I have listened to reasonable objections that several organizations such as the League of Women’s Voters and AARP have raised about the bill, and worked to amend the objected sections out of the bill. Despite this, several organizations are purposely trying to misinform about LB 239, and the facts need to be given so that the public understands the importance of this bill.

These organizations opposed to LB 239 say that any voter ID laws are excessively burdensome. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Indiana voter ID law in the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens–long considered a liberal cornerstone of the court–said “the inconvenience of making a trip to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” In regards to all the hypothetical scenarios that could be thrown out there, Justice Stevens added, “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient” to invalidate the entire law.

As the Supreme Court was deliberating the Crawford case, American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted, “the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of one percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.”

A 2005 bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. In addition to this, the panel recommended a national photo ID system and a national campaign to register voters.

Another argument made against voter ID laws is that they are unnecessary due to “relatively low incidence of voter fraud”. In the Crawford case, Justice Stevens said, “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrates that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Justice Stevens received some criticism of his majority opinion, because he included a quote that drew references to the “Boss Tweed” days of Tammany Hall in New York City. Those who say that couldn’t happen in this day and age need to remember that in 2011 alone, there were investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. We are only three states into the 2012 Presidential Primary and Caucus season, and there have already been charges of voter fraud in all three states. Those who say we’ve never had vote fraud in Nebraska need only go read up on Omaha’s own political boss Tom Dennison to find out Nebraska had large amounts of corruption in the 1900′s.

Justice Stevens also added this in his Crawford opinion: “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

Integrity in the election process should be important to every American, and current polls show that it is. A December 2011 poll by Rasmussen says that 70 percent of likely voters believe we should have voter ID laws. Among Hispanics–the fastest-growing voting block nationwide–Resurgent Republic found overwhelming support for voter ID laws in a September 2011 poll. AARP would do well to contact their members before issuing a blanket statement against LB 239, because the overwhelming majority of seniors who have contacted my office are very much in favor of it.

LB 239 attempts to add integrity to our election process. Opponents argue that a very small percentage of Nebraskans might possibly be inconvenienced.

Integrity vs. inconvenience.

What should be our priority when dealing with something as important as our election process?

If you have any questions about LB 239 or would like to show support for the bill, please go to www.stopvotefraud.net.

There has been a lot of talk the past couple of months about the “Utah Compact” and how it impacts illegal immigration in our country. Both sides of the political spectrum are taking only pieces of the compact, and using it to push their agendas. The public, as well as quite a few lawmakers around the country, seem to be confused about what the Utah Compact does. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at what the Utah Compact is.

First of all, let’s mention one thing that the Utah Compact is not, and that is a law. The Utah Compact is a set of ideas that were written down to be considered for future legislation in the area of immigration. Religious officials, business leaders, politicians, and even Hispanic activists from Utah got together last fall and wrote this compact. Even in its very first sentence, it says it is simply “a declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.”

There were bills that were introduced in Utah during this recent legislative session that were supposedly based on the Utah Compact. But the ideas laid out in the compact do not address any specifics on immigration, only generalities. A lawmaker saying they have based a bill on the Utah Compact is like saying you have based a tax reform bill on the Declaration of Independence. It speaks to the ideals you hope to convey but in the end, does not speak specifically to what you want your bill to accomplish.

The Utah Compact itself lays out five different principles. They are:
1. Immigration is a federal policy between the U.S. government and other countries–not Utah and other countries.
2. Local law enforcement should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.
3. Opposition to policies that unnecessarily separate families.
4. Acknowledgment of the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers.
5. Adopting a humane approach to the immigration situation.

Let’s take a look at each of these principles.

