Congressional Republicans campaigned on border security last year. 

So it should be of little surprise that their initial legislative action of 2025 focused on illegal immigration and tightening up the border. 

One can argue about whether Congressional Republicans appropriated the murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley for political gain. The 22-year-old Riley went for a run last February and never returned. Jose Antonio Ibarra murdered Riley. He entered the country illegally from Venezuela.

“He bashed her head in with a rock. This is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. People need to know what this animal did to her,” said Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., the main sponsor of the immigration bill.

SENATE DEMS TO JOIN REPUBLICANS TO ADVANCE ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL NAMED AFTER LAKEN RILEY

Republicans seized on the episode. To the right, the Laken Riley case symbolized everything which was wrong about the border and the Biden Administration. Days after Riley’s death last year, the House approved the Laken Riley Act. The bill requires federal detention for anyone in the country illegally who is arrested for shoplifting or theft. Republicans argued that Riley would be with us today had such a policy been in place to pick up Ibarra. 

It will take months for Congressional Republicans to get on the same page when it comes to President-elect Donald Trump’s demand for a combined “big, beautiful bill” on tax policy, federal spending and immigration. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says the aim is to pass that reconciliation package in early April. 

Approving a border security package by itself would be challenging enough – and that’s to say nothing of the cost. So Congressional Republicans are targeting low-hanging fruit. Hence, the GOP turned to an old standby as their primary legislative effort for the new year: The Laken Riley Act. 

Progressive Democrats pounced, accusing Republicans of race-baiting.

“It is simply an attempt to score cheap political points off of a tragic death,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., during the floor debate. “This is the Republican playbook over and over again. Scare people about immigrants.”

A USER’S MANUAL TO CERTIFYING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., accused Republicans of trying to “score cheap political points” by naming their illegal immigrant crime bill after Laken Riley. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Their bill today is an empty and opportunistic measure,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Pick a crime. Paste into it a template immigration law covering convicted criminals and then require detention or deportation of certain persons merely accused of committing the crime or arrested for committing the crime.”

“It’s very clear that House Republicans are going to push an anti-immigrant agenda,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. “I personally voted against it because this would open a path for individuals with DACA, to be deported, even if they are just around someone who committed a crime.”

Republicans clapped back.

“To my Democratic colleagues, I ask you how many more laws with names attached to them do we need to pass before you take this crisis seriously?” asked Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., during a debate on the House floor.

The majority of Democratic criticisms emanated from the left-wing of the party and progressives. 

But there’s an evolution underway in the Democratic Party. A practicality when it comes to border security, immigration and how the party mostly ignored the issue in the last election. And likely paid the price. 

LAKEN RILEY ACT PASSES HOUSE WITH 48 DEMS, ALL REPUBLICANS

Thirty-seven House Democrats voted in favor of the Laken Riley Act when the House approved the initial version of the bill last year. That figure ballooned to 48 Democratic yeas this week when the House approved the 2025 Laken Riley Act in its first legislative vote of 2025.

An examination of the vote matrix demonstrates how dozens of moderate Democrats or those representing swing districts voted yes. Six Democrats who voted nay last year flipped their vote to yea this time.

That includes Reps. Brendan Boyle, D-Penn., Val Hoyle, D-Ore., Lucy McBath, D-Ga., Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., and Terri Sewell, D-Ala.

“I’m concerned about what happened to Miss Riley.” said Morelle, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee. “I want to make sure it doesn’t happen to other people.”

Other yeas came from longtime conservative Democrats like Rep. Henry Cueller, D-Tex. He represents a border district. When asked why he voted aye, Cueller responded, “That’s an easy one. We won’t welcome people that break the law.”

Other moderates representing swing districts who voted yes included Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., Don Davis, D-N.C., Jared Golden, D-Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash. 

HOUSE, SENATE REPUBLICANS REVIVE TRUMP-BACKED PUSH TO CRACK DOWN ON NONCITIZEN VOTING

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, speaks during a news conference on rising suicide rates at the U.S. Border Patrol on Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

So were Democrats getting religion after the election?

“There was criticism that Democrats didn’t take immigration seriously,” yours truly asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. “Was there regret and that’s why some of these votes changed?”

Jeffries attributed it to new members joining the Democratic Caucus. 

“It’s my understanding that there were approximately eight to ten additional Democratic votes this year as compared to last year. There are 30 new members of the House Democratic Caucus,” said Jeffries.

But even though the bill passed the House, there’s always the Senate. And the Senate never considered the Laken Riley Act last year.

“The Senate,” lamented Collins. “[The bill] got bogged down and never showed up anywhere. It fell into the black hole of the Senate. Like much of our legislation that we sent over there.”

LEARNING CURVE: THE NEW PLAYERS IN CONGRESS

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said it is not “xenophobic” to want a secure border. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

But Republicans now control the Senate. Not the Democrats. New Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made sure his body also made the Laken Riley Act its primary focus for early 2025.

“Senate Democrats uniformly opposed (the Laken Riley Act) last year, despite the bill receiving bipartisan support in the House of Representatives,” said Thune. “We’ll see what they do when the new Senate majority brings it up for a vote.”

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who often bucks his party, quickly signed on to the Laken Riley Act.

“It’s not xenophobic to want a secure border,” said Fetterman. “It’s not xenophobic if you don’t want people with criminal records and that are actively breaking the law to remain here in the nation.”

Fetterman brushed off liberal concerns about violating the civil rights of undocumented persons who may be detained.

“If they’re here,” said Fetterman, “Technically, they’re already breaking the law.”

A slate of other Democrats quickly signed on to support the measure as well. 

