Laken Riley Act Pushed Through With Bipartisan Support

The Senate passes the Laken Riley Act, introducing sweeping immigration reforms and sparking debate over its implications.

Key Insights

The Laken Riley Act mandates ICE to detain illegal immigrants who commit certain crimes until deportation.
The bill passed with bipartisan support, overcoming the 60-vote threshold twice in one month.
States are granted the right to sue federal officials for not enforcing immigration laws.
Concerns have been raised about the bill’s broad criteria and potential costs of implementation.
An amendment called “Sarah’s Law” was included, requiring detention of undocumented immigrants causing death or severe injuries.

Senate Approves Laken Riley Act with Bipartisan Support

The U.S. Senate has passed the Laken Riley Act, a significant piece of immigration legislation that has garnered notable bipartisan backing. Named after a 22-year-old nursing student tragically murdered by an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant, the act introduces substantial reforms to immigration enforcement procedures. The bill cleared the Senate with a vote of 64 to 35, with 12 Democrats joining all voting Republicans in favor, marking it as one of the first bills expected to reach President Trump’s desk after passing both chambers of Congress.

The Laken Riley Act mandates that the Department of Homeland Security detain illegal immigrants who are arrested for various offenses, including theft, burglary, or shoplifting. A Republican amendment further expanded this list to include assault on law enforcement officers. This move aligns with the current administration’s focus on stricter immigration law enforcement and border security measures.

Empowering States and Expanding Detention Criteria

One of the most significant provisions of the act grants states the authority to take civil action against federal officials who do not enforce immigration laws. This clause allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government if they claim harm from immigration policies, potentially shifting the balance of power in immigration enforcement. The act also broadens the criteria for mandatory detention of noncitizens, expanding beyond the current requirement of detaining those convicted of “aggravated felonies.”

“Today we return to common sense, we return to practicality. If you come here illegally and you commit a crime, you should not be free to roam the streets of this nation. Our children deserve better.” – Sen. Katie Britt

The inclusion of “Sarah’s Law” as an amendment further strengthens the act’s detention provisions. This amendment, which passed with a 75-24 vote, requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants responsible for death or bodily injury. These measures reflect the Republican Party’s emphasis on immigration as a central platform for the 2024 election, focusing heavily on border security and law enforcement.

Controversy and Concerns

Despite its bipartisan support, the Laken Riley Act has faced criticism and raised concerns among some lawmakers and advocacy groups. Opponents argue that the bill’s scope is too broad and could potentially affect illegal immigrants who are arrested but not convicted of crimes. There are also worries about the impact on minors who might be falsely arrested and deported.

“In this bill, every undocumented person accused, not just convicted but accused, of a list of crimes that’s in this bill must be detained. I assume no one here really thinks that mandatorily-incarcerated children accused of non-violent crimes is the best, most strategic way to fix our immigration system.” – Sen. Michael Bennet

Financial concerns have also been raised, with Senator Michael Bennet highlighting the potential cost of implementation, estimated at $3 billion to $27 billion annually. Additionally, some lawmakers have expressed reservations about the clause allowing states to sue the federal government, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Texas and suggesting it could lead to conflicting lawsuits in different states and courts.

Next Steps and Implications

As the Laken Riley Act moves forward, it must now return to the House for approval of the Senate’s amendments before it can be sent to the president’s desk. The bill’s passage and potential enactment could significantly alter the landscape of immigration enforcement in the United States, potentially setting the stage for further immigration policy debates in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

While supporters hail it as a necessary step towards enhanced public safety and immigration control, critics warn of potential overreach and unintended consequences. The coming weeks will likely see continued discussions on the act’s far-reaching effects and fiscal demands as it progresses through the final stages of the legislative process.