The first says, in essence, that immigration is a federal policy, and federal policy is “hands-off” to individual states. This was an argument that was made frequently in the LB48 debate. But yet, individual states feel that it is acceptable to go against federal law and grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. They do not, however, offer in-state tuition to U.S. out-of-state citizens. In Utah specifically, they plan to start a “guest worker program”, granting permits to “undocumented workers” (illegal aliens) already living in the country, and starting a pilot guest worker program with the Mexican state in Nuevo Leon. This would clearly be an example of a state trying to enter into an agreement with a foreign country, and in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also gives the federal government the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Art. I, Sec. 8). A state cannot create its own visas.

In the second principle, local law enforcement solely focuses on criminal activities, rather than the “civil violations of federal code” that illegal immigrants commit. But what happens if one of those “civil violators” crosses over into committing criminal activities? Local and state law enforcement need to know that they have the authority to enforce laws without being neutered by a federal government that has, for decades, not shown the political will to enforce immigration law.

The third principle specifically states that “Strong families are the foundation of successful communities.” While that is indeed a noble ideal, it strays away from reality. What are the criteria for “successful” and who determines them? Are we talking about families with children that have good grades, or are healthy, or are good athletes, or have good manners? A problem with throwing out phrases that promote “feel-good” emotional responses are that then there needs to be a way to measure that success, and that encourages competition with others to see who is the most successful. It becomes an immeasurable goal, but wow…it sure does feel good to say we’re building “successful communities”. Hopefully, one criterion for those “successful communities” would be recognition and adherence to the law.

As far as unnecessarily separating families, it is a reality to say we have people in this country that commit crimes. Those crimes have consequences. And sometimes those consequences require families to be separated for a period of time. It is an unfortunate circumstance, but it is also a necessary one. Our society dictates that the person who committed the crime should accept the responsibility for their actions, and accept the consequences that come with that. It is important to note that it is the person who committed the crime is the one who created the situation where the family was separated, not society as a whole.

The fourth principle acknowledges the role and economic impact that immigrants have had in our history. There is no doubt that this country was built by immigrants. But it is also undeniable that the workers 100 years ago faced much less stringent labor laws than what we have today. If Utah initiates its “guest worker program”, there will be a lot of questions as to how our current labor laws will relate to these foreign workers. Will they work the same hours and be paid the same wages as U.S. workers? Also, would these guest workers be protected by workman’s compensation laws, which vary greatly from state to state? If they are ever no longer needed, are they eligible to file for unemployment? Will they get social security benefits? Unfortunately, with Utah’s unemployment rate running at 8.1% (February 2011) it seems like the state is putting the needs of illegal immigrants ahead of its own citizens.

Finally, the compact says we need to adopt a humane approach to the immigration situation, and I couldn’t agree more. It says “the way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors.” Enticing and harboring illegal immigrants, paying them low wages, encouraging identity and social security fraud, and making them distrustful of law enforcement does nothing to further their dreams of a better life. Instead, it fosters a nightmare of fear, keeping them in the shadows and relegating them to a life of uncertainty.

Law enforcement works. A report from February shows that local officers trained through the 287(g) program made about 40,000 arrests in 2010, which represents nearly 20 percent of ICE’s criminal alien workload for the year. What makes this all the more interesting is that the report was issued by the Migration Policy Institute, the Obama administration’s pro-amnesty think tank.

A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the illegal immigration population declined by 17% after the passing of the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which required all businesses to use the E-Verify system.

Asking immigrants to comply with the law shows real and measurable results. It might not make us feel as good as saying some highly quotable, politically correct catch phrases, but it does get actual and substantial results.

Last week, I talked about the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (LB48) legislation that I have proposed. There is another piece of legislation that I’ve proposed that comes up for a hearing soon that I wanted to talk about today.

LB657, which repeals in-state tuition (the so-called “Dream Act”) for illegal immigrants who attend a college or university in our state, is legislation I have proposed before. Unfortunately, it didn’t make it out of the Education Committee last year. There is a public hearing for this bill next Monday, February 7th, at the State Capitol in Lincoln. Opponents of LB48 argue that it goes against federal law (it doesn’t, by the way…it mirrors existing federal law) and that’s why we shouldn’t have it. Yet, the so-called “Dream Act” is okay, even though it’s in direct violation of federal law. (In 1996, federal immigration law was changed to deny access to federal and state financial aid to illegal immigrant students) They can’t have it both ways, by picking and choosing what laws they want enforced.

