four hours of classroom training. “Our police department is already the smallest per capita in the State of Nebraska,” Casady wrote. “And we are failing to keep up with the population growth.” Additionally, incarceration also eats up taxpayer dollars. The average Lancaster County inmate costs taxpayers $73 a day to imprison, said Mike Thurber, administrator of Lancaster County Corrections. And costs vary from inmate to inmate for medical charges. “I have paid tens of thousands of dollars from our budget to provide surgery and post-surgical care to individual drunk drivers, domestic violence offenders and even defendants who have feloniously assaulted our police officers,” Casady wrote. “It may be maddening but it is also mandated by Nebraska law.” And more arrests put police at greater risk for complaints and/or lawsuits. Specifically, Casady wrote that LB48 would put officers at a heightened risk because it detains individuals “based on reasonable suspicion pertaining to the subjects’ immigration status, rather than probable cause to believe that he or she has committed a crime.” Casady wrote he is “not looking forward” to defending and paying tax dollars for the increased liability to his officers. Lack of resources Casady’s detailed letter not only raised the question of enforcement costs, but “what we accomplish in exchange for these costs.” For example, no matter how many people LPD can confirm are illegal immigrants, the federal government has limited resources to deport them and is the only agency authorized to remove immigrants. In 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed a record 392,862 illegal immigrants nationwide—including 5,925 in Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota and North Dakota. It is estimated that at least 11 million illegal immigrants are now in the United States, including more than 40,000 in Nebraska. In September ICE Director John Morton said his agency can afford to deport just under 400,000 people annually. He also said he would prefer they not be “the first 400,000 people in the door,” but rather people who have also committed serious crimes. Said Casady: “I fear that for many of the defendants arrested by my officers, we would simply be incurring these costs only to have the defendant walk out of jail after satisfying their local charges with little or no further action” by the federal government. Broken relationships Casady’s final concern was a cost not measured in dollars—but in trust. He said the stigma of LB48 could create a fear of police, inhibiting people from reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations, thus driving key sources and snitches underground. But Janssen viewed this aspect of his immigration bill differently “I guess informants a lot of times are people that break the law, running in that element,” he said. “Let’s face it, we got rid of people who are breaking the law, so there’s less need for informants.” Casady disagreed. What would happen—he mused—if someone got dropped off at an emergency room with a bullet wound and not even the victim would talk? The crime would be unsolvable if everyone feared police questioning their immigration status. And wider police distrust could set the stage for more gangs, Casady said. To implement LB48, police training would include measures to prevent racial profiling and maintain relationships with minority communities, Casady said. The department has long forged ties in minority community centers and churches, through which police project a message of trust and respect. If LB48 becomes law, Casady’s department obviously would enforce it. But the police chief wrote the cautionary letter on the bill’s pitfalls to shed light on his law enforcement concerns, based on more than 30 years of experience. “What do we get for our investment (in enforcing LB48)?” Casady asked. “I’m a little bit concerned that we may not get what some people think we’re getting.”

Immigration issues were thrown to the center of public attention with the passing of Arizona’s hotly debated law, SB 1070, in April. The following timeline is a refresher, or a primer, for those trying to keep tabs on the issue nationally and in Nebraska.
Nebraska is one of 15 states considering bills for Arizona-style laws. LB48 awaits the Nebraska Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, which could kill it or send it to the full legislature for debate. Parts of SB 1070 are being enforced while the law faces legal challenges; the Fremont ordinance is not being carried out while its lawsuit is pending. In Nebraska, there are six steps for any bill to become a law. This is the path LB48, Sen. Charlie Janssen’s Illegal Immigrant Enforcement Act, will have to follow to become state law. 1. A Public Hearing of LB48 is conducted by the judiciary committee (Sens. Ashford, Lathrop, Coash, Council, Harr, Larson, Lautenbaugh, McGill) allowing proponents and opponents to discuss the merits of the bill, after which the committee has four options:

1. Kill the bill—indefinitely postpone
2. Advance the bill to General File—it is put up for debate by the entire Nebraska Legislature
3. Advance the bill to General File with amendments—it is advanced to the Nebraska Legislature with attached amendments for consideration
4. Hold the bill—no further action is taken

If there is a tie, the bill may not be advanced and is considered “deadlocked.” In order for a bill to advance it needs a majority of 5 votes. 2. General File is the first round of legislative debate concerning the bill. During this stage opponents, proponents and those undecided have the opportunity to debate the intricate details of the bill. Senators have the option to:

1. amend the bill
2. kill the bill
3. delay the bill
4. advance the bill to the second round of debate
5. refuse to advance the bill

**A majority of 25 votes is needed to advance the bill 3. Select File is the second round of debate for the bill, during which all options available to senators during General File are also available 4. Final Reading is a stage in which debate is not allowed, however, senators may file motions to return the legislation to Select File for a specific amendment. If there are no motions, 25 votes are needed for the bill to pass. 5. The Governor now has five days, excluding Sundays, to decide what to do with the bill. If he signs the bill or declines to act on it, the bill becomes a state law. The governor may also veto the bill. However, the senators may override the veto, with 30 votes. 6. Effective Date: Most bills passed and approved by the governor become law three calendar months after the Legislature adjourns for the year. However, some bills may take effect before that date if they contain the emergency clause.

Story by Asha Anchan and Paige Cornwell Sen. Charlie Janssen said Tuesday he believes his Arizona-style immigration bill will die a quick death in the Nebraska Legislature. In a wide-ranging Capitol press conference, the Fremont senator said he does not think his bill - LB48 - will get enough votes in the eight-member Judiciary Committee to advance to the legislative floor. “It’s most likely going to get shot down in committee,” said Janssen, referring to the bill which is now scheduled for a March 2 public hearing. Janssen said his pessimism stems from knowing the ideological perspectives of the committee members. He said a majority of the members view illegal immigration enforcement as a federal issue, leading him to believe LB48 will not receive the five votes necessary to advance. LB48 would require police, when enforcing other laws, to verify the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. “Nebraska doesn’t have the border-state problems of Arizona” and does not need a bill that “would unfairly target legal immigrants,” Sen. Brad Ashford, Judiciary Committee chairman, told the Omaha World-Herald in December. “If you’re in Scottsbluff checking IDs, you’re going to be checking an awful lot of IDs of Latinos of fifth-generation heritage,” Ashford said. “… I don’t think it’s going to do any good.” Still, Janssen said he hopes there’s a debate on the bill, because it would benefit Nebraska citizens to see where their senators stand on illegal immigration issues. “I would love for the Legislature to have a chance to debate this on the floor,” Janssen said. “There’s 49 of us on the floor, and this is an issue we are all asked about … It’s all over the place.” Despite his predication for LB48, Janssen said he still plans to work on future illegal immigration legislation.

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

We are using embedded Flash videos please update your Flash Player. If using a mobile device you can access content from a mobile download located below.

