In Washington, the Senate is preparing for a decisive vote on a legislative measure allowing states to contest federal immigration strategies. This legislation mandates that federal authorities detain migrants facing allegations of theft and violent offenses, marking a shift in the discourse surrounding immigration as Donald Trump prepares to take office.
With Republicans newly in control, the Senate has prioritized the Laken Riley Act, named in memory of a Georgia student fatally struck by a Venezuelan immigrant last year. This bill may potentially be the inaugural legislation signed by Trump during his presidency.
The bill successfully passed a critical procedural stage with a vote of 61-35 on Friday, with bipartisan support from 10 Democratic senators who sided with Republicans to advance it towards a final voting session. Following Trump’s inauguration, the Senate is expected to vote on this measure on Monday. However, the House must also review amendments made to the bill.
Last year, Democrats had sidelined similar proposals, but their recent election defeats seem to have prompted a willingness to explore stricter measures addressing illegal immigration. Initially, many Democrats supported opening discussions around the bill, yet most fell in opposition during its advancement towards a final vote as they could not enact substantial amendments.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, stated, “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.” He described the Laken Riley Act as “the first of many” initiatives focused on immigration.
As the new Congress convenes, Republicans have challenged Democrats to collaborate on measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration and deporting those with criminal ties. Many Senate Democrats have participated, as evidenced by their support last week for the Laken Riley Act, in a bid to negotiate alterations to the proposals.
Earlier this month in the House, a similar bill garnered votes from every Republican and 48 Democrats. This week, 61 Democrats also expressed support for an alternative bill aimed at enforcing deportations and restricting entry for foreign nationals convicted of physical or sexual abuse.
The initial victories for Republicans, who maintain control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, have mainly revisited policies where federal agents already hold some discretion. As Trump establishes large-scale deportation efforts, congressional Republicans will encounter significant pressure to finance his objectives, while also juggling commitments to reduce budget deficits and address economic and humanitarian implications associated with mass deportations.
An analysis from Democratic staff on the Senate Appropriations Committee projects that the Laken Riley Act might incur costs as high as $83 billion over the next three years. This estimate has prompted pushback from Republican lawmakers, who are concurrently deliberating methods to pass substantial funding legislation through a reconciliation process, facilitating the administration’s ability to allocate up to $100 billion for border security and immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, Democrats are facing internal strife regarding their immigration stance. The party’s factions are split between those who prioritize enforcement of illegal immigration restrictions and those advocating for assistance directed toward migrants already in the country or fleeing violence and persecution.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer echoed this sentiment, stating, “We Democrats want to see our broken immigration system fixed.” He acknowledged the collaboration between Democrats and Republicans on a broader immigration reform last year aimed at tightening asylum processes, suggesting a willingness to engage with Republicans on the topic of border security and immigration.
Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy criticized the Laken Riley Act’s provisions that prioritize detaining migrants accused of lesser crimes over those battling more severe offenses. He argued that this approach would create additional complexity and disorder within the system.
The Senate’s forthcoming vote may also broaden the bill’s scope to include migrants accused of assaults on police and those involved in serious offenses causing significant harm or death to others.
As the act, along with Riley’s name, gained traction among Republicans, they highlighted President Joe Biden’s border management. Riley, a nursing student from Georgia, was murdered in February by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan individual who entered the U.S. illegally but was permitted to remain while his immigration case was pending.
During his campaign, Trump frequently highlighted criminal acts perpetrated by migrants, despite several studies indicating that immigrants do not commit crimes at rates higher than U.S.-born citizens. Advocates for stricter immigration regulations often refute or downplay these findings.
Experts believe the bill’s most lasting implications might arise from its provision granting state attorneys general the ability to sue the federal government over damages caused by immigration policies. This new power empowers states to shape immigration law, especially in response to previous presidential actions by both Trump and Biden.
Democrats attempted to remove this contentious clause from the bill, voicing concerns that it could precipitate significant alterations to federal policy. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, remarked, “We have a really overwhelmed and stretched immigration system as it is, and additional litigation just adds chaos.”