Another problem the so-called “Dream Act” causes is that it appears to create opportunities for illegal immigrants that simply aren’t there. We subsidize the K-12 education of illegal immigrants. Then we give them in-state tuition rates for college. But after they graduate, employers are not allowed by federal law to hire them. I am a small business owner myself, and I know I wouldn’t risk getting myself or my business in trouble by hiring them. So now, they end up leaving the state or back to their native country and use the knowledge that was acquired in our state at our expense. How does that benefit our state in any way?

by Charlie Janssen, State Senator (District 15)

The 2011 Legislative Session opened a few weeks ago and I couldn’t be prouder to represent the people of the District 15. We have a lot of tough issues that our state needs to tackle this session. I’m looking forward to working with our other lawmakers in an effort to address the problems facing our state, and hope we can reach conclusions that benefit the citizens of Nebraska.

There is one issue I have been working on for years and is currently receiving state and even national attention, and that is the issue of illegal immigration. I introduced LB48, also known as the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, in the Legislature on January 6th.

I have communicated with literally thousands of people through e-mails, phone calls, and personal conversations who say they want something done about the illegal immigration issue. They are tired of seeing or hearing about how illegal immigrants are here and our tax dollars are paying for services for them, while taxpaying citizens appear to be getting the short end of the stick.

When I first started working on this legislation, I tried to move the emotion to the side and arm myself with the facts. The Pew Hispanic Research Center published a report recently saying that there were 30,000 illegal immigrants in Nebraska in 2000, and by 2008, that number had risen to over 45,000. That number is likely several thousand higher today. Think about that for a minute: At least 45,000 people living in the state of which we have no medical records, educational records, or criminal records.

Their children go to our public schools and our teachers are told to instruct them without knowing if these children have special needs, or if they are of higher ability. Doctors have no records of the family’s immunizations or medical history, so they are unsure how to treat them. They avoid interactions with police because they are afraid that they’re going to get deported, so they don’t report crimes committed against them. There are many logistical nightmares created because we don’t know anything about these illegal immigrants. (post continued)

The people who support the illegal immigrants have, time and again, tried to turn this into a debate about emotion, not about fact. That is the simple way out, and one of the things that upsets me the most about this debate. Unfortunately, people who ask questions or want illegal immigrants deported are called “racist”. I was called a racist because of the term “anchor baby”, which I did not create, and has been used on both sides of the argument since the 1980′s. I was said to have offended Hispanics by a blog writer who is not even Hispanic himself. I was also told in one e-mail that I was dangerously categorizing illegal immigrants when I referred to them as “them” or “they”. I was even told that if there was a Tucson-style shooting in Nebraska, that the blood would be on my hands.

There will be a hearing in front of the Unicameral’s Judicial Committee about LB48, sometime during this Legislative session. There will be people who will want to tell success stories of illegal immigrants who thrived despite hardships. Ironically, these same people will dismiss testimony of those who lost loved ones at the hands of a lawbreaking illegal, because they will say you can’t define a culture based on the actions of one person. These same people will preach about Nebraska’s common values while saying it’s okay to look the other way while federal law is being broken. I will try to bring up facts, like how the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services released figures showing that in November 2010 alone, $53 million in welfare benefits were issued to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children. (The same agency claims that, combined with public safety costs and health care costs, the “total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers” was more than $1.6 billion in 2010, and that is strictly in Los Angeles County) Opponents to my bill will counter these facts by giving hypothetical scenarios, such as how we might separate families and how illegal immigrant children might live in fear because they are afraid their parents might be deported.

