The first regular session of the 102^nd Nebraska Legislature is on its journey. The ceremonies of the first day of a new Legislature were on display January 5 at the historic State Capitol. After opening day, ceremony becomes secondary to the main business of considering ideas for policy changes and making new laws.

The ceremonies included the swearing-in of 24 legislators—all having the title “senator,” given Nebraska’s especially unique one-house system—who were elected last November. This number, in effect half of the total of 49 legislators, consisted of 19 incumbents and five new members. In addition, Senator Dave Bloomfield from Hoskins was appointed by the Governor last month to fill the District-17 seat vacated by an incumbent who resigned upon being elected to a county office. The new first-year class consists of Senators Burke Harr from Omaha, District 8; Jim Smith from Papillion, District 14; Lydia Brasch from Bancroft, District 16; Paul Schumacher from Columbus, District 22; and Tyson Larson from O’Neill, District 40.

Another first-day task for the new Legislature was election of leadership positions. More often than not over the years, these secret-ballot elections have had some competitive, tense moments and produced some drama. Not this year; the event was pretty much a snoozer. Almost all of the key positions were filled by the incumbent.

The post of Speaker was returned by unanimous acclaim to a proven leader, the skillful solon from Norfolk, Senator Mike Flood. Likewise, Senator John Wightman of Lexington was re-elected Chairman of the Legislature’s Executive Board. The standing committee chairpersons are almost exactly the same as they were last year. An exception is the Health and Human Services Committee. Senator Kathy Campbell of Lincoln was elected for the chair previously held by an incumbent who did not seek re-election.

While the impact of terms limits is still a discussed and debatable topic, this Legislature was not greatly affected, at least numbers-wise. Only one of last year’s legislators was term-limited. Overall, six new members is not a seismic turnover. This Legislature has a noteworthy amount of continuity.

The 102^nd Legislature, like its many predecessors, will deal with a myriad of difficult and challenging issues. At the top of this year’s list from the perspective of most observers and pundits are fixing the projected budget shortfall of nearly a billion dollars and determining new boundary lines for the congressional and legislative districts based upon 2010 census data. The budget challenge will be multi-faceted, drawing numerous other issues into debate and negotiation.

Another issue that has been attracting attention, probably more than it deserves, involves state- and local-level authority to enforce Federal immigration laws. At least one legislator has given several hints that he intends to introduce some form of legislation to help the federal government do its job, even though that job is tied to a broken system that Congress has failed to fix. He has claimed that what he proposes will vary from the infamous Arizona law and will protect against racial profiling. Given those self-directed parameters, it will be interesting to see what comes forth.

The legislators won’t be addressing the serious budget woes without preparation. In fact, the preparation has been unprecedented. Pursuant to Legislative Resolution 542, adopted last April 13, an ad hoc committee consisting of the Speaker, the Executive Board chairman and the chairpersons of the standing committees, has reviewed all programs of state government and each agency’s budget authority.

Each of the 14 standing committees was charged with a duty to identify potential cuts totaling 10 percent of the total general fund appropriation for all agencies within the respective committee’s jurisdiction. The result is a list of ideas—now called the “10% Options List”—that the committees believe need to be carefully considered in crafting a new budget that overcomes the projected $986 million shortfall. The ideas stem from programs and funding that may be amended, reduced or eliminated. All that careful consideration will take time, especially for options that require changes in statutes.

And finally….

A tip of the cap please toward Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns for voting to ratify the New START treaty, which governs the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the Russian Federation. While this might not have been a hugely relevant or significant matter in the “big picture,” Senator Nelson was on target with his observation that there was no good reason not to support the nuclear arms reduction treaty.

On the flip side of the Congressional coin, the fact that all five members of Nebraska’s delegation failed to support the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act—the DREAM Act—was disappointing, to say the least. They refused to take even a modest, reasonable step toward fixing the broken immigration system. While all five probably would acknowledge the obvious need for comprehensive immigration reform, including border security, what efforts have they made to meet that need? So far, like a lot of their colleagues, they’ve been more a part of the problem than a solution.

Enhancing Private School Choice Would Help Nebraska 01-28-2011

Coming up soon is another of the annual celebrations of Catholic Schools Week across the nation and here in Nebraska. It is appropriate and important to celebrate that operating elementary and secondary schools is a vitally important mission of the Church.

The theme of Catholic Schools Weeks always provides a meaningful message. This year’s theme is no different: “Catholic Schools: A+ for America.” The double meaning of the second part is clever and provides a strong emphasis.

Catholic schools in Nebraska warrant an A+ grade, certainly for performing such an important and powerful mission of the Church: assisting parents in educating and forming young people academically, socially, morally and spiritually, so they can be happy and fulfilled during their earthly lives and secure their eternal happiness in heaven.

The grade is also A+ for contributing to the common good, to the state and its local communities. Catholic schools certainly are “a plus” for America, for Nebraska, and for communities and neighborhoods. As alternatives to government-operated education, they are assets and resources, in terms of the positive contributions of their independent educational philosophies and the cost savings they realize for all taxpayers. Catholic schools (and their independent and parochial counterparts) are more than valuable enough assets that they should not be taken for granted by government leaders and policy-makers. Rather, they should be encouraged and promoted as parental choice, for all the contributions they make, including educational competition and quality.

A way of accomplishing this as a matter of public policy would be by making privately operated schools more affordable for more families. Legislation seeking to do this has been introduced in the 2011 session of the Nebraska Legislature.

LB 50, introduced early by Senator Bob Krist of Omaha, proposes to provide a state income-tax credit for individual and corporate contributions to specially formed, state-recognized, charitable organizations that would be required to distribute no less than 95 percent of their annual revenue as scholarships, to enable children from income-qualified households to enroll in privately operated elementary or secondary schools.

So as not to “double-dip” with the Federal deduction for charitable contributions, the amount by which contributors could reduce their Nebraska income tax liability would be 65 percent of such contributions made during a tax year. There would be no maximum on any taxpayer’s qualifying contributions, but there would be an aggregate cap of $10 million for the first year, with incremental increases in that number thereafter.

Also by the design of LB 50, first-time scholarships would be available to students entering kindergarten, students entering ninth grade, and students transferring from any public school to any privately operated school in any K-12 grade. The means test would require, with respect to elementary students, that household income not exceed three times the standard used by the Federal government to determine eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch. The test would be four times that standard with respect to secondary students. All aspects of LB 50’s design are subject to amendment of course.

