Hearing on public benefit for young immigrants sparks lawmaker rebuke of DHHS CEO

LINCOLN — A proposal before Nebraska lawmakers would extend public support to young people aging out of the foster care system, regardless of immigration status, until they reach age 21.

Legislative Bill 181, introduced by State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, essentially would allow immigrants lacking permanent residency but who have been in foster care to be part of the state’s existing Bridge to Independence Program. 

That effort, available to willing participants from ages 19 until 21, aims to improve the transition of Nebraska foster care youth into independent and productive adulthood. It includes supports such as Medicaid health care coverage, a $1,000 monthly stipend and case management to guide housing, college or technical training and employment.

“Aghast … blown away”

A fiscal note estimated the cost at about $375,000 in the first year. Testimony Wednesday at a public hearing before the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee estimated that 15 young immigrants at any one time would be eligible for services under LB 181.

Cavanaugh told the committee that a governor-appointed advisory group to the Bridge to Independence program has recommended extending the program to teen immigrants aging out of the system.

Six people spoke in favor of the bill. Two objected — one of them was DHHS CEO Steve Corsi, who was appointed by Gov. Jim Pillen and officially sworn in after a contentious hearing in February 2024.

Corsi’s responses drew sharp rebuke from Cavanaugh, who said she was “aghast” and “beyond blown away” at his politically-charged remarks and “implication that (the immigrants) are not worthy of resources of any kind.”

“First of all, these are children — who have a status other than legal, whatever that is. It could be DACA. It could be completely undocumented,” said Cavanaugh. “But they became system-involved, and the moment they became system-involved, whether the CEO of DHHS likes it or not, we invested resources in these children.” 

Corsi told the committee that expenses legally would have to come from state general funds, not federal funds, a point that Cavanaugh and others contested.

He said that except in emergency situations, public benefits funded by state dollars should benefit Nebraska citizens.

Said Corsi: “Nebraska citizens should not be forced to subsidize those not lawfully present in the United States, nor should they be forced to incent the continued unlawful presence of individuals regardless of age in our state or the nation.”

Magnet, birthright citizenship

At one point, committee member Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha asked Corsi a question, and when he used the term “not documented,” Corsi interjected to say, “illegal.”

Corsi was joined in opposition by Doug Kagan of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom who said the legislation, if passed, would “serve as another magnet for jobs and birthright citizenship” pulling undocumented foreigners to Nebraska.

Allison Derr, an attorney for Nebraska Appleseed who spoke as a proponent, said the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that services such as those offered under LB 181 were permissible if explicitly approved by the Legislature.

Natasha Naseem, an attorney with the Center for Immigrant and Refugee Advancement, said the abrupt end to services for any youth aging out of foster care at age 19 too often leads to homelessness, exploitation and communication breaks with advocacy groups such as her organization.

She said that disconnection can cut off the opportunity for a foreign-born youth to seek and gain a lawful or permanent immigration status.

Tense time

“I understand it’s a tense and vitriolic time for immigration populations, and I know we are in a difficult situation financially, but these are services we are providing to some of our youth in the state, and not all,” Naseem said in response to a committee member’s question.

“I think the focus should be, when we are seeing these outcomes that we are aiming to prevent for a portion of our population, we should extend our efforts to include all of them.”

Of those who submitted written responses, 41 were supporters of the Cavanaugh bill, five were opponents and two took a neutral stance.

The committee took no action Wednesday on whether to advance LB 181 to debate by the full Legislature.