WASHINGTON – The Senate could vote on it on Tuesday Laken-Riley lawa Republican-led bill that would require federal detention for immigrants accused of minor crimes and give states broad enforcement powers.
It became the first bill passed by the new Republican-controlled Congress earlier this month and was implemented in the Senate with significant Democratic support.
The bill's advancement highlights a new willingness among more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing favor with voters on border security, a top issue in November's presidential election.
Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and be extremely costly for the federal government.
What happened to Laken Riley?
The bill is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last year in Athens, Georgia, by a Venezuelan immigrant who entered the U.S. illegally in 2022. Border Patrol agents released him, like many migrants. with a temporary residence permit in the country.
Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, was previously charged in Georgia with shoplifting from 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 parole.
Allyson and John Phillips, Riley's mother and stepfather, wrote in a statement that the bill has their full support.
“Laken would have been 23 years old on January 10th,” they wrote. “There is no greater gift to her and our country than continuing her legacy by saving lives through this legislation.”
What would the Laken Riley Act accomplish?
The Laken-Riley Act contains three important provisions: the detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes; to authorize state governments to sue the federal government over its treatment of individual immigrants; and give states the authority to require the State Department to stop issuing visas to countries that refuse to allow the return of deported nationals.
“If you entered the United States illegally and then decided to commit a crime against Americans on U.S. soil – whether against people or property – you should be at the forefront of detention and deportation,” said Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) wrote on X.
The bill would require immigration officers to detain individuals arrested for burglary, larceny, larceny, or shoplifting. It would override federal officials' current discretion to prioritize the incarceration of people with violent convictions.
The law requires incarceration if a person is even charged with theft offenses. This means someone could be deported before they have a chance to defend themselves in court.
The bill also gives state attorneys general the authority to sue the federal government over alleged mistreatment of people in its custody, overriding the federal government's longstanding broad authority over immigration matters. State officials could get a court to order immigration officials to track down those released from custody.
States would also have the authority to interfere in US foreign policy affairs. Some countries are refusing to readmit their citizens that the US is attempting to deport. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to stop issuing visas to countries that refuse to accept deportations.
What are the political and legal consequences?
Opponents say the law would lead to chaos in federal courts and separate longtime residents from their U.S. citizen family members as they are detained indefinitely.
“I don’t think people understood what was in the bill when they co-sponsored it,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, which works with Congress to develop policy.
Jason Houser, who served as chief of staff at Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023, said the legislation would force federal agencies to divert manpower from the most dangerous offenders.
“If this bill passes, you will see fewer people in prison who are convicted violent offenders than you do today,” he said, noting that the federal government has a limited amount of resources, prison beds and staff .
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said this was the case need more than $3 billion to arrest the 60,000 people it had identified to comply with the bill's requirements.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the left-leaning American Immigration Council said the visa provision raises serious constitutional and international concerns and could have far-reaching effects on the U.S. economy.
“You could see that (Texas Attorney General) Ken Paxton sued to block all H-1B visas from China. You could see someone trying to prevent any business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “The prospect of 677 different federal district judges across the country having the authority to order the secretary of state to impose sweeping visa bans on other countries threatens to upend our system of government and give states and the judiciary more power over diplomacy and immigration than.” the federal government itself.”
What is its history in Congress?
The Laken Riley Act passed the House of Representatives last week by a vote of 264-159, with 48 Democrats supporting it. Among them were seven Democrats from California, 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 on Monday to consider the measure. California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam B. Schiff, both Democrats, did not vote.
In one Interview on Sunday on NBCPadilla said he would vote against the bill in its current form.
“It opens the door to the detention and deportation of people who are only charged with a crime – without a conviction,” he said. “This includes minors, this includes dreamers, this is shoplifting a pack of chewing gum. There needs to be more focus on a law like this.”
When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed by a vote of 251-170, with 10 fewer Democrats in favor. The Senate, which had a narrow majority at the time, refused to accept the proposal for consideration.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he hoped for vigorous debate and the opportunity to offer improvements to the bill.
“Americans deserve to have us discuss the issue seriously, including by considering Democratic amendments,” he said. “We will ask our Republican colleagues to allow debates and votes on amendments.”