The U.S. Senate has advanced the Laken Riley Act, scheduling a final Senate vote for Jan. 20. This contentious immigration bill is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was tragically murdered by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant previously detained and released by U.S. Border Patrol. Ibarra has since been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The bill marks the first significant legislative initiative of the new Republican-majority Congress.

If passed by the Senate, the bill will return to the House for another vote due to amendments made in the upper chamber. Should it clear both chambers, it would then head to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature, potentially becoming the first signed legislation of his new term.

The Laken Riley Act would significantly expand immigration detention policies, requiring federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes, even without conviction. This mandatory detention would apply to a wide range of offenses, including shoplifting and burglary, and could potentially affect individuals accused of such crimes decades ago.

A key provision of the bill allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government over immigration-related decisions, potentially shifting the balance of power in immigration enforcement. This aspect has raised concerns about potential chaos in the immigration system and a flood of politicized lawsuits.

The Laken Riley Act primarily aims to amend existing immigration law to mandate the detention of aliens charged with theft-related crimes. Here’s an analysis of the concerns raised in your questions:

1. Expand mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants: The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain immigrants without legal status who are accused of certain theft-related offenses, even without a conviction. This includes individuals charged with burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
2. Increase state involvement in immigration enforcement: The act grants state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government over its handling of undocumented people in custody. This allows states to seek injunctive relief for alleged violations of detention and removal requirements.
3. Enhance border security: The bill is part of a broader initiative to address crime associated with illegal immigration and strengthen border control measures.
4. Restrict visa issuance: The act prohibits the Secretary of State from granting visas to citizens of countries that refuse to accept the return of their nationals who have been deported from the United States.
5. Modify immigration enforcement priorities: The legislation aims to alter current enforcement priorities by mandating the detention of a larger number of undocumented immigrants, including those accused of minor offenses.

These objectives represent a significant shift in immigration policy, focusing on increased detention and deportation efforts, as well as greater state involvement in federal immigration matters.

The bill has garnered significant support from Republican senators, with 53 co-sponsors. The House vote to send the bill to the Senate was 264 to 159, with 48 Democrats voting in support. After Senate debate, one change was approved while two were voted down. In recent legislative updates, the Senate approved an amendment by Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, which broadens the criteria for detaining migrants by including assault on law enforcement officers. This amendment saw a notably bipartisan approval, passing with a 70-25 vote. 

Conversely, Democratic efforts to modify the bill faced challenges; Senator Chris Coons’ amendment to remove sections viewed as a drastic overhaul of immigration laws was defeated 46-49, while Senator Mazie Hirono’s amendments to protect victims of domestic violence and human trafficking failed to pass, highlighting ongoing partisan divides in immigration reform debates.

Supporters likely argue that the bill enhances public safety and immigration enforcement. 

“The American people are rightly concerned about the illegal immigration crisis in this country, and they sent a clear message in November that they want to see it addressed,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, who described the bill as “the first of many” on the topic.

But opponents, like the ACLU,  say the proposed law would require the government to detain people who pose no risk to their communities. 

“Under the bill, individuals would be mandatorily locked up – potentially for years – because at some point in their lives, perhaps decades ago, they were accused of nonviolent offenses like shoplifting,” an ACLU statement said. “The bill also invents a novel and dangerous authority that will allow hostile state officials to sue the federal government when they disapprove of an immigration decision or policy, causing even more chaos and inviting politicized lawsuits.”

More than 90% of the estimated 13 million undocumented individuals residing in the U.S. have no criminal history. Research indicates that undocumented immigrants have significantly lower conviction rates compared to U.S.-born individuals. Furthermore, for those undocumented immigrants who do have criminal records, the majority of offenses are related to traffic or civil immigration violations, as per data from the government.

What are the key differences between the Laken Riley Act and previous legislation on similar topics

The Laken Riley Act represents a significant departure from previous immigration legislation in several key ways:

Mandatory Detention Expansion

The Laken Riley Act would greatly expand mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants, going beyond previous laws:

• It requires detention for those merely accused or arrested for minor offenses like theft or shoplifting, not just those convicted.
• This applies even to long-term residents, DREAMers, and parents of U.S. citizen children.
• Previous laws like the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 focused more on legalizing existing undocumented immigrants and employer sanctions.

State Powers Over Federal Immigration Policy

The bill grants unprecedented authority to states to challenge federal immigration decisions:

• State attorneys general can sue to force detention of specific immigrants or challenge release decisions.
• This overturns Supreme Court precedent limiting state standing in immigration matters.
• Prior laws maintained federal primacy in immigration enforcement.

Visa Restrictions

The Act allows for broad visa bans against countries deemed uncooperative:

• It prohibits visas for citizens of countries that refuse to accept deported nationals.
• This provision could potentially impact legal immigration from entire countries.

Economic Impact

The implementation of the Laken Riley Act could lead to substantial economic consequences:

Increased Costs: The bill is estimated to cost approximately $83 billion over the first three years to implement, which is more than the annual budget for the entire Department of Homeland Security.

Labor Market Disruption: The act could lead to the detention and potential deportation of a significant number of undocumented workers, including those in essential industries. This could result in labor shortages, particularly in sectors like agriculture, construction, and service industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor.

Economic Destabilization: Local and regional economies that depend on immigrant workers could face destabilization. The sudden removal of these workers from the workforce could lead to reduced productivity and economic output in affected areas.

Impact on Higher Education: The bill could create uncertainty for international students and scholars, potentially leading to a decrease in enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities.