Bill to benefit Nebraska immigrant ‘Dreamers' squashed after Trump order
A Nebraska bill that would have benefited immigrant DACA recipients won't move forward, sponsors said. Shown here, supporters of the DACA program rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (Robin Bravender/ States Newsroom)
LINCOLN — A proposed Nebraska law that had bipartisan support and would have benefited immigrant 'Dreamers' has been crushed under the weight of a Trump administration threat that the state could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid if it is enacted.
Legislative Bill 299, in part, sought to align Nebraska with what advocates said already had been the practice of most, if not all, other states: allowing immigrants who have legal permission to work in the U.S. but lack permanent residency access to the unemployment insurance benefits their employers pay into.
Before the bill's sponsors backed off Thursday, LB 299 had cleared a few key hurdles, including a March 6 vote by the Legislature's Business and Labor Committee that poised the measure for debate by the state's full lawmaking body.
But a Feb. 19 executive order from President Donald Trump titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders' has since come into play.
State Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner withdrew her name Thursday from the bill. Co-sponsor State Sen. Margo Juarez of Omaha said she saw no alternative but to drop the effort this year.
Proponents said they were maddened by the latest twist for the proposed law that had gained support from a range of business and civic groups.
A leader of the religious coalition Omaha Together One Community told the Nebraska Examiner on Friday that its members are 'outraged.'
'The fact that the federal government would swoop in and block a bill that clearly represented the will of Nebraskans is a blatant insult to our state and should not be tolerated,' said Kathleen Grant.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen's spokesperson, Laura Strimple, said Friday that the governor was pleased with the recent turn of events.
'Governor Pillen strongly opposes giving taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and is pleased the Legislature will not act on this bill further this session,' she said.
LB 299 sponsors said the bill primarily would have impacted so-called 'Dreamers,' who grew up in the U.S. after being brought here illegally as minors by their parents and who obtained legal permission, under the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, to work and live in the country.
DACA recipients don't have permanent residency, and the program has been challenged in court.
LB 299, they said, also was designed to benefit asylum-seekers who have been granted work authorization while their requests are reviewed and others with Temporary Protected Status, which is granted when returning to a person's home country is unsafe due to natural disaster, extraordinary conditions or war.
While advocates have mostly focused on opening the door to unemployment benefits, the bill called for 'eligible aliens' who are employed in Nebraska to have access to the same public employment benefits offered to any other similarly situated employee, with a few exceptions. Access included participation in certain public retirement and deferred compensation programs.
There's no way I can fight a threat like that.
– State Sen. Margo Juarez of Omaha
The 6-0 legislative committee vote that pushed the bill to the debate stage came after state and federal labor officials had resolved what Ibach described last week as a 'technical' problem with the bill.
The concern was raised during a Feb. 10 public hearing. Nebraska Labor Commissioner Katie Thurber told lawmakers that LB 299, as then drafted, could cost the state more than $400 million in federal tax credits.
She said the original language was too broad, created a new state definition for 'eligible alien' and would allow benefits even if the immigrant lost legal authorization to work in the U.S.
Ibach and Juarez believed that the path had been smoothed — until, they said, a federal labor official reached out to the state Labor Department and Pillen's office this week, bringing up the Feb. 19 executive order.
Juarez said she was caught off guard and was told that millions of dollars were at risk. 'There's no way I can fight a threat like that.'
Thurber, in a statement to the Examiner on Friday, said that while an amendment addressed an initial concern, 'the situation has become complicated with recently proposed federal actions.'
She said, for example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on March 10 issued a proposed rule removing DACA recipients from the definition of 'lawfully present' for the purposes of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. 'This coupled with the executive order from President Trump … makes it clear that extending benefits to illegal immigrants, including DACA recipients, is in direct conflict with federal policy.'
Thurber said the bill 'poses significant risk that Nebraska's unemployment insurance system could face consequences if it goes against federal directives' aimed at illegal immigration.
The Trump order, citing a 1996 federal law, said the law 'generally prohibits illegal aliens from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.'
The directive gave federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, 30 days to identify federally-funded programs that 'permit illegal aliens to obtain any cash or non-cash public benefit.'
Ibach said she retreated from LB 299 after Pillen's staff alerted her to the executive order and potential fallout.
'We were disappointed but thankful the Governor's Office called our attention to the reality of how LB 299 was going to be framed going forward,' she said.
Nick Grandgenett, an attorney with Nebraska Appleseed, views the executive order as applicable to federal public benefits and said the proposed legislation pertained to state employment benefits.
'It really is outside the scope of that executive order,' he said.
But adding the Trump order to an already complex marriage of immigration and employment systems muddies the waters, he said.
'I don't think there is truly a problem with the bill,' Grandgenett said. 'The confusion is kind of winning the day.'
State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha said the situation signals trouble for Nebraska. She characterized LB 299 as an important bill with bipartisan support and challenged Nebraska Republican officials at all levels of government to stand up.
'When we have people in leadership not standing up for vulnerable populations like those covered in this bill, then we are going to be in a really bad place,' she said.
Representatives of organizations such as the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Nebraska Catholic Conference, and the Nebraska Alliance for Thriving Communities spoke in support of the bill during the public hearing. The alliance is a coalition that includes labor unions, hospitals, banks, cattlemen and pork producers.
Ibach sees the effort as dead for now, unless labor officials can find a path forward. She said she'd continue to work on immigration and DACA reform.
Juarez said she had made LB 299 her priority bill because she felt strongly that the targeted immigrant populations working with U.S. authorization deserved access to benefits — and that Nebraska businesses needed their talent.
She said she is left 'extremely frustrated,' but won't give up and hopes for a revival during a different legislative session.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'

Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director
The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump's late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet. The Smithsonian's statement said the organization's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, "has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian." The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump. The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump's social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' The Smithsonian's statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: "In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity." It continues: "Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution." The Smithsonian's move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture. The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled "Restoring truth and sanity to American history." That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that 'divide Americans.' "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian's 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington. The order followed Trump's ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center. One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center's board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian's board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution," the statement Monday read. "As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. "To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes." Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.