Photo by Kyle Bruggeman Story by Ellen Hirst More than 300 people gathered on the sun-splashed steps of the Capitol Building Thursday to make their case in a unified chorus: There’s no place for Arizona-style laws in Nebraska. They came to protest a controversial bill – LB48 – modeled after a similar one in Arizona. Some protesters came during their noon lunch breaks, while others drove from Omaha, Grand Island and Kearney flashing colorful, handmade signs like “Reform, Not Racism” and “God’s LOVE has no borders.” Nebraska’s immigration bill, now scheduled for a March 2 judiciary committee hearing, would require police who stop or arrest someone to check whether that person is in the country legally – if the officer reasonably suspected otherwise. Thursday’s speakers raised concerns about what they said were the potential social, economic and safety implications posed by LB48. Alan Potash, with Anti-Defamation League Great Plains Region, said the extra responsibilities the law would place on local and state law enforcement officers would jeopardize the safety of communities. It would create a “chilling effect,” deterring even legal immigrants from wanting to cooperate with police. A number of others questioned whether the bill is constitutional. Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, chief sponsor of the bill, and Attorney General Jon Burning, who helped craft the some of the language, are confident the bill will pass constitutional muster. But for the Rev. Ann B. Sherer-Simpson, resident bishop of Nebraska United Methodist Church, this law isn’t about constitutionality – it’s about vulnerability. “God cares for the vulnerable among us. We are making whole classes of persons more vulnerable,” she said in a statement read by the Rev. David Lux, senior pastor for St. Paul United Methodist Church. The issue of “anchor babies” also became a rally topic. In the past, Sen. Janssen has used that term to describe children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. He has said this provides incentives for people to enter the country illegally. Frank LaMere of Omaha, a Winnebago Tribe member, took that issue head on. He said that Native Americans and Hispanics are brothers and sisters in the fight for equal opportunity. “I am amazed by the discussion and ridicule he has engendered about ‘anchor babies’ who lived, grew and flourished on lands stolen from the Omaha, the Otoe and the Pawnee who are now displaced,” LaMere said to an outburst of applause. Surrounding LaMere and the other speakers were the faces of ethnically diverse people standing beneath a tile-blue sky. Among the faces were: Esther Palma. At 86, she could have stayed in the comfort of her Omaha home Thursday. Instead, she found herself standing on the cold Capitol steps. Born and raised in Omaha, Palma said it was her mother who emigrated from Mexico. Mistaken as an immigrant for the majority of her life, Esther said she often found herself fighting to protect her four children from discrimination. When people asked why she went to school meetings, she said she always replied: “I’m here to defend my kids because they’ve got people against them, because they’re Mexican.” Dr. Mario Sanchez skipped his family medical practice to be at the UNITY rally.  A U.S. resident for more than 20 years, Sanchez emigrated from Lima, Peru. Although he is opposed to LB48 overall, he nevertheless said he sees a silver lining in the bill. “To me, this is the best thing that could have happened in the United States to Latinos because they have awakened a lot of Latinos to understand that if we don’t become organized and we don’t become involved in politics…we’re doomed,” said Sanchez. Karise Carillo and her friends walked to the rally from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus, some with heavy backpacks. About 20 people from the Mexican American Student Association and other groups based in the The Jackie Gaughan Multicultural Center met up at the event. Carillo said LB48 would hit home for MASA members, many of whom are from South Sioux City, Grand Island and other towns with large Hispanic populations. "It affects everybody on a personal level because this would affect their home communities greatly," she said. "But then also it affects MASA members on a personal level because of the way we look, the language that we speak, and we frankly don't want to be discriminated as such by the law." Oscar Castaneda, a Guatemalan immigrant, said he wouldn't leave the state if LB48 passes. 
 "I'm going to keep fighting for my community until this is resolved," said the Omaha resident, who is a leader in Pixan Ixim, an organization of ethnic Mayans in South Omaha.  If LB48 passes, "It's going to cause a social disaster, a familial disaster ... family breakup," he said. "It affects us all, both Hispanics and Americans." Genoveva Sanchez emigrated from Chihuahua, Mexico, to Nebraska 25 years ago, when she was 17. She said she had always felt welcome in Nebraska until the state began considering Arizona-style immigration laws. “I’m afraid Hispanic people will leave, because I’m afraid they’ll be harassing us,” Sanchez said. “This is the first time I have felt that people are really looking at me.” Tom Scherer wanted to make one thing perfectly clear: “I’m an immigrant.” The pale-skinned, 77-year-old retired educator emigrated from Ontario, Canada.  He and his wife said they receive e-mails from those who support the law – a law Bonnie Scherer said could hurt her adopted hometown. “Lincoln really has a good reputation nationwide that we are a place that welcomes people from other countries,” she said.  “I value that and I don’t want to see anything damage that.” Also contributing to this story were Rachel Albin, Asha Anchan and John Schreier. Artist Ben Jones (right) brought his own form of protest to the rally. Photos by Kyle Bruggeman