WASHINGTON — The Senate this week is considering the Laken Riley Act, a Republican-led bill that mandates federal detention for immigrants who are charged with minor crimes and grants broad enforcement powers to states.
It passed the House earlier this month as the first bill taken up by the new, Republican-controlled Congress and moved forward in the Senate with significant support from Democrats.
The bill’s advancement illustrates the new willingness by more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing favor with voters on border security, a front-line issue in the November presidential election.
Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and 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, Ga., by a Venezuelan immigrant who had entered the U.S. illegally in 2022. Border Patrol agents released him, like many migrants, with temporary permission to stay in the country.
Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, had previously been cited in Georgia with misdemeanor shoplifting from Walmart and was arrested in New York for driving a scooter without a license and with a child who wasn’t wearing a helmet. Supporters of the bill say federal authorities should have detained Ibarra after he was charged with those 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 on January 10th,” they wrote. “There is no greater gift that could be given to her and our country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through this bill.”
What would the Laken Riley Act do?
The Laken Riley Act has three significant provisions: to require detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes; to authorize state governments to sue the federal government over its handling of individual immigrants; and to give states the power to demand that the State Department stop issuing visas for countries that refuse to accept the return of deported nationals.
“If you came into the U.S. illegally and then you chose to commit a crime against Americans — whether that’s against persons or property — on U.S. soil, you should go to the front of line when it comes to detention and removal,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who introduced the Senate bill, wrote on X.
The bill would require immigration agents to take into custody people who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting. It would override the current discretion afforded to federal officials to prioritize the detention of people with violent criminal records.
The legislation requires detention if a person is even charged with theft-related crimes. That means someone could be deported before getting the chance to defend themselves in court.
The bill also gives state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government over alleged mishandling of people in its custody, overriding the long-standing broad authority of the federal government over immigration matters. State officials could get a court to instruct immigration agents to track down people it had released from detention.
States would also be empowered to insert themselves into U.S. foreign policy matters. Some countries refuse to accept back their citizens whom the U.S. attempts to deport. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to stop visas from being issued for any country refusing to accept deportations.
What are the political and legal ramifications?
Opponents say the law would lead to chaos in federal courts and the separation of longtime residents from their U.S. citizen family members as they are detained indefinitely.
“I don’t think that people understood what was in the bill when they were co-sponsoring it,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, who works with Congress to develop policy.
Jason Houser, who was chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023, said the legislation would force federal agencies to divert personnel from the most dangerous offenders.
“If this bill is enacted, you will see less individuals in detention that are violent convicted criminals than you do today,” he said, noting that the federal government has a finite amount of resources, detention beds and 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 estimated the total cost is far 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 sweeping ramifications for the U.S. economy.
“You could see [Texas Atty. Gen.] Ken Paxton suing to block all H-1B visas from China. You could see somebody trying to prevent all business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “The prospect of 677 different federal district court judges around 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 more power over diplomacy and immigration than the federal government itself.”
What is its history in Congress?
The Laken Riley Act passed the House last week, 264-159, with 48 Democrats in support. 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 take up consideration of the measure. Republicans need several Democrats to surpass the 60-vote threshold in a final tally. Some Democrats, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and John Fetterman (D-Penn.) who are co-sponsors, indicated they would vote in favor of the bill in its current form.
California Sens. 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.
“It opens the doors for people simply being charged — without a conviction — to be detained and deported,” he said. “That includes minors, that includes Dreamers, that’s [for] shoplifting a pack of bubble gum. There has to be more of a focus on a piece of legislation like this.”
When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed 251-170, with 10 fewer Democrats in support. The Senate, which then held a slim majority, declined to take it up for consideration.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he was hoping for a robust debate and the ability to offer improvements on the bill.
“Americans deserve for us to debate the issue seriously, including by considering amendments from the Democratic side,” he said. “We’re going to ask our Republican colleagues to allow for debate and votes on amendments.”