In September 2009, a statewide survey of Nebraskans’ opinions on K-12 education and school-choice options found 57 percent statewide support for a tax-credit-funded, private-school scholarship program based on financial need.

Just last June, a fiscal analysis commissioned by the Foundation for Educational Choice forecasted a net savings for both the State of Nebraska and local school districts from LB 67, the predecessor bill from the 2009-2010 legislative sessions. The fiscal analysis also concluded that if 80 percent of the tax-credit scholarships, at an average scholarship of $1,750, were awarded to students who otherwise would attend public schools, the net savings for the state for a 10-year period could be as high as $51 million. (Both the survey and the fiscal analysis are available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website: www.nebcathcon.org/NFCSP.

Achieving cost savings is important any time, but even more so during a time like this, when government must fill a substantial budget gap. The idea of enabling enhanced family access to the asset that is privately-operated education merits consideration. Whether the Legislature, in particular its Revenue Committee, will facilitate that consideration in a meaningful way remains to be seen. They have the tool in LB 50.

Catholic school parents and patrons might very well be the collective key to the outcome of LB 50. The more the legislators hear from their constituents on this idea, the more likely it will be that the bill is taken seriously. Contact information is available from the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, a program of the Nebraska Catholic Conference: www.nebcathcon.org/NFCSP or 402/477-7517.

And finally.….The sign outside a fast-food restaurant presents an interesting, January message: “Keep your resolution. Add a salad.” That’s clever marketing: right, a salad; an encouraging thought of sorts. From the restaurant’s perspective it’s better, of course, that you add a salad than substitute one.

It’s Here: An Arizona-Like Immigration Enforcement Proposal 02/04/11

Not unexpectedly, an “Arizona-like” immigration enforcement measure – LB48 – is among the more than 700 legislative bills and resolutions introduced in the 2011 regular session of the Nebraska Legislature.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops, has adopted a position of opposition to bill because it is flawed and confusing legislation that will, despite intentions to the contrary, create distrust and misunderstanding among immigrants and communities, produce unwarranted public expenditures and fail to uphold the common good.

The fact notwithstanding that immigration law and policy are first, foremost and almost exclusively a federal jurisdiction and responsibility, LB48 proposes the “Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act.” It is not identical to Arizona’s infamous S.B. 1070 (as amended a few days later by H.B. 2162), but it is copycat enough to raise the concerns and issues that dog the Arizona law.

LB48 includes several of the Arizona-like provisions that are temporarily enjoined – on grounds they violate the constitutional principle of federal pre-emption –pending appeals and more extensive litigation. Apparently, any thought that it would be prudent to wait and see what happens to Arizona in the federal courts was deemed a secondary consideration, at least insofar as introducing legislation is concerned, to showing Nebraska as just as much a “tough-on-the-illegals” state as Arizona.

Generally speaking, LB48 proposes that the Legislature do three things:

· First, LB48 would mandate that “a peace officer” determine the immigration status of a person lawfully stopped, detained or arrested whenever “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S.

The Arizona law mandates a “reasonable attempt” to determine immigration status and only “when practicable” as well. LB 48 doesn’t have those hedge words.

In addition, LB 48 also mandates that “the custodial authority” determine immigration status whenever “reasonable suspicion exists that an incarcerated person is unlawfully present in the United States.” The mix of circumstances between arrest and incarceration is confusing.

If a check into immigration status were to determine that a person is unlawfully present, the peace officer or the custodial authority would be required to immediately notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. What happens then is up to the feds.

Concern about racial profiling being an element of “reasonable suspicion” received considerable attention in Arizona. The law there says that law enforcement officers “may not consider race, color, or national origin…except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitutions.”

LB48, on the other hand, says that “a peace officer’s reasonable suspicion shall not be based solely upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Apparently, those characteristics can indeed be factors, just not the only factors in assessing reasonable suspicion. That’s questionable policy.

In Arizona, the follow-up legislation, H.B. 2162, took out the word “solely.” LB 48 uses it. This provision warrants careful scrutiny.

· Second, LB 48 would have the Legislature create five new state crimes relating to federal immigration law or policy. It would become a Class II misdemeanor for any person in Nebraska not to be registered as alien if required to be registered pursuant to federal law.

It would become a Class V misdemeanor for any person to fail to carry a federal certificate of alien registration or a federal alien registration receipt card when required to do so pursuant to federal law. It would become a Class I misdemeanor for any unlawfully present person to work as an employee or independent contractor in Nebraska.

It would become a Class I misdemeanor for any person to “knowingly or recklessly conceal, harbor, transport” or “move” an unlawfully present person, or to attempt to do so, for the purpose of shielding the person from detection.

And, it would be a Class I misdemeanor for any person to knowingly or recklessly encourage or induce an unauthorized immigrant to come to or reside in Nebraska.”

Five new crimes – At what point does putting even more on the plates of law enforcement officers in Nebraska have negative repercussions for public safety?

· And third, LB48 would prohibit any official, agency or political subdivision in Nebraska from limiting or restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

What’s more, the final paragraph would have the Legislature exhibit arrogance by declaring that it would have passed the act and every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of it irrespective of anything unconstitutional about it.

It will be interesting to follow how the Legislature, in particular its Judiciary Committee, deals with a confusing bill that that involves so many issues.

Bills Challenge Life Without Parole for Minors 02-18-11

Having been convened on 23 consecutive weekdays, state senators—and also legislative staff, the media corps and perhaps even a few lobbyists—no doubt appreciated the first four-day weekend of the 2011 session. It consisted of Presidents’ Day and the preceding Friday. After the modest break, the Legislature is meeting for 13 more consecutive weekdays. Thereafter, Speaker Mike Flood’s calendar calls for four-day work weeks the rest of the way, until final adjournment in early June.

With 35 legislative days completed, thus surpassing the one-third point in the 90-day session, the legislative process has settled in on the routine of morning floor sessions and afternoon committee hearings and executive sessions. The result is that legislation has been moving at all stages. More than 100 bills were advanced “to the floor” by the standing committees by the end of the 30^th day.

To help Nebraskans know more about what the Legislature is doing, the Unicameral Information Office has a fine website, which offers numerous features and capabilities. It is www.nebraskalegislature.gov.

Among bills that already have had public hearings are two that call into question and propose to modify Nebraska’s current public policy that allows minors to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole upon conviction of a Class I felony, which is almost always first-degree murder. Both bills were introduced by Senator Brenda Council from Omaha.

LB 202 proposes to allow a person sentenced to life without parole for conviction of a Class I felony that he or she committed when younger than 18 to petition for sentence reduction. As amended and advanced to the full Legislature by the Judiciary Committee on a 6-0 vote, the bill would allow such juveniles to petition the State Board of Pardons (Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State) for a commutation after 20 years or more of incarceration and certain other conditions. A commutation would allow for the possibility of a petition to and review by the State Parole Board after no less than the 20 years and likely longer than that in most cases. The bill would in no way dictate a reduced sentence, but it would provide opportunity for that to happen for those able to establish greater maturity and change in their lives.

LB 203 proposed to prohibit the sentence of imprisonment for life without parole for anyone convicted of a Class I felony, i.e., first-degree murder, who was younger than 18 at the time of committing the crime. Instead, the bill proposed that those of ages 16 or 17 would be sentenced to 50 years imprisonment and those younger than 16 would be sentenced to 40 years. Typically, this would mean first-time eligibility to petition for review by the state parole board after 25 and 20 years respectively.

Since the Judiciary Committee chose LB 202 as the bill to advance, it’s likely that LB 203’s legislative journey has ended and that it will be indefinitely postponed.

Senator Council, herself a member of the Judiciary Committee, stressed to her colleagues that juveniles lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of accountability, as well as incomplete brain development.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutual concern of the three Diocesan Bishops, submitted testimony in support of both bills, which offer alternatives for modifying current public policy. Following is an excerpt from the NCC testimony:

“From the perspective of the Conference—reflective of Catholic social teaching—there is no question that responsibility, accountability and effective punishment are fundamental to the demands of justice and to a just society….Therefore, in no way does our Conference’s support for either LB 202 or LB 203 have any intent or purpose of minimizing the seriousness of crimes or the concern and compassion unquestionably due to victims and their families. We understand the terrible nature and repercussions of all violent crimes, most especially those that shock the conscience and break the heart. We understand—in fact our Church teaches—that the state unquestionably has a right to establish and enforce laws to protect society….

“Catholic Conference support for LB 202 and LB 203 stems from the view that current Nebraska policy allowing life imprisonment without parole for minors should be reformed, because when this sentence is applied, it eliminates opportunity: not just opportunity for parole review, but much more significantly, all meaningful opportunity for redemption, rehabilitation, reform and reintegration for those who lacked adult development, rationality and judgment when they committed crimes that led them to be punished as adults, and who, by virtue of their youth and immaturity, have an extraordinary capacity for change and reform. None of us are the same person today that we were at fifteen or sixteen years of age.

“From our perspective, LB 202 and LB 203 do not cast aside or offend the balance between the necessity of responsibility, accountability and corrective punishment on one side, and efforts for healing, forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation on the other side. Rather, the bills uphold and enhance that balance.”

Prenatal Care Issue Not Forgotton 3/11/11

Last year’s harsh, controversial and lamentable change in public policy, by virtue of which the unborn children of impoverished, pregnant women who are unauthorized immigrants were made ineligible for prenatal care services under Nebraska’s medical assistance program, is not being ignored during the current session of the Legislature.

Whether there is enough interest, political will and short-term funding to reverse this horrible decision remains to be seen.

Recall that the federal government all of a sudden realized late in 2009 that Nebraska’s decades-long policy of covering prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women under Medicaid--regardless of the women’s immigration status—was not permissible. The reason is that regular Medicaid rules do not recognize the unborn child as an eligible recipient in his or her own right, and if the mother is an unauthorized immigrant, that fact makes her ineligible as well, poverty notwithstanding.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments—several percentage points higher by the former—and is the primary component of Nebraska’s medical assistance program for the materially poor.

After the federal government’s dictate about Medicaid, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) could have continued the policy of covering prenatal care services for the subject category of unborn children by using the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which covers more children from impoverished families and regards the unborn child as the recipient of prenatal care. But Governor Dave Heineman wouldn’t allow it, invoking his “no government benefits for illegals” mantra.

An attempt was made with a late-introduced bill to legislatively trump the Governor’s position by directing NDHHS to implement CHIP's unborn child option, but more than a majority of the legislators, including some who tout their pro-life views, didn’t want any part of that action.

A new bill of this nature (LB 599) has been introduced in the current session of the Legislature by Senators Kathy Campbell, Jeremy Nordquist and Brad Ashford. It has been scheduled for a late public hearing, March 17. Unless funding can be identified for the immediate and short term costs of providing this coverage—the long-term health costs from not having prenatal care (with respect to babies who are citizens upon birth and eligible for medical-assistance) don’t seem to matter much to most legislators—LB 599 has little chance of being debated.

If there was any mediating factor in the otherwise harsh and harmful policy decision to not use the available option to restore medical-assistance coverage for prenatal care services, it was the quite modest fact that labor and delivery fall under the federal-rules definition of emergency medical services, making them eligible for Medicaid coverage regardless of the pregnant woman’s immigration status.

Thus, as private medical-care providers, such as the federally qualified community health centers in Columbus and Omaha, as well as the individual medical professionals with whom they collaborate, have stepped up charitably to provide some of the prenatal care services otherwise denied, they should be confident they will at least be (partially) paid for the costs of labor and delivery services.

It’s unfortunate, but the state’s performance since last May on this unquestionable provision has been alarmingly poor. There have been s reports of inexplicable and unreasonable months’ long delays in payment, of lost paperwork and other bureaucratic errors. Providers haven’t been able to count on responsive actions.

Improvements are underway, apparently, but to ensure that this aspect is attended to more conscientiously and efficiently, Senator Nordquist introduced LB 494. It would require NDHHS to process applications for medical assistance—such as those for labor and delivery services for eligible poor women who are unauthorized immigrants—in a timely manner per federal regulations, which is typically 45 days. LB 494 might not go forward to passage, but it will be oversight in its own right and in waiting nonetheless.

And finally……….

This Legislature has the duty of redistricting; that is, using 2010 census figures to reconfigure the boundaries for the state’s federal congressional districts, state legislative districts and several other positions elected on a district or regional basis.

