The Republican majority in both the House and Senate is advancing legislation that aims to transfer certain federal immigration enforcement responsibilities to state authorities, signaling a potentially stricter approach to immigration detention practices.
The Laken Riley Act was approved by the House on Tuesday, garnering support from 216 Republicans alongside 48 Democrats. This bill is currently under consideration in the Senate, where it has surprisingly attracted support from some Democratic Senators. Notably, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman and Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego have co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill. The Senate is set to continue discussions on the legislation on Monday.
Key provisions of the bill would mandate immigration officers to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants suspected of minor theft offenses involving amounts of $100 or more. Additionally, the legislation would significantly enhance the authority of state attorneys general regarding federal immigration policy, permitting them to sue the federal government to compel the detention of specific immigrants and to pressure the State Department to deny visas from countries that refuse to accept deported individuals.
The eight-page bill is named in honor of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student tragically killed last year in Athens, Georgia, by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant who was unlawfully present in the U.S. and had previously been apprehended by Border Patrol but released. Ibarra was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for Riley’s murder.
Let’s delve into the specifics of the bill.
Mandatory Detention for Immigrants Accused of Theft
If enacted and signed into law by the incoming President Trump, this bill would transform the federal government’s approach toward undocumented immigrants suspected of theft valued at $100 or more, an infraction that could include shoplifting cases. The bill mandates the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the detention of individuals charged with theft, meaning immigration officials would be obligated to arrest and hold these individuals.
Currently, immigration authorities typically prioritize detaining individuals with violent criminal histories. However, this legislation would remove that discretion. “This bill complicates the daily operations of ICE,” stated Jason Houser, former chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023. He noted that the federal government is currently funded to accommodate approximately 41,000 individuals in immigration detention, but the bill could potentially increase that number by an additional 20,000, diverting resources away from apprehending the most violent offenders. “If this bill passes, we may see fewer violent convicted criminals in detention than we do today.”
Moreover, the legislation would also affect legal immigration processes. It instructs Customs and Border Protection officers to classify individuals as “inadmissible” to the U.S. if they are arrested for or confess to theft or shoplifting, meaning that someone holding a valid visa could be removed from the country before having the opportunity to defend themselves against such allegations in court.
Empowering State Attorneys General to Sue for Detention
This bill would empower state attorneys general to litigate against the federal government concerning its handling of undocumented individuals in custody. State officials could demand that courts instruct immigration agents to locate and detain those who had previously been released from detention. “It allows state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief against the Secretary of Homeland Security if federal immigration actions—such as parole or violations of detention protocols—negatively impact that state or its residents,” explained Rep. Mike Collins, the Georgia Republican who introduced the bill in the House.
Historically, the courts have granted the President and federal authorities extensive power over immigration matters. This bill would shift that power, enabling state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration decisions. Critics argue that many supporters of the bill have not fully considered the extensive implications of this shift. “We believe it is unwise to overturn our system of federal supremacy by granting state attorneys general authority over the decisions made by individual ICE and CBP officers, as well as decisions reaching up to the Secretary of State,” remarked Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
State Officials Could Influence Visa Issuance for Non-Compliant Countries
Additionally, this legislation would allow states to interfere with U.S. foreign policy. One of the reasons why some undocumented immigrants are not deported is that their home countries refuse to accept them. Countries such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, India, Russia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo currently do not accept deportees from the U.S.
Proponents of the bill intend for state attorneys general to have the ability to sue the State Department to halt the issuance of U.S. visas to countries that do not comply with deportations of their nationals. “This effectively places the immigration and visa processes in the hands of the courts and state authorities,” stated Reichlin-Melnick.
Congressional Support for the Bill
The House passed the bill with full support from Republican members and 48 out of 215 Democrats. In the Senate, where a 60-vote threshold is required to initiate debate, 31 Democrats joined all Senate Republicans in advancing the bill. Only nine Democrats opposed it. In addition to Senators Fetterman and Gallego co-sponsoring the bill, several other Democratic Senators, including Mark Kelly of Arizona, Gary Peters of Michigan, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, have expressed their intention to support the legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated he voted in favor of advancing the bill to facilitate debate and potential amendments aimed at altering its provisions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is tasked with determining which amendments will be considered prior to the final vote. Should the bill reach the White House in its current form, President-elect Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law once he takes office.
