WASHINGTON — The Senate is considering the Laken-Reilly Act this week, a Republican-led bill that would require federal detention for immigrants charged with misdemeanors and give states broad enforcement powers.
The bill passed the House earlier this month as the first bill to be taken up in the new Republican-controlled Congress, and advanced in the Senate with significant support from Democrats.
The bill’s advancement signals a new willingness by more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing support with voters on border security, a front-running issue in November’s presidential election. .
Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and cause significant harm to the federal government.
What happened to Laken Riley?
The bill is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed in Athens, Georgia, last year by a Venezuelan immigrant who entered the United States illegally in 2022. Border Patrol agents released him, as did many migrants. with a temporary residence permit.
Jose Antonio Ybarra, 26, was charged in Georgia with misdemeanor shoplifting from Walmart and was arrested in New York for driving an unlicensed scooter with a child not wearing a helmet. Supporters of the bill argue that federal authorities should have detained Mr. Ybarra after he was charged with these crimes.
In November, Ybarra was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
John Phillips, Alison and Riley’s mother and stepfather, said in a statement that they fully support the bill.
“Layken would have turned 23 on January 10th,” they wrote. “There is no greater gift we can give her and our country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through this bill.”
What does the Laken-Riley method do?
The Laken-Riley Act has three important provisions. It requires the detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes. Gives state governments the power to sue the federal government over the treatment of individual immigrants. It would authorize states to request that the State Department suspend visas for countries that refuse to return deported citizens.
“If you enter the United States illegally and choose to commit a crime against Americans on U.S. soil, whether in person or property, you are on the front lines of detention and removal,” Sen. Katie said. We should stand for it,” he said. Britt (R-Ala.), who introduced the Senate bill, wrote about X:
The bill would require immigration officials to detain people arrested on charges such as robbery, theft, theft and shoplifting. This would override the current discretion given to federal authorities to prioritize the detention of people with violent criminal histories.
The law requires people to be detained even if they are charged with theft-related crimes. That means they could be deported before they have a chance to defend themselves in court.
The bill would also give state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government for alleged mistreatment of people in custody, revoking the federal government’s longstanding broad authority over immigration matters. State officials could ask a court to direct immigration officials to go after people they release from custody.
Countries would also be given the power to intervene in U.S. foreign policy matters. Some countries refuse to accept their nationals whom the United States attempts to deport. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to withhold visas from countries that refuse to accept deportees.
What are the political and legal implications?
Opponents say the law would create chaos in federal courts and result in longtime residents being separated from their U.S. citizen families by being detained indefinitely.
“I don’t think people understood what the bill was about when I was co-sponsoring it,” said Kelly Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, which works with Congress on policy development. ” he said.
Jason Houser, who served as chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023, said the bill would divert resources from federal agencies away from the most dangerous criminals.
He noted that the federal government has limited resources, detention beds, and staff. There will be fewer,” he said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it would need more than $3 billion to detain the 60,000 people it identified to meet the bill’s requirements. Democrats estimate the total cost to be much higher, at $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 and could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. economy.
“I saw it. [Texas Atty. Gen.] Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit seeking to suspend all H-1B visas from China. You can see someone trying to block all business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnik said. “The prospect that 677 different federal district judges across the country would have the power to order the Secretary of State to impose blanket visa bans on other countries would upend our nation’s system of governance and force the states and judiciary to make more decisions on foreign affairs and immigration. “There is a risk that it will give us great powers,” the federal government itself. ”
What is its history in Congress?
The Laken-Reilly Act passed the House last week on a 264-159 vote with 48 Democrats supporting it. Among them are California Democrats, including Rep. George Whiteside (D-Agua Dulce), Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced), and Rep. Derek Tran (D-Garden Grove). Seven people were included, flipping seats previously held by Republicans.
Senators voted 82-10 to consider the bill on Monday. Republicans need several Democrats to pass the 60-vote threshold in the final count. Some Democrats, including co-sponsors Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania), have indicated they intend to vote in favor of the current bill.
California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam B. Schiff, both Democrats, did not vote. Padilla said in an interview on NBC on Sunday that he would vote against the bill in its current form.
“The possibility of detention and deportation is now open to those who have only been charged without being convicted,” he said. “This includes minors, this includes Dreamers, that [for] I shoplifted a pack of bubble gum. Bills like this need more focus. ”
When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed 251-170, with support from 10 fewer Democrats. The Senate, which had a narrow majority at the time, refused to consider it.
On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he looked forward to robust debate and suggestions for improvements to the bill.
“Americans deserve a serious discussion on this issue, including consideration of the Democratic Party’s proposed amendments.” “We will be asking our Republican colleagues to allow debate and a vote on the amendment.”
Source link
