The bill is named after a Georgia nursing student who was killed last year by Jose Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela who was being arrested on charges including shoplifting and child endangerment. Because of Ibarra’s arrest record, the case attracted attention from the right. “The more they commit crimes and the more we release these criminals, it just emboldens them and makes them even stronger,” said Georgia Republican Mike Collins, who introduced the bill in the House. ” he said.
If this bill only mandated the deportation of immigrants convicted of petty theft, many Democrats would argue that simply because there is little political advantage to defending the rights of illegal shoplifters. It would make sense to support the bill. But this bill goes far beyond that. The law requires federal detention without bail for immigrants only arrested for theft-related crimes, with no provision for release if the charges are later dropped. (According to Axios, ICE is concerned about having to release others in its custody, including those deemed to pose a “threat to public safety,” to make room for theft suspects.) )
The bill would apply to many immigrants who are allowed to stay here, including Dreamers and people with temporary protected status. The law does not include any exemptions for minors. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, told me that the Laken-Riley law could mandate indefinite detention of juvenile asylum seekers arrested for swiping candy bars. It is said that there is.
One of the law’s other provisions gives state authorities unprecedented powers over immigration policy. If the bill passes, state attorneys general would be able to impose restrictions on people from “recalcitrant countries” (the list includes China, India, Russia, etc.) who do not fully cooperate with the U.S.’s admission of deportees. There is a possibility that a lawsuit will be filed to stop the issuance of a visa. This provision of the Laken Riley Act may be less important while President Trump is in office. Republican attorneys general likely won’t want to challenge the president, and Democrats are also unlikely to call for tougher immigration enforcement. But if we had another Democratic president, it’s easy to imagine that the most conservative state prosecutors would sue to block the issuance of visas to people from China, for example. Immigration policy will be subject to chaotic battles in federal courts.
The bill passed the House with an overwhelming majority last week, but there is still a chance that Democrats could block it in the Senate, as 60 votes are needed to overcome the filibuster. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen. Last week, only nine Senate Democrats voted against continuing to consider the bill on the Senate floor. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Ruben Gallego of Arizona are co-sponsors of the bill, and several Democrats in other battleground states have already announced plans to vote in favor. Fetterman told reporters last week that Democrats had experienced a “dazzling moment of common sense.”
