with donald trump Democrats, who have promised a massive deportation agenda just two weeks before taking office, are poised to hand major new power over immigration policy to Republicans. why? They are still devastated by the November results and appear to be fearful of their chances of re-election if they do not.
The Laken Riley Act, named for a 22-year-old Georgia woman who was killed last year by an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant, passed the House earlier this week with the support of 48 Democratic lawmakers. Senators voted overwhelmingly in favor of advancing the bill on Thursday before potentially considering amendments and voting on the bill itself. The bill would mandate the detention of certain undocumented immigrants and make it easier for Republican attorneys general to sue the federal government over immigration issues. This is a legal issue that could lead to a sweeping decision by right-wing judges.
Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster on their own. But they could win enough Democratic support to pass the bill. Senators John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) has already said it will support the bill. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (DN.H.) said: the hill She also said she was “willing” to support the bill.
The willingness of Democrats, especially those in swing districts and states, to support this bill is a sign of how vulnerable many in the party currently perceive themselves to be on the immigration issue. Instead of fighting the immigration agenda, as they did during Donald Trump’s first term, Democrats are increasingly willing to give in to this agenda to protect themselves from future Republican attacks.
It wouldn’t be wrong to conclude that Democrats have paid a political price for years of dysfunction at the border that has expanded into cities across the country during Joe Biden’s administration. But the bill they are considering for a vote would do nothing, at least not directly, to establish order at the border. And despite its name, its most important clause has little to do with Laken Riley.
Specifically, the bill would give state prosecutors explicit authority to sue the federal government in a number of circumstances alleging that even minor harm occurred as a result of various federal immigration enforcement decisions. This would be a departure from the status quo, where the federal government has near-monopolistic control over immigration issues. After lawsuits are filed, lawsuits from Republican attorneys general are often heard by right-leaning district court judges in states like Texas. That judge could then order sweeping changes that would have significant national and international implications.
One provision would allow the attorney general to sue the U.S. secretary of state to require judges to restrict or bar visas from countries that refuse to reinstate citizens who have been ordered removed from the United States. As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, explains in a piece for MSNBC, the list of these “rebellious” countries ranges from small states like Cuba to major powers like China and India. do.
For example, both Republican and Democratic administrations have decided that the costs of deporting everyone from China and India outweigh the benefits of increasing deportations to those countries. “But if the Laken Riley Act becomes law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of America’s top diplomats and law enforcement officials,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “It could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana.”
A related provision in the bill would effectively allow federal immigration officials to sue the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security at any time. You decide to release someone from custody while the case is ongoing. The law is written so that the Attorney General cannot file a lawsuit to challenge a decision to detain someone.
Despite the importance of these provisions, much attention has focused on other parts of the bill. This provision would require undocumented immigrants to be detained if they are arrested, charged, or admit to shoplifting, theft, and other related crimes.
Republicans are particularly focused on the theft because of Ibarra’s criminal history. In October 2023, he and his brother were arrested for shoplifting in Georgia. Later that year, a warrant was issued for Ibarra’s arrest when he missed his court date. Two months later he murdered Riley. (In November, a Georgia judge found Ibarra guilty and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.)
The wording of the bill is that someone convicted Mandatory detention applies for certain crimes. It’s also worth emphasizing that immigration authorities already have broad powers to detain undocumented immigrants, including on suspicion of theft. The bill currently in progress is ask for it They do that.
Even if someone admits they stole something, there is no statute of limitations. As a result, undocumented immigrants who admit to potentially stealing from another country decades ago could face mandatory detention if the bill passes. Sarah Mehta, senior policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that it could result in the incarceration of “mothers who stole their baby’s diapers or older adults who admit to nonviolent theft when they were teenagers.” said.
But what is likely to have the most far-reaching consequences is transferring power to Republican attorneys general and judges allied with them. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DY) recently warned against this bill: “It’s scary that it’s only when you get to people’s doorsteps that they fully realize what they’ve agreed to.”
