Washington, DC — Key media observers, lawmakers, and outside experts are criticizing the dangerous and sweeping nature of the Laken Riley Act as well as the misguided political assessments undergirding some of its support. An updated look at key voices include:
Key Media Observers
- Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times: “Democrats have a terrible habit, during moments of right-wing backlash, of voting for Republican legislation that they don’t seem to truly believe in and eventually live to regret. The most glaring example is the 2002 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq … A bill called the Laken Riley Act … is destined to be another entry in this archive of legislative shame. Given that anger over mass migration contributed to Democrats’ defeat in November, it’s perfectly understandable that some Democrats would tack right on border issues. The Laken Riley Act, however, is the wrong vehicle for proving their moderation. This sweeping bill will upend our immigration system in ways that will outlast Donald Trump’s presidency, ruining lives and handcuffing future Democratic administrations. Democrats who vote for it may dodge right-wing attacks in the next election, but once its true scope becomes clear, they’ll be answering for it for years to come.”
- Greg Sargent in The New Republic: “The slow-motion surrender of some Democrats to President-elect Donald Trump on the Laken Riley Act was already looking pretty grim last week, when 48 House Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it. Now, as the Senate considers the bill…this capitulation may be about to get even worse…. If Republicans do not allow votes on these amendments—or if the amendments are defeated—will the Democratic caucus band together to filibuster the bill in the end? Or will enough Democrats vote to move it forward, ensuring its final passage even with some of its very worst features in it? … That would squander an opportunity to demonstrate that as a caucus, Democrats will use their limited power to stop Trump’s very worst immigration designs from becoming reality.”
- Brian Beutler on Substack: “In their rebellion against Groups, though, Democrats are racing to support this bad legislation despite the damage it will do to U.S. sovereignty. In their haste to get on the right side of polls and the GOP, they’ve weakened Democrats’ power to amend the bill and strip it of the measures Republicans included as poison pills. As Greg Sargent notes, this amounts to a confession of total political defeat—they can’t defend the indefensible, but they also don’t have faith in their ability to win any arguments against the GOP. They’ve thus resorted to ignoring or lying about the consequences of GOP legislation along the way to helping Republicans enact it.”
- Fresno Bee editorial: “Our elected federal leaders, in an effort to appease the incoming Trump administration, are close to delivering a badly flawed bill … We see two major problems in this bill. First, the bill will allow federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants accused of theft and related crimes. Secondly, it will give state attorney generals too much power over what should remain a federal responsibility.”
- Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post: “What does any of this have to do with the wrenching loss of Laken Riley, or really any problem in our dysfunctional immigration system? It doesn’t. It just creates more problems — humanitarian, economic and constitutional. Democratic lawmakers (and any fair-minded Republicans still out there) should learn what they’re voting for before they get manipulated into doing so.”
- Mark Joseph Stern in Slate: “[U]nder the guise of punishing a small number of lawbreaking undocumented immigrants, the act would curtail legal immigration and subject law-abiding immigrants to detention and deportation. It is baffling that so many Democrats would sign on to such a cruel and constitutionally dubious scheme.”
- Alicia Menendez and Lynox Norman of MSNBC: “There is no doubt that Americans are eager to see changes to our immigration system. But if Democrats believe their constituents are so eager to see those changes that they are willing to trample on the principles of due process and impair the executive branch’s ability to make immigration policy moving forward, then they are complicit in making the necessary reforms even harder to achieve.”
- Eric Levitz of New York Magazine: “I think the Laken Riley Act is very dangerous. We should not be rolling back basic due process rights for longtime U.S. residents, or empowering Republican attorney generals to bar legal Indian and Chinese immigrants from the country.”
- Greg Sargent of The New Republic: “[S]ome Democrats, spooked by Trump’s comeback, have already decided there’s no percentage in even attempting to challenge anything carrying the aura of ‘toughness’ on immigration. That doesn’t bode well for their capacity to resist the terrible crackdown that’s coming, but fortunately, it’s not too late to find a better path.”
- Elvia Díaz of the Arizona Republic, “Selling the legislation as merely deporting criminals is politically convenient. Americans will eat that up in one gulp. After all, who can possibly defend criminals? But don’t be fooled by soundbites … It’s a power grab by states to dismantle federal authority over immigration enforcement.”
Lawmakers
- Senator Chris Murphy: “I don’t think we want the entire immigration system being litigated in district courts all across the country.”
- Rep. Jim McGovern (Read an entire thread from Rep. McGovern here): “This is a trojan horse bill that exploits Laken Riley’s tragic murder in order to dramatically expand the government’s power to shut down LEGAL immigration & detain people who are not convicted of any crime at all.”
- Rep. Sean Casten: (Read an entire thread from Rep. Casten here) “undocumented people in the US who are convicted of felonies are already subject to deportation. If that is your concern you should be happy with existing law. As I am.”
- Rep. Chellie Pingree: “The Laken Riley Act creates a two-tiered justice system that violates constitutional principles of equal protection. The bill would require mandatory detention for undocumented individuals arrested or charged with theft or burglary offenses, even before any conviction. This contradicts our fundamental presumption of innocence and due process rights that protect all persons within U.S. jurisdiction.”
Outside Experts
-
- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council in a MSNBC opinion column, “Giving a state attorney general veto power over everything from visa bans to individual release decisions made by ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers, threatens to make the entire immigration system even more chaotic than it already is.”
- Tahiri Justice Center: “H.R. 29 strengthens the hand of abusers. One call to law enforcement; one accusation of a crime someone didn’t commit, or was forced to commit under threat, and a victim of abuse could be separated from the people she loves — for a lifetime.”
- Service Employees International Union (SEIU), “Despite loud and endless fear-mongering by some, there is no immigrant crime wave, and in fact immigrants are less likely than others to commit crimes. If further proof is needed, crime has plummeted in recent years at the same time as immigration has increased, the opposite of what would have happened if immigrants posed a danger … In addition to the foregoing, Section 3 of H.R. 29 would make extremely radical changes in the balance of power over immigration policy that are only tangentially related to crime. It would empower each of the more than 50 state attorneys general to sue in federal district court to overrule individual and policy decisions made by the executive branch.”
Additional Resources
- Read the America’s Voice blog post, “The Bankrupt Politics and Policy of the Ken Paxton Empowerment Act (AKA the Laken Riley Act H.R.29/S.5)”
- Memo from The Immigration Hub: “Myth v. Fact: The Laken Riley Act”
- Read from the National Immigration Law Center, “NILC: 5 Things to Know About the Laken Riley Act”