I was elected to do the best possible job that I can for the people of District 15. I have always let my common sense guide me, and not special interests. If I’m going to introduce legislation, I want to make sure I have the facts and not base it on emotional appeal. The people of the state have overwhelmingly told me they want this legislation to go through, and in the end, that’s who answer to.

Charlie Janssen is Fremont’s senator in the Nebraska Legislature and blogs for Fremonter.com.

Week one in the legislature had its normal pomp and circumstance, which is the swearing in of new senators and the seating of the committee chairs and committees. Once again, I am on the Transportation/Telecommunications and Government, Military & Veterans Affairs Committees. I also was elected to chair the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing my work on these committees over the next two years.

As promised, I did put forth LB48, known as the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act for Nebraska. This has gained much attention statewide and nationally for some of its similarities to the Arizona illegal immigration bill passed last year. (post continued)While there is much to say about that bill, I do not want to focus on it in this column. This week, I want to reflect on the tragic events last Wednesday at Millard South High School.

That tragedy took place on our opening day in Lincoln and turned what is usually a nice day of catching up with friends and colleagues into a very somber afternoon when news of the shootings made it to the State Capitol.  My thoughts and prayers go out to the entire Millard School District and especially to the families of the victims shot by Robert Butler, Jr.

In this case the disgruntled and recently suspended Butler turned a gun on Asst. Principal Vicki Kasper, shot and killed her. He then shot Principal Curtis Case before taking his own life. Tragic events all, and they made me reflect on just how difficult it has to be on educators when dealing with our children.

That evening, I was thinking about my own family members who are heavily involved in education, both as administrators and teachers. I was wondering what they must feel like after the events of the day unfolded. Then, as if on cue, I received a call from my cousin, Mike Janssen, who has been a teacher and administrator in the Blair Public Schools system since the mid-eighties.

The message he wanted passed on was just how much these administrators and teachers care about all of these kids. And that means they care when they are handing out suspensions and they do it in hopes of bettering that kid. I personally recall Mike student teaching me at Nickerson Elementary School. He was teaching me a lesson and I wasn’t getting it. Recess happened and I ran off, only to be called back by him. I believe his words were along the lines of “you are not going anywhere till you figure this out knucklehead.” I also recall a customary finger flick to the forehead being applied.

I wish I had the solution to stop this from ever happening again. But for now I just want to thank all of the educators out there for their hard work and dedication. And a special thank you to my teachers and administrators over the years. I was not always the role model student, but not once did I feel a teacher gave up on me. And to Mike, I get it now. Educators’ jobs are very difficult and I appreciate you (and all educators) for knowing when to flick the forehead or to pat it. A decision that now seems could be a life or death decision.

Almost every state in our country will be looking at immigration reform this year, and twenty-two states will actually be introducing legislation dealing the illegal immigration issue. I am proud to announce that with the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (LB48), Nebraska will be included as one of those states.

This bill is meant to protect the citizens of Nebraska in several different ways. First, there’s the issue of our taxes. Nebraska taxpayers are being asked to pay for the education, welfare, and medical expenses of these illegal aliens. Some have said that I’m trying to divert attention away from our state’s budget problems, but I say I’m trying to address some of them. To ask the citizens of the state to pay for people who would choose to willingly break our laws is not right, especially in this tough economy.

Second, there’s our security. (post continued)We have more illegal aliens in our state than the entire population of the city of Grand Island. They are living in our state unlicensed and undocumented. We have no records of their education, criminal backgrounds, employment history or medical history. We as citizens are required to carry identification for everything from operating a motor vehicle to getting a prescription to checking out books at the library. These people should not be granted immunity from these basic guidelines, simply to satisfy the need for cheap labor.

There’s also the issue of common sense. Our federal government has taken entire sections of immigration law and, for decades, chosen not to enforce them. The American people are fed up with it, and so lawmakers in many states–not just Nebraska–are introducing bills this session to aid in enforcement of immigration laws that are already on the books. 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. This is about doing what’s right for the people of this state.