WASHINGTON- The Senate this week is considering the Laken Riley Act, a Republican-led bill that mandates federal detention of immigrants accused of minor crimes and grants broad enforcement powers to states.
It passed the House earlier this month as the first bill passed by the new Republican-controlled Congress and advanced to the Senate with significant support from Democrats.
The bill’s advancement illustrates the new willingness of more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing favor with voters on border security, a front-line issue during the November presidential election.
Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and would be extremely costly to the federal government.
What happened to Laken Riley?
The bill is named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed last year in Athens, Georgia, by a Venezuelan immigrant who entered the United States illegally in 2022. Agents of the Border Patrol released him, like many migrants. with a temporary authorization to stay in the country.
Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, was previously cited in Georgia for shoplifting at Walmart and was arrested in New York for riding a scooter without a license and with a child who was not wearing a helmet. Supporters of the bill say federal authorities should have arrested Ibarra after he was charged with these crimes.
In November, Ibarra was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Allyson and John Phillips, Riley’s mother and stepfather, wrote in a statement that the bill had their full support.
“Laken would have been 23 on January 10,” they write. “There is no greater gift that can be given to her and to our country than to continue her legacy of saving lives through this bill.” »
What would the Laken Riley law do?
The Laken Riley Act contains three important provisions: requiring the detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes; authorize state governments to sue the federal government over its handling of individual immigrants; and give states the authority to require the State Department to stop issuing visas to countries that refuse to accept the return of their deported nationals.
“If you entered the United States illegally and then choose to commit a crime against Americans – whether against people or property – on American soil, you should be on the front lines when it comes to detention and deportation,” said Senator Katie. Britt (R-Ala.), who introduced the Senate bill, wrote about
The bill would require immigration officers to arrest people arrested for burglary, theft or shoplifting. This would overturn the current discretion granted to federal officials to prioritize the detention of people with violent criminal records.
The law requires detention even if a person is charged with theft-related crimes. This means that a person could be deported before having a chance to defend themselves in court.
The bill also gives state attorneys general the authority to sue the federal government for alleged mismanagement of people in its custody, overriding the federal government’s broad, long-standing immigration authority. State officials could ask a court to order immigration officials to track down people they released.
States would also be empowered to become involved in U.S. foreign policy matters. Some countries refuse to take back their citizens whom the United States is trying to expel. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to block the issuance of visas to any country refusing to accept deportations.
What are the political and legal consequences?
Opponents say the law would lead to chaos in federal courts and the separation of longtime residents from their U.S. citizen family members while they are detained indefinitely.
“I don’t think people understood what was in the bill when they were co-sponsoring it,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, which works with Congress to develop policy.
Jason Houser, who served as Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief of staff from 2021 to 2023, said the legislation would force federal agencies to divert staff away from the most dangerous offenders.
“If this bill passes, you will see fewer violent criminals in custody than today,” he said, noting that the federal government has a limited number of resources, detention beds and of staff.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it would need more than $3 billion to detain the 60,000 people it had identified to meet the bill’s parameters. Democrats estimate the total cost is much higher: $83 billion over the first three years.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the left-leaning American Immigration Council said the visa provision raises serious constitutional and international relations concerns, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the U.S. economy.
“You might see (Texas Atty. Gen.) Ken Paxton sue to block all H-1B visas from China. We could see someone trying to prevent all business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “The prospect of 677 different federal district court judges across the country having the power to order the Secretary of State to impose sweeping visa bans on other countries threatens to upend our system of government, giving states and the judiciary have more power over diplomacy and immigration than the federal government itself.
What is his history in Congress?
The Laken Riley Act passed the House last week, by a vote of 264 to 159, with the support of 48 Democrats. Among them were seven California Democrats, including Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce), Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Garden Grove), who flipped seats previously held by Republicans.
Senators voted 82-10 Monday to consider the measure. Republicans need several Democrats to surpass the 60-vote threshold in the final count. Some Democrats, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and John Fetterman (D-Penn.), who are co-sponsors, have indicated they would vote for the bill in its current form.
California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam B. Schiff, both Democrats, did not vote. In an interview Sunday on NBC, Padilla said he would vote against the bill in its current form.
“This opens the door to the detention and deportation of people simply charged – without conviction –,” he said. “That includes minors, that includes Dreamers, that’s (for) shoplifting a pack of bubble gum. We need to focus more on legislation like this.
When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed by a vote of 251 to 170, with 10 fewer Democrats in favor. The Senate, which then held a slim majority, refused to consider it.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he hoped for a full debate and the opportunity to propose improvements to the bill.
“Americans deserve that we seriously debate this issue, including considering amendments from the Democratic side,” he said. “We will ask our Republican colleagues to allow debate and voting on the amendments.”
