The US Senate this week could vote on the Laken Riley Act and approve it in time for the incoming president to sign it into law on day one. Named after a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered in Athens, Georgia, by Jose Ibarra, an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant previously detained and released by Border Patrol, the bill raises concerns over its implications for immigration policy, constitutional protections, and due process.
While proponents argue the legislation is necessary for immigration enforcement, critics, including the National Immigration Law Center, denounce it as “cynical politics” that exploit personal tragedy. The bill passed the House on Jan. 7 with support from 48 democrats and cleared the Senate on Jan. 9 with votes from 33 democrats.
House Democrats Who Supported the Bill
The 48 Democrats in the House who voted for the Laken Riley Act include:
Brendan Boyle, Pennsylvania; Nikki Budzinski, Illinois; Janelle Bynum, Oregon; Jim Costa, California; Joe Courtney, Connecticut; Angie Craig, Minnesota; Henry Cuellar, Texas; Sharice Davids, Kansas; Don Davis, North Carolina; April McClain-Delaney, Maryland; Chris Deluzio, Pennsylvania; Shomari Figures, Alabama; Laura Gillen, New York; Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Washington; Jared Golden, Maine; Vicente Gonzalez, Texas; Maggie Goodlander, New Hampshire; Adam Gray, California; Josh Harder, California; Jahana Hayes, Connecticut; Steven Horsford, Nevada; Val Hoyle, Oregon; Marcy Kaptur, Ohio; Greg Landsman, Ohio; Susie Lee, Nevada; Mike Levin, California; Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts; John Mannion, New York; Lucy McBath, Georgia; Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan; Dave Min, California; Joseph Morelle, New York; Jared Moskowitz, Florida; Frank J. Mrvan, Indiana; Chris Pappas, New Hampshire; Josh Riley, New York; Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan; Kim Schrier, Washington; Terri A. Sewell, Alabama; Eric Sorensen, Illinois; Greg Stanton, Arizona; Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia; Tom Suozzi, New York; Emilia Sykes, Ohio; Dina Titus, Nevada; Ritchie Torres, New York; Derek Tran, California; and George Whitesides, California.
Senate Democrats Who Voted for the Bill
The 33 Senate Democrats who voted for the measure include:
Angela Alsobrooks, Maryland; Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin; Michael Bennet, Colorado; Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut; Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware; Maria Cantwell, Washington; Chris Coons, Delaware; Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada; Tammy Duckworth, Illinois; Dick Durbin, Illinois; John Fetterman, Pennsylvania; Ruben Gallego, Arizona; Kirsten Gillibrand, New York; Martin Heinrich, New Mexico; John Hickenlooper, Colorado; Tim Kaine, Virginia; Mark Kelly, Arizona; Angus King (independent), Maine; Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota; Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico; Jon Ossoff, Georgia; Gary Peters, Michigan; Jack Reed, Rhode Island; Jacky Rosen, Nevada; Chuck Schumer, New York; Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire; Elissa Slotkin, Michigan; Chris Van Hollen, Maryland; Mark Warner, Virginia; Raphael Warnock, Georgia; Peter Welch, Vermont; Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island; and Ron Wyden, Oregon.
What The Laken Riley Act Proposes
If enacted, the Laken Riley Act would mandate detention for immigrants suspected of theft valued at $100 or more, including shoplifting. Critics warn this would add 20,000 detainees to a system already designed for only 41,000 and divert resources from targeting violent offenders. The bill also introduces sweeping changes to legal immigration, allowing visa holders to be deported over theft allegations without judicial review.
Additionally, the bill allows state attorneys general to sue federal agencies over immigration decisions, reversing federal supremacy in immigration matters. It would permit states to block U.S. visas to countries refusing deportees, further complicating immigration policy and foreign relations.
Concerns Raised By Critics
Critics, including the National Immigration Law Center, highlight five major flaws in the legislation: Restricts Executive Authority: By allowing states to challenge nearly any immigration-related action, the bill undermines federal authority, invites partisan lawsuits, and discourages future administrations from crafting effective immigration policies.
Chaos in Federal Courts: The bill erodes the constitutional principle of “standing,” enabling states to sue without demonstrating harm, overwhelming courts with immigration lawsuits.
Unnecessary Measures: DHS already has authority to detain individuals in deportation proceedings. This bill mandates detention for theft-related charges, even if minor or unproven, affecting people like a mother accused of shoplifting diapers.
Due Process Concerns: Mandatory detention without bond hearings denies undocumented individuals the same legal protections afforded to others, disproportionately affecting Black and Brown communities.
Disruptions to Criminal Justice: The bill hampers criminal prosecutions by detaining individuals before their court hearings, delaying cases and complicating justice.
A Partisan Symbol
The National Immigration Law Center denounces the Laken Riley Act as divisive, exploiting tragedy to scapegoat immigrants without improving public safety. Research shows no link between immigration status and criminality, making the bill a misguided solution to real problems.
What’s Next?
As the Senate prepares for a final vote, lawmakers must consider the Laken Riley Act’s far-reaching implications. Immigration reform must balance enforcement with fairness, uphold constitutional principles, and ensure due process. This bill falls short on all counts, creating more problems than it solves.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Felicia J. Persaud is the publisher of NewsAmericasNow.com, a daily news outlet focused on positive news about Black immigrant communities from the Caribbean and Latin America.