The US House of Representatives voted 263 to 158 in favor of the Laken Riley Act, a contentious piece of legislation that mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants charged with theft-related crimes. The bill, named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was tragically murdered by a Venezuelan national in the US unlawfully, has polarized lawmakers and advocacy groups alike. Despite the divided opinion, the bill is expected to be signed into law by President Donald Trump, marking it as the first law of his second term.
The legislation saw bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. In the House, 46 Democrats joined Republicans to push the bill forward. Just two days prior, the Senate passed the bill with a vote of 64 to 35, where a dozen Democratic members backed it. The bill has been hailed by Senator Katie Britt as "the most significant immigration enforcement and border security related bill" to be passed by Congress in decades.
However, the Laken Riley Act does not come without its challenges. The bill lacks new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency tasked with its implementation. ICE has already cautioned lawmakers about its limited resources, warning that it might be unable to fulfill the bill’s requirements effectively.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has raised alarms over potential racial profiling and fear-mongering that could arise from the legislation. They argue that the bill's broad reach could lead to unwarranted detention of various community members, including Dreamers and parents of US-citizen children.
“This is an extreme and reactive bill that will authorize the largest expansion of mandatory detention we have seen in decades, sweeping in children, Dreamers, parents of US-citizen children and other longtime members of their communities who even ICE thinks should not be detained,” said Sarah Mehta.
Furthermore, the passage of this act has sparked a wave of lawsuits from Democratic-led states and civil rights groups contesting its constitutionality and implications on due process rights.
“It is because of their political cowardice and their inability to even read the legislation in full and understand its consequences, that people in states like Arizona, Nevada and Michigan will be deported after being arrested for something like petty theft, without conviction and without their due process rights,” stated Juliana Macedo do Nascimento.
The bill’s passage has also drawn criticism from progressive groups who accuse Democrats of capitulating to Trump's hardline immigration agenda. This agenda includes drastic measures such as declaring a national emergency at the US-Mexico border and calls for ending birthright citizenship.
“Reinforcing Republicans’ anti-immigrant messaging and handing them political wins without a fight is not a plan,” asserted Mari Urbina.
Despite these criticisms, proponents of the bill argue that it addresses critical issues in immigration enforcement and underscores the importance of border security. However, opponents remain firm in their stance that the bill fails to offer viable solutions for improving the immigration system.
“This legislation offers no solutions to improve our immigration system, and we thank the senators who stood up for immigrant communities and due process and voted against this harmful, expensive bill – a bill that will not make us safer,” remarked Sarah Mehta.