The savage murder of Laken Riley on February 22, 2024 in Athens, Georgia gained international attention. A 22 year-old nursing student, Riley was accosted and strangled during a morning jog on the University of Georgia campus. Her assailant, José Antonio Ibarra, was a Venezuelan immigrant who had been caught at the border near El Paso and released into the country. He was subsequently arrested again in New York for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation.” He and his brother were also arrested in Athens for shoplifting at Wal-Mart. None of this led to his incarceration or deportation, which is why he was free to take Riley’s life.
In response, Congress has introduced the Laken Riley Act which does two primary things. As NBC News reports, it would “change federal law to require ICE, operating under the Department of Homeland Security, to issue detainers and take custody of people in the country illegally over theft-related crimes, including shoplifting.” And it would “empower state attorneys general to sue the federal government for alleged failures of immigration enforcement ‘if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.'”
Both provisions are problematic. The first is more a matter of setting priorities than intent. As Greg Sargent notes, the DHS already has the authority to deport burglars and shoplifters, but requiring them to do so “could give DHS less flexibility to make enforcement decisions in these cases, forcing it to detain people accused of the most minor transgressions even if DHS determines that enforcement resources might be better used elsewhere.”
More troubling is the empowerment of state attorneys general to sue the government over any lack of immigration enforcement resulting in more than $100 in “financial harm.”
This could theoretically empower state attorneys general to go to a friendly judge and get injunctions blocking policies involving DHS grants of some types of protections allowing migrants to legally remain in the United States, Reichlin-Melnick notes. Worse, he says, the bill also authorizes lawsuits that could result in the suspension of visas granted to whole countries in cases where a given country is not agreeing to accept deported migrants.
If the language in this bill isn’t tightened up, it’s easy to imagine all kinds of ways it could lead to chaos. But it has already passed the House of Representatives in a 264-159 roll call with 48 Democrats voting in support. On Thursday, it advanced past a filibuster threat in the Senate in an overwhelming 84-9 cloture vote supported by 31 Democrats.
Sargent was particularly aggrieved that Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania endorsed the bill without caveats, but they were not alone. Other Democratic senators who unequivocally endorsed the bill prior to the cloture vote include Mark Kelly of Arizona, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Elissa Slotkin; of Michigan, and Jacky Rosen of Nevada. Several others were more circumspect, saying they’d vote to begin debate on the bill but hoped to pass amendments and made no commitment to support ending debate and moving to a vote in final passage.
If the Senate does pass any amendments, it will either have to go back to the House or the two respective bills will have to be melded in a Senate/House conference committee.
Sargent believes the the Laken Riley Act is the first piece of business for the Republican-controlled 119th Congress because the GOP wants to advance “the notion that migrants are criminals, to justify the crackdown to come.” I think that’s correct, but I also think there’s a real sentiment in the country that people who enter the country illegally shouldn’t be allowed to stay if they’re committing crimes, even petty crimes like shoplifting at Wal-Mart.
Like so many other political issues, the problem is in the details. To begin with, will the government be able to implement the law at all? As CBS News notes:
Whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement could fully enforce this new mandate without more funding is an open question. The agency is currently using roughly 39,000 of 41,000 detention beds funded by Congress.
It would be easier if we weren’t talking about approximately 11 million people who would be subject to this law, many of whom have lived in the country peaceably and productively for decades or came here as children. These people aren’t here only because it’s difficult to prevent illegal immigration but because our economy has required their labor. We need a humane policy for this class of people, and ripping families apart on a shoplifting charge seems needlessly harsh. That’s one reason we haven’t done this in the past. Another is the aforementioned lack of available detention beds. And the final consideration is the greater importance of setting priorities. That’s why we have hitherto focused on cases involving aggravated felonies like rape, assault and murder. It’s true that José Antonio Ibarra moved from shoplifting to murder, but most shoplifters do not, and it seems stupid to change the policy based on an isolated incident.
It looks like this bill will sail through Congress without much of a fight, but the Senate Democrats can still stop it if it isn’t amended to their satisfaction. I think the most important thing to change is the provision empowering state attorneys general to muck with federal immigration policy in the courts. If that is still part of the final bill, I strongly oppose passage of this act, and I hope the Democrats will too.