To lead in fulfilling this duty, the Legislature’s executive board has appointed nine legislators to serve as a redistricting committee, three who reside in each of the three Congressional districts.

Theoretically it’s a nonpartisan process in a nonpartisan Legislature, but for curiosity’s sake, there are five registered Republicans and four registered Democrats.

Their assigned task is to develop a plan for consideration by the entire Legislature. In days gone by, big maps, colored pencils and, especially, erasures were tools of this task; now there are sophisticated computer programs that make the process more efficient, but not necessarily less complicated.

Interim Study on Human Trafficking a Good Idea 03/25/2011

The tragic and horrific subject of human trafficking has received some attention during the current session of the Nebraska Legislature. That attention, not a lot relative to many of the other issues being considered by lawmakers, stemmed from two bills introduced by Senator Mark Christensen.

The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee conducted public hearings on both bills, but committee members exhibited little immediate interest in these proposals. It’s unlikely that either will be advanced to the full Legislature, but there was a hint that human trafficking could become the subject of a policy study during the interim between sessions.

We hope that happens. That study should have plenty of substance, because Nebraskans are under-informed and naïve if they don’t realize that human trafficking is not just a global phenomenon, but a state concern and policy issue as well. Local law enforcement officials, from Omaha and Lincoln at least, have verified its existence.

Federal law, the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, defines human trafficking as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision of, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through the use of force, fraud or coercion. Two general forms fall under this definition: sexual exploitation and forced labor.

According to a 2009 United Nations’ global report on trafficking in persons, sexual exploitation, including prostitution, pornography and the sex-entertainment industry, constitutes close to 80 percent of human trafficking.

The U.S. State Department estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons—predominantly women and children—are trafficked across international borders each year. Approximately 14,500 to 17,500 of these are trafficked into the U.S. annually. Worldwide, this contemporary scourge is a $32 billion industry. After drug dealing, it ties with arms smuggling as the second largest criminal industry in the world, and the fastest growing.

For years the Catholic Church has condemned and spoken out against human trafficking. The modern Catechism teaches: “The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity….”

Pope John Paul II wrote: “The trade in human persons constitutes a shocking offense against human dignity and a grave violation of fundamental human rights.”

In January of this year, the Bishops of Florida wrote of a particular aspect of this exploitation, which destroys victims’ mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health:

“A troubling trend is the exploitation of minors in domestic sex trafficking. These youth, under age 18, are the runaway and throwaway children in society, picked up on our streets and forced into sex acts in exchange for food and a bed. We grieve for the children whose innocence has been sacrificed in the name of greed and monetary gain, a shocking example of man’s inhumanity to man.”

Since 2006, human trafficking has been a state crime In Nebraska. Under section 28-831, it is a felony for any person to knowingly subject or attempt to subject another person to forced labor or services by inflicting or threatening to inflict serious personal injury or by physically restraining or threatening to restrain the person. In addition, there are separate, specific crimes in which minors are victimized.

Senator Christensen’s LB 689, which the Nebraska Catholic Conference supported in testimony, seeks to strengthen the statutory definitions of “commercial sexual activity” and “forced labor or services.” In addition, and importantly, the bill would provide for protective responses and support for victims.

LB 513, Senator Christensen’s other bill, seeks to address a context in which the line between legal and illegal activities is easily crossed, the escort or private erotic entertainment industry. The legislation proposes a licensing and regulatory structure for “escort agencies” and their employees. The introducer’s statement of intent makes the point that “evidence is emerging that some of these businesses are engaging in the coercion of women and underage girls and boys through human trafficking.”

Strong and inspiring testimony on both LB 689 and LB 513 was provided on behalf of a student group from the University of Nebraska known as NUSAMS—Nebraska University Students Against Modern-day Slavery. Its spokespersons were articulate and passionate about the group’s research findings and about raising awareness that human trafficking should be a matter of concern in Nebraska.

And finally…….

Debate has been hot and heavy in the Utah Legislature over several proposals to address illegal immigration. State Senator Curtis Bramble didn’t mince words in describing the context: “The fundamental premise of any discussion on immigration policy rests with the failed federal policies—the abject, dismal, pathetic failure of the federal government to do what it is constitutionally mandated to do.”

Energy and Enthusiasm at Large Rally for School Choice 4-01-11

Did a representative of the public-school teachers’ union in Nebraska really say this: “We believe that every student would do well in a public school and we would like to have them at those schools. If parents decide to send them somewhere else, we’re O.K. with that, as long as they are not taking the tax dollars with them, because we’re struggling in Nebraska as it is for financing for the public schools”? Of course he did. A response like that can be expected when the Nebraska State Education Association has an opportunity to comment about parents choosing other-than-public schools.

This particular comment was part of a television news reporter’s effort to include “the other side’s” reaction to a major event. That event was the “Educational Freedom Rally” that took place March 22 at the State Capitol in Lincoln.

Planned, organized and facilitated by the Nebraska Catholic Conference through its affiliate program, the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, the rally drew more than 2,500 Nebraskans—parents, grandparents, students and educators—to the north-side steps of the Capitol and much of the surrounding area. From there, with a high level of energy and enthusiasm, they heard and cheered several speakers, including state Senators Bob Krist of Omaha and Tony Fulton of Lincoln and the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk.

The purposes of the rally were to honor and emphasize parental choice in elementary and secondary education generally and, in a more specific context, to draw attention to, and encourage support for, Legislative Bill 50 from the current Nebraska Unicameral. This legislation proposes to create a tailored state-income-tax credit as a means of stimulating voluntary contributions to scholarship-granting organizations.

Contrary to what the NSEA might want Nebraskans to think, LB 50 is not about vouchers, the infamous “V” word. Tax dollars wouldn’t “follow” any Nebraska students. The Legislature and local school boards would not lose any of their authority to make independent judgments about financing public schools.

The tax benefit would be realized by individual and corporate taxpayers for monetary contributions to nonprofit organizations specifically established to award private-school scholarships to students from low and moderate-income families. As introduced, the credit against tax liability would be 65 percent of annual contributions.

Each scholarship-granting organization would be required to distribute at least 95 percent of its revenue as scholarships for children entering kindergarten or ninth grade, or transferring at any grade from a public to a non-governmental school.

Several other states, including Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Iowa, already have tax-credit-supported scholarship laws and are showing noteworthy policy results, not only in terms of enabling more families to have a choice in K-12 education, but also in terms of governmental cost savings and tax relief for all taxpayers. “Why not Nebraska?” was one of the rally themes.

The Legislature’s Revenue Committee holds LB 50. For information about this matter, including a link to the bill, visit: nebcathcon.org/education_issues.htm.

Archbishop George Lucas from Omaha was among those who addressed the large crowd at the rally. “It is a privilege to join so many adults and students from all across Nebraska at our State Capitol,” he said. “We hope to highlight the God-given right of parents to choose the best educational setting possible for their children. We believe that LB 50 can help Nebraska parents secure that right.”

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island also participated in the program.

Omaha businessman Jim Stolze, who serves as president of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, spoke at the rally. He said, in part: “We need real change in our state’s educational system, which begins by allowing parents the freedom to participate in the selection of their children’s school, including with tools such as tax-credit-supported scholarships.”

One other comment about the Educational Freedom Rally: while most of the television stations in the Omaha and Lincoln markets covered the event, neither of the state’s two major daily newspapers—the Omaha World Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star—did. Apparently, a two-hour rally of more than 2,500 Catholic-schools supporters at the State Capitol, with legislators and the Diocesan Bishops and attention on a substantive public-policy issue, was not deemed newsworthy. Shame on them.

And finally…….

On another topic: kudos to the six members of the Judiciary Committee who voted to advance LB 276 to the full Legislature. The bill proposes to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without parole and order of mandatory restitution. LB 276 is not prioritized legislation for this session, but will carry over to 2012 for a first round of floor debate. The six legislators who made this appropriate decision were Senators Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Colby Coash, Steve Lathrop, Amanda McGill and Burke Harr.

Budget Challenge Lies Ahead for Legislature 04/22/11

The Nebraska Legislature has completed more than two-thirds of its regular session for 2011. The 60^th legislative day of the 90-day session passed last week. Now the 70^th day is in sight—probably April 29—as the next marker. It’s the day by which the Appropriations Committee must advance its budget package to the body of the whole.

This Legislature has a mandate to pass a state budget for the next biennium, which will run in two fiscal years from July 1 of this year through June 30 of 2013. The challenge is exacerbated by a projected gap of more than $940 million between current spending levels and forecasted revenue.

The process started when the Gov. Dave Heineman presented his budget recommendations in early January on the seventh day of the session. The nine-member Appropriations Committee took over from that point and has been working diligently to have its package of recommendations ready to go by the 70^th-day deadline.

The committee issued a preliminary spending plan several weeks ago. It totaled about $7 billion for the 24-month period and was $11.1 million higher than the governor’s version. Reports are than more has been added since then.

Establishing a balanced budget is a complex process, especially when spending cuts of the depth dictated by the current fiscal situation are deemed necessary. It is a stressful process of balancing priorities and making difficult decisions. Both the governor and the Appropriations have major roles, but ultimately the entire Legislature faces the obligation.

Revenue enhancements—call them tax increases if you must—could be used to fill the gap and even permit additional spending for the state’s many obligations and needs, such as the broad array of human and social services, education at all levels, corrections and roads. For instance, a modest bump in the state’s progressive income-tax rates could do a lot, if not everything, to resolve the $940-plus-million dilemma.

But tax increases are pretty much out of the question in the current situation. Gov. Heineman put his foot down on that idea from the onset. From an economic perspective, there is concern that tax increases would thwart recovery and growth. From a political perspective, there is concern that voter-taxpayers won’t react kindly to any tax increase.

Even a proposed hike in the tax on cigarettes (LB 436), with its added impact of promoting better health, has dim prospects. As a revenue measure, it could help maintain, if not improve, reimbursement rates for the health-care providers who step up to facilitate Nebraska’s medical-assistance program. The harsher reality is that some Medicaid provider rates are likely to be reduced further from actual costs.

The whole Legislature has already made, and will continue to make, public policy changes that result in cost savings. Already, lawmakers have constricted state aid to local governments. The Education Committee has once again taken charge of modifying the complex formula that provides state aid to public school districts, thereby reducing what otherwise would be a billion dollars of cost and re-distributing $822 million next year and $880 million the following year. There are other examples of responsive actions.

In the midst of the budget challenges, there was some encouraging news. On Feb. 25, the Economic Forecasting Advisory Board presented a better outlook for the upcoming biennium than it had projected the previous October. The Forecasting Board next meets April 28. Its updated outlook could ease some of the stress on the Legislature, or it could make it worse.

Lethal Injection Scrutiny

Sodium thiopental is a fast-acting sedative that is part of a three-drug cocktail used in numerous states to carry out the death penalty by lethal injection. It isn’t manufactured in the U.S. any more. So Nebraska and six other states have purchased it from foreign sources. Nebraska bought doses from a manufacturer in India.

In March, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration required Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee to turn over their foreign-sourced supplies of sodium thiopental to the agency. It is investigating how the drug was obtained during a national shortage. Is Nebraska next?

One Nebraska lawyer has written to the U.S. Attorney General asking for an investigation of Nebraska’s importing of sodium thiopental. Another lawyer filed a motion with the Nebraska Supreme Court March 24, challenging the constitutionality of the lethal-injection law and the way in which sodium thiopental was obtained.

And finally…….

When an estimated 350 people turned out recently to rally at the State Capitol in support of collective bargaining rights—a worthy cause—the Lincoln bureau of the Omaha World Herald covered it with a 10-paragraph story. Two weeks earlier, when a crowd nearly 10 times larger turned out at that same location to rally, under the banner of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School parents, in support of parental rights to choose non-governmental schools for the education of their children, the World Herald ignored it. Go figure.

2011

Legislation is the essence of public policy. Or perhaps, it’s the other way around. More likely, it’s a combination of each influencing the other. In any event, while the theory might be worth pondering, the practice has impacts and repercussions.

Two substantive issues unfolding during the last third of the 2011 session of the Nebraska Unicameral are good examples of the connection between legislating and forming public policy. In both instances, what’s best for the common good is unclear.

State legislators will determine the outcome on major proposals regarding funding for highways and roads (LB 84) and addressing the substance and process of collective bargaining as it relates to governmental employment (LB 397).

LB 84 is already pretty far down the road. In fact, as of the Legislature’s Easter-weekend break—with 22 days remaining in the session—it was on Final Reading, after withstanding extensive scrutiny and challenge at both of the first two stages of floor debate. LB 84 proposes to earmark for new roads and road improvements one-fourth of every cent of state sales tax collected, beginning in 2013 and continuing for 20 years. In other words, a portion of state revenue that otherwise would follow the longstanding normal course into the state’s General Fund for overall budgetary determinations and allocations instead would be diverted directly to the Department of Roads for its projects.

A quarter of a cent out of a state sales tax of five-and-a-half cents per dollar of purchase doesn’t seem like much, but projections are that it would generate $65 million per year. This would be in addition to the revenue that comes from the state’s gas tax.

Proponents of LB 84, led by Senator Deb Fischer, who is the chairperson of the Legislature’s Transportation Committee, say the move is bold by necessity; that current and projected infrastructure needs demand and justify the priority. To some extent, proponents are counting on more economic improvement and a better fiscal situation for the state’s next spending plan in 2013. Opponents, led by three members of the Appropriations Committee: Senators Danielle Conrad, Heath Mello and Jeremy Nordquist, counter that the economic presumptions are shaky and risky and that earmarking sales-tax revenue is bad budgeting policy and bad public policy, which will negatively affect funding for other purposes, including human services and education.

Those are legitimate concerns. While the need for road construction and improvements all around the state is beyond challenge, presupposed and premature prioritization of that need over more direct human needs portends of a lot of pressure for the Legislature in two years.

Nonetheless, LB 84 has shown considerable strength. The vote on advancing the bill to Final Reading was 36-12.

LB 397 was still a work in progress and still awaiting the first-round of floor debate as the Legislature returned to the State Capitol earlier this week. Stay tuned for this legislative history to play out. It could be as long and contentious a public-policy experience as the Unicameral has had in quite awhile. Not only is this matter extremely complex, but a lot of powerful interests are weighing in from numerous angles.

Under current public policy in Nebraska, state and local governmental employees can organize and bargain collectively, but they can’t strike. Pursuant to authority granted under Article XV, Section 9 of State Constitution, Nebraska uses a five-member, governor-appointed and legislatively approved commission—the Commission on Industrial Relations—to arbitrate public-sector employment disputes that reach an impasse. Its decisions are binding, but appealable into the courts.

From just about every angle, there is dissatisfaction with the process that implements the functions of the CIR. Section 48-818 of the state statutes is the target of a lot of criticism. It requires the CIR to use comparability as its decision-making standard; that is, comparing the facts of disputes to wages and working conditions prevalent among an array of similar employment situations. The commonly cited problem with comparability is its lack of predictability.

Most disputes are resolved without heading to the CIR, but even for those, critics say, resolution is too often influenced by anticipating what the CIR would do, which diminishes the interest of cost containment on behalf of taxpayers.

While it seems likely that LB 397 is on track to cause a major overhaul of the CIR process, some are poised to argue for its abolishment altogether and for greater, if not unlimited, authority in the budget makers, i.e., the elected governing bodies.

Where does the right balance fall as a matter of public policy and the common good? It’s that employer-employee balance that’s largely at stake on LB 397. It’s the reason why LB 397 is so significant, so challenging and so fascinating.

And finally… On April 26, one of the most delightful and special persons associated with the Nebraska Legislature retired. Sally Gordon decided it was time, at age 102. When she was 75, Sally became the first female member of the Legislature’s sergeant-at-arms corps and served with grace and distinction throughout her tenure. We add our salute, congratulations and best wishes.

Bill Carrying Divorce Changes Given Necessary Scrutiny 05/27/11

State Senator Paul Schumacher from Columbus used a traditional legislative metaphor to make an excellent point about an amendment to, and maneuver involving, a bill being given first-round consideration by the full Legislature. He compared LB 669 to a Christmas tree, upon which ornaments are hung.

In its original form, LB 669 proposed to modify policy on sealing records in the juvenile-justice system. But that purpose was accomplished with an amendment to another bill, which was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

Those results left LB 669 as a shell; so the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Brad Ashford, decided to use it as a “Christmas tree,” upon which to hang as ornaments the provisions of four other bills from the committee’s jurisdiction. This is not a unique approach; it’s been used numerous times over the years, by various committees, especially on non-controversial matters. It might be questioned, but the rules allow it.

The “ornaments” proposed by AM1342—an amendment of 21 pages and 24 sections—included LBs 339, 349, 476 and 451, none of which had been designated as priority legislation and none of which had been advanced by the committee.

LB 451 is described in its originating statement of intent as seven provisions to enhance judicial flexibility. One of those provisions prompted Senator Schumacher to describe it as the “bulb” (being hung on the “tree”) that “lights up the room.”

Original section 12 of LB 451 became section 23 of AM1342 to LB 669. It proposed to modify Nebraska’s “no-fault” divorce law.

Pursuant to statute 42-361, dissolution of a marriage requires that a hearing be conducted in open court with oral testimony (or depositions) of witnesses as evidence. Section 23 of AM1342 proposed to add a new subsection allowing the judge to waive the hearing under certain conditions: that both husband and wife agree to the waiver; that both husband and wife certify that the marriage is irretrievably broken; that one certifies that he or she has made every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation; that all required documents are filed; and that both husband and wife sign an agreement that resolves all issues (e.g., spousal support, child custody, support and visitation and asset allocation).

The stated justification for allowing divorce decrees to be issued without hearings is saving court time and expense. That might be accomplished by making some divorces easier, quicker and more convenient for the judges, the attorneys and the parties. That’s apparently why the Nebraska State Bar Association lobbied for the legislation.

The reservations and cautions expressed by Senators Schumacher and Tony Fulton notwithstanding, AM 1342 was adopted on a 28-0 vote and the “Christmas tree” on which it was hung, LB 669, advanced to the second round of consideration.

Whether the divorce-related changes made by AM1342 are sound public policy is debatable. If both parties agree that the marriage is irretrievably broken and there are no issues to resolve—as Sen. Schumacher observed: no children, no money (assets) to speak of, and no love—then reducing workloads and costs by eliminating the court appearance is intuitively sensible. Still, some unresolved questions loomed large.

Fortunately, before the bill was scheduled for second-round consideration, Senator Fulton worked with Senator Ashford to develop an amendment that corrected the most obvious flaws of the newly amended LB 669.

