The debate over immigration and its place in American politics took center stage in two very different states this week, as Alabama lawmakers ended their 2026 legislative session without passing a single immigration-related bill and Nebraska’s 2nd District Democratic candidates faced off in a televised forum, each outlining starkly contrasting visions for the nation’s future.
Alabama’s legislative session, which concluded on April 9, 2026, was notable for what did not happen: despite considering seven bills that would have affected immigrants in a variety of ways, none ultimately became law. According to reporting from Alabama Reflector, five of these bills failed to get final approval, ranging from proposals to impose fees on wire transfers sent abroad, to banning naturalized citizens from holding certain state offices. For immigrant rights groups, the lack of new restrictions came as a relief after several years of legislative attempts to tighten the screws on the state’s relatively small foreign-born population—just 4.5% according to U.S. Census estimates, compared to nearly 15% nationwide.
“We were concerned with any bills that seemed to want to increase penalties, fines and punishments based on someone’s status,” Carlos E. Alemán, chief executive officer of the Hispanic and Immigrant Center of Alabama, told Alabama Reflector. “We have processes already in place that are to be applied equally across the population, so we are always concerned when there are any bills that seem to want to punish people for who they are and not what they did.”
One of the most closely watched measures was HB 13, sponsored by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, which would have allowed local law enforcement to enter into agreements with the federal government to enforce immigration laws. The bill would have required state and local police to share information about individuals’ immigration status, detain people suspected of being in the country illegally, and transfer them to federal authorities. However, the bill never came to a vote in the Senate, overshadowed by a fight over a closed primary bill. Yarbrough has introduced similar legislation for three consecutive years, facing consistent opposition from civil rights advocates.
“We know that the fight is not over,” said Brisa Ables, a spokesperson for the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice, in an interview with Alabama Reflector. “Alabama is still detaining people in significant numbers.” As of April 2, Alabama’s three immigration detention facilities had an average daily population of 146 detainees, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Other bills that failed to advance included HB 166, which would have allowed police to impound vehicles driven by those without a license, and SB 45, which sought to prohibit Alabama law enforcement from recognizing out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to individuals who could not prove lawful presence. HB 585 proposed a 1.5% fee on outgoing wire transfers to help fund law enforcement costs related to immigration, but it stalled in committee. Rep. Jennifer Fidler, who sponsored the bill, told Alabama Reflector that the fee was intended to offset the burden on sheriffs’ departments tasked with detaining people without proper residency status.
“The sheriffs’ departments are the ones responsible for collecting all the folks who are here illegally,” Fidler said. “It is the sheriffs’ departments who are detaining those people before they go back.”
SB 21, another failed bill, would have prohibited naturalized immigrants from holding high state offices, including governor and attorney general. HB 348 would have made it harder for undocumented immigrants to secure bail, effectively presuming them a flight risk. HB 88, which would have required that the written portion of driver’s license exams be administered only in English, also failed to progress.
While Alabama’s legislature was grinding to a halt on immigration, Nebraska’s 2nd District Democratic candidates were taking to the airwaves to debate the issue in a forum hosted by KETV on April 12, 2026. The event, featuring candidates Kishla Askins, John Cavanaugh, Denise Powell, Crystal Rhoades, and Melanie Williams, came just weeks before the May 12 primary and highlighted the centrality of immigration, the economy, and the ongoing war in Iran to the upcoming election.
All five Democratic hopefuls spoke forcefully against the war in Iran, calling for greater Congressional oversight and criticizing the Trump administration’s foreign policy. But it was their views on immigration—and, specifically, the future of federal enforcement agencies like ICE—that revealed sharp differences and a shared sense of urgency.
Kishla Askins, a military veteran, advocated for comprehensive immigration reform that balances border security with humane treatment for those already living and working in the U.S. “We are and can be, a nation with a secure border and a nation of values full stop,” Askins said during the forum. She emphasized the need for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented taxpayers and highlighted the contributions of non-citizen military service members. “There are people willing to lay their life down for me and you serving in the military and not a citizen, and I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with them, and always will, because our country is better with a society of immigrants.”
John Cavanaugh took aim at ICE, calling for increased transparency and accountability. “Donald Trump has made our country less safe, not more safe, and the erratic behavior of these ICE agents in the streets... that has got to stop,” Cavanaugh said. He advocated for reforms such as body cameras, removal of masks, and strict adherence to due process. “We need real reforms, and we need law enforcement to be treated like law enforcement and not a private military service that gets to go out and harass Americans in the streets of American cities.”
Denise Powell, the daughter of immigrants, called for a complete overhaul of ICE and stricter limits on where and how the agency can operate. “Should we be deporting violent criminals? No question. That is not what is happening. We are pulling grandmothers and children off the street and throwing them in detention centers in deplorable conditions,” Powell said. She argued that ICE should be barred from operating near schools, daycares, and hospitals, and called for independent investigations into allegations of abuse.
Crystal Rhoades echoed the call for comprehensive immigration reform and criticized the use of ICE as a political tool. “We must pass a comprehensive immigration reform that allows for people in needed industries and needed fields to come to this country, to work here legally, to pay taxes, to integrate and have a path to citizenship,” Rhoades said. She decried the fear sown by enforcement tactics and the federal shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.
Melanie Williams went a step further, calling for the abolition of ICE altogether. “ICE is an entity that has been untrained, unvetted. These are people who have no idea of what due process actually is, because they’re not trained,” Williams said. She described ICE as a “paramilitary force running around this country, terrorizing our communities.”
The contrasting scenes in Alabama and Nebraska reflect the deep divides and ongoing debates over immigration policy in America—debates that are likely to intensify as the 2026 elections approach. Whether in the halls of state legislatures or on the campaign trail, the future of immigration law remains a defining issue for both lawmakers and voters alike.