Section 42-360 of current law requires that “No decree shall be entered unless the court finds that every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation has been made.” Is certification by only one party, in the absence of a hearing, enough evidence to satisfy that standard? LB 669, as amended, said yes originally. But if both husband and wife would have to certify that the marriage is irretrievably broken, then why would only one have to certify that he or she has made “every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation”?

Senator Fulton’s amendment achieved consistency by revising the condition so that both parties have to make both certifications in order for the hearing to be waived.

Section 42-363 of current and longstanding law requires that “no suit for divorce may be heard or tried until 60 days after perfection of service.” It sets a pre-decree waiting period, a stabilization period, to provide the parties time to contemplate the myriad impact of the action and to ensure that no advantage is taken of either party.

But if there would be no hearing, because of the waiver, and no dispute to be “tried,” wouldn’t the waiting period also be waived as a byproduct? Could the divorce be granted merely on the basis of the pleadings? Was it the intent of the Judiciary Committee and the Bar Association to facilitate “quickie divorces” in Nebraska?

Senator Ashford and the Bar Association’s lobbyists both acknowledged that those consequences would be unintended; so Senator Fulton fixed it with his amendment.

The cooperatively developed, corrective amendment was adopted without opposition and LB 669, as amended, moved on to passage.

Fortunately, the “bulb” that lighted up the room because of its substance and significance received the attention it warranted.

Legislature Efficient Enough to Quit Early 06/24/11

The Nebraska Legislature this year finished its lawmaking work early, using fewer legislative days than the number allowed by the state constitution. Historically and traditionally, an early finish is far more rare than common. But even more remarkably, it has now happened twice in the last three years.

The Constitution of Nebraska provides that the duration of a regular session of the Legislature in odd-numbered years cannot be longer than 90 legislative days.

In 2009, the Legislature adjourned sine die (indefinitely) on the 87^th legislative day. This year topped that. Adjournment sine die occurred quite casually on May 26, the 86^th legislative day, at 2:51 p.m. It was one of the least stressful days of all 86.

The early finish does not mean that state legislators took a casual approach or accomplished little. To the contrary, the early finish can be attributed to hard work, efficiency, collaboration, compromise and leadership. Regarding that last factor, the common denominator for both 2009 and this year was the effective role of the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood from Norfolk. By his tally, 272 bills were passed.

This Legislature was obligated to pass a state budget for the 2011-2013 Biennium. It accomplished that in relatively uneventful fashion, at least in terms of tense floor debate. Involving three rounds of consideration by the full body of legislators, the budget package of eight bills took about an hour in total.

It certainly wasn’t that passing a $7.1 billion, two-year budget was just that easy—far from it. When the session began, the legislative and administrative branches of state government not only faced a constitutional mandate to balance the budget, but a projected shortfall of nearly $986 million as well. “Heavy lifting” by the Appropriations Committee, decisions made regarding cuts in expenditures—some of them pre-identified in the interim between sessions—and cash fund transfers, as well as some timely, upwardly revised revenue forecasts, the Legislature not only balanced the budget, but provided an ending balance that is $3.2 million above the three percent minimum reserve.

As for more discretionary undertakings, a strong sense of need to reform the process through which labor disputes between government entities and public-sector employees are addressed resulted in passage of LB 397 on a 48-0 vote. Significant changes were made to Nebraska’s unique arbiter, the Commission on Industrial Relations. The valid, traditional concepts of labor organizing and collective bargaining were preserved.

The road to this result was far from smooth. Compromise by a myriad of interests was ultimately accomplished, but not without a lot of time and difficult negotiations. Senator Steve Lathrop led the process, but several of his colleagues were actively involved.

Thanks to resolute efforts by Senators Beau McCoy, Tony Fulton and Lydia Brasch, and an overwhelming level of support from their colleagues, this Legislature passed, and the Governor approved, three significant pro life bills. (Visit www.nebcathcon.org for analysis by Greg Schleppenbach in his Life Insight columns.)

Senator McCoy’s LB 22 was perhaps the most significant, because it moves Nebraska sooner rather than later on its discretion to opt out of covering elective abortions under health plans offered through any health insurance exchanges required by federal health-care-reform legislation.

On the other hand, it continued to be disappointing and troubling that far too few senators with pro life credentials expressed a willingness to challenge and overcome the Governor’s staunch, implausible opposition to restoring governmental coverage of prenatal care services for unborn children whose impoverished mothers happen to be unauthorized immigrants. LB 599, which would accomplish this pro-life result, did not have enough support to generate action or attention, beyond a public hearing.

As a result of a decision by its Judiciary Committee, the full Legislature did not get involved with legislation related to federal immigration policies. Generally speaking, Nebraska fits under this headline, which appeared over a national, Associated Press story: “States’ 2011 immigration legislation mostly fizzles.”

This was a good outcome insofar as LB 48, LB 569 and LR 28 are concerned. LB 48, the ill-advised, Arizona-like immigration enforcement proposal had a hearing that exposed its numerous flaws and bad policy ideas. LB 569 and LR 28 had to do with federally-based programs: E-Verify and Secure Communities (designated local enforcement) respectively. Both have dubious aspects and warrant further scrutiny.

The bad outcome of the Judiciary Committee’s “no action this year” decision was that LR 39 was held as well, and not advanced and passed. It was something the Legislature could have done without risk. It should have been a slam dunk. It called upon members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation to push for what’s absolutely compelling and most needed; namely, federal immigration policy reform.

Balanced Approach Needed for Deficit Reduction 7/15/2011

As the Obama administration and members of Congress continue to deal with the double dose of difficulty presented by deficits and debt, they need our prayers and deserve our gratitude for their service to the nation. These are urgings from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Regardless of how we might judge the complex causes of the current crisis and fight the urge to render blame, the reality is that the highest level of decision makers for our nation are facing incredibly difficult economic, political and moral decisions and choices. The stakes are high, because large deficits and the debt stemming from them threaten the economy and burden future generations.

In letters to members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of the Bishops’ Conference expressed this sentiment: “We also wish to clearly acknowledge the difficult challenges that the Congress, Administration and government at all levels face to get our (nation’s) financial house in order: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations, controlling future deficits and debt; and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.”

The most immediate challenge and priority is the debt limit, which is the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow in order to meet its existing legal obligations, such as Social Security, Medicare benefits, military salaries, tax refunds and $200 billion per year in interest. Reliable forecasts are that the nation’s debt will crash through the current ceiling of $14.3 trillion (yes, “trillion”) on or about August 2. That’s the deadline. If nothing changes, there would likely be a U.S. government default, an unprecedented, historical event. The ceiling has been raised before, numerous times. Failing to do so now would create severe economic consequences in the U.S. and around the world.

A soft solution—but what might ultimately happen, given the political gridlock—would be to merely increase the debt limit again, on a short term basis, in order to dodge the default. In other words, boost the number by $2.4 trillion or so and carry the “fix” some time into 2012.

That would be inopportune if not irresponsible, because key players from both sides of the political isle realize that the debt is an accumulation of annual deficits (e.g., $1.5 trillion) and that deficit reduction is essential. Thus, there is a lot of rhetoric—easy to say, but difficult to implement—about deficit reduction. But will there be meaningful action? Is there a politically achievable plan for this real and significant problem?

Deficits are reduced by cutting back on spending or by increasing revenue, or by a combination of both. Republicans say, generally, that any tax increases are a deal breaker. Democrats, including the President say, generally, that cuts in entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, are a deal breaker.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, while underscoring the importance of fiscal responsibility and the need to address the budget deficit, calls for a balanced and inclusive approach, shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary spending and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. The Bishops are by no means alone in calling for a balanced approach; other denominational leaders and advocates for the poor and vulnerable are expressing similar encouragements.

Within the context of deficit reduction, particularly as it pertains to program cuts, the Bishops also urge adherence to three moral criteria: that every budget decision should be evaluated by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity; that the needs of those who are hungry or homeless, without work, or in poverty should be of first priority and programs for these persons should be protected (and certainly not disproportionately cut); and that government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity during difficult economic times.

To a significant extent, a balanced approach would have close-to-equal spending reductions and revenue increases, with much of the latter coming from tax-code reforms that close loopholes and much of the former from entitlement reforms that reduce inefficiencies; in other words, reductions in tax expenditures (currently $1 trillion per year) as well as in program expenditures. There are policy decisions in these contexts that would draw bi-partisan support, surely.

And finally….

According to information released by the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Daniel Inouye, revenues, adjusted for inflation and population growth, are down 18 percent from Fiscal Year 2001. Moreover, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product—now 14.8 percent—revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years.

According to a think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, almost all successful deficit reductions enacted over the past 30 years—1982, 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1993—have had revenue increases as important ingredients.

Whether Courage or Not, Illegal Immigrant’s Story Has Impact 08/12/11

The story of Jose Antonio Vargas is fascinating and compelling; the kind that fits the movie mold. Someday, perhaps.

He is an award-winning journalist, who has worked for several high-profile news enterprises, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Daily News, Washington Post and Huffington Post. He covered the role of technology and social media during the 2008 presidential race. He has visited the White House and covered a state dinner. He was one of a team of Washington Post reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech University in 2007.

Jose Antonio Vargas is also an illegal immigrant. He has been unauthorized since arriving in this country 18 years ago. He disclosed his status publicly in an essay published in the New York Times Magazine on June 25 of this year.

Vargas is a native of the Philippines. In 1993, when he was 12, his single mother, seeking to provide a better life for her son, arranged for him to fly with an “uncle” to the U.S. to live with his grandparents, who were naturalized American citizens residing in California. He learned later that the “uncle” was really a “coyote,” who was paid $4,500 by the grandfather to smuggle the youngster into the U.S., using a fake name and a fake passport. Subsequently, his grandfather found a way to purchase a new, fake Filipino passport in Jose Antonio’s real name and a fraudulent “green card.” Using the fake passport, he was able to obtain a Social Security number and card, although that card designated a restriction for INS-authorized work only. His grandfather doctored that card with a well-placed sliver of white tape and then made photocopies that looked like copies of a regular, unrestricted Social Security card.

Vargas graduated from high school in California. He was able to attend and graduate from San Francisco State University, thanks to a specialized scholarship program that had no inquiry about immigration status. During college, matters fell into place for some internships. After graduation, he continued his career as a journalist, which has included “interviewing some of the most famous people in the country.”

“On the surface, I’ve created a good life. I’ve lived the American dream,” Vargas wrote in his recent essay

“But I am still an undocumented immigrant. And that means living a different kind of reality. It means going about my day in fear of being found out. It means rarely trusting people, even those closest to me, with who I really am….It means reluctantly, even painfully, doing things I know are wrong and unlawful. And it has meant relying on a sort of 21^st-century underground railroad of supporters: people who took an interest in my future and took risks for me.

“I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore.”

Some have called Jose Antonio Vargas courageous for his admissions. Others have said there is nothing courageous about admitting to being unlawful and to using fraudulent documents.

“I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story,” Vargas wrote.

It seems more doubtful than likely that an enforcement action involving deportation will be initiated against Vargas. He doesn’t seem to fit the most recent indication of enforcement policy.

On June 17, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a memorandum advising agency personnel of additional guidance for “exercising prosecutorial discretion consistent with the civil immigration enforcement priorities of the agency….” Particular care and consideration are to be given to the following negative factors: individuals who pose a risk to national security; serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a lengthy criminal record or any kind; known gang members or others who pose a clear danger to public safety; individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry (emphasis added) and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.

One impact of the Vargas story is that it adds to the bulk of evidence that the U.S. immigration system is inefficient, ineffective, broken and greatly in need of comprehensive reform. A 12-year-old immigrant who proceeds to cultivate his opportunities into noteworthy accomplishments and success, as well as tax payments, and who, after 18 years of doing so, thinks of himself as an American, should have a path of conditions to earn legalization and should not face the consequences of deportation, which now include a minimum 10-year bar on even reapplying for a visa.

And finally….It didn’t take long for there to be a legislative push back on the memorandum issued by the head of ICE. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) blasted the memo and is already sponsoring legislation that would freeze the administration’s power to grant “amnesty” to unauthorized immigrants by prioritizing enforcement. Apparently, Rep. Smith has concluded that emphasizing priorities-based prosecutorial discretion is too loose and dangerous. His reaction seems to fit what a media blog from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently called “Whac-a-Mole immigration policy.”