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a freshman who represents a battleground border state, was among them. He argues that Democrats fouled up the border security issue in the election. 

“There was inaction all together. It certainly cost the Democratic Party. And I’d say potentially, the White House,” said Gallego. “I think we have to take the lessons from that.”

The Senate voted 84-9 Thursday to break a filibuster to begin debate on the Laken Riley Act. It will be set for passage next week after clearing that procedural hurdle.

Republicans will offer other border security/immigration bills in the next few months. Watch to see if Democrats join them. The lesson culled from the Laken Riley Act is that Democrats who represent competitive turf believe the party messed up when it came to border security. They’re seeking to inoculate themselves on that issue. And even if it’s not all Democrats, this marks a different approach from the party on the border compared to last year. 

WASHINGTON —  Jimmy Carter ended his one-term presidency in defeat. For years he was derided as a weak leader.

But over time a fundamental shift took place in how Carter was regarded, fueled by his decades of post-presidential good works and the enduring power of his White House achievements.

Perhaps more than any single post-World War II president, Carter changed the way many saw the U.S. by attempting to inject American values of altruism, democracy and human rights into foreign policy.

Sometimes he succeeded; oftentimes not. But his effort left an indelible mark on nearly two generations of diplomats, public officials and global activists.

Carter is to be remembered Thursday at a state funeral inside the cavernous Washington National Cathedral. President Biden will deliver the eulogy and all four living former presidents are expected to attend, including one inspired by him — President Obama — and one who routinely attacks him — President-elect Donald Trump. No major foreign leader is expected — at age 100, he outlived all those he interacted with.

Keith Mines, a 32-year veteran of the departments of State and Defense, working from Mexico to the Middle East, recalled being stationed at Ft. Benning, Ga., with a military officer from Burkina Faso. During downtime, Mines suggested they check out Georgia’s beaches, mountains or the hopping city of Atlanta.

“I want to go to one place,” Mines recalled the African officer saying. “I want to go to Plains, Ga. I want to see the … place that produced this remarkable man, Jimmy Carter.”

Carter’s legacy is mixed. His administration succeeded in building key security platforms that endure to this day, while also promoting a broader global and domestic social agenda. As president, he officially made human rights the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, with particular impact in Latin America.

And he set a precedent for former presidents by continuing his public service, and charitable and human rights work, after leaving office.

Carter attempted to change the way the world viewed America at a particularly fraught time.

The 1950s and ‘60s were characterized by U.S.-sponsored coups that overthrew governments that rulers in Washington didn’t like; then came the torturous Vietnam War and the scandalous tenure of Richard Nixon.

Carter rose from nowhere, and became a president who spoke more about peacemaking than foreign conquest, about humanity over self-interest.

He was willing to wield hard power when necessary but also saw the value of soft power, what he would call after his presidency the combination of “enticement, persuasion and influence,” which he often thought was even more effective in winning hearts and changing minds.

“I’ve seen the foundational nature of Carter’s contributions to U.S. foreign policy … in advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East, China, Russia … but it does not end there,” Thomas Donilon, a former national security advisor under Obama and senior State Department official under President Clinton, said in an essay for Foreign Affairs.

His stewardship led to the first peace treaty between Israel and a warring neighbor, Egypt, which still stands today as the most important such accord. Although tensions on the Middle East have ebbed and flowed, the successful Camp David negotiation won acclaim among Israelis and Arabs alike, who praised it as an evenhanded approach from the U.S.

Carter was a peacemaker but not a pacifist, and saw the need for military strength. In 1980, in response to the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he declared the Carter Doctrine, which committed the U.S. to protecting oil production in the Persian Gulf and laid the basis for security infrastructure in that part of the world for Democratic and Republican administrations that followed for decades.

In the waning weeks of his presidency, Carter approved the creation of the Joint Special Operations Force, a group of elite military from all branches that would train and plan top-secret reconnaissance missions and other clandestine deadly attacks.

Carter saw its need after the failed attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran. It remained in place, expanded through the years and eventually became involved in numerous controversial operations from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Carter seemed most proud of his work on human rights and democracy building.

His decision in 1977 to return the Panama Canal — long regarded regionally as a symbol of U.S. imperialism — to the government of Panama was widely praised in Latin America. It was a move initiated by Nixon at the urging of the U.S. military, which said operating it and the American military colony around it was expensive and unsustainable.

In the first years of his government, Carter also looked south and saw brutal military dictatorships controlling Argentina, Chile and other nations. He drastically reduced U.S. military aid to those countries and blocked their access to some international loans. Many of these steps, historians believe, were the first dominoes in toppling dictatorships and ushering in democracy to the region.

He “challenged the assumption that security assistance to repressive regimes furthered Cold War aims, and instead adopted the view that … U.S. support for these regimes had damaged its global leadership and made the U.S. complicit in human rights abuses,” Enrique Roig, a deputy assistant secretary of State, said in a recent forum at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

The son of Chilean parents, Roig credited Carter as a “beacon of hope” that showed him the United States could be a champion for democracy and human rights.

In June 1979, when the U.S. still supported the dynastic Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, Carter was horrified to see television footage of Somoza’s troops shooting dead an American reporter, ABC’s Bill Stewart, his hands raised at a military checkpoint. Carter immediately broke with the Somoza regime, which collapsed within weeks and gave rise to the Sandinista National Liberation Front, a revolutionary but eventually anti-American group. They launched social programs and were initially welcomed by a long-abused population — as was Carter’s perceived intervention.

But within two years, Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, worked to undo his reforms and soon launched wars in both Nicaragua, to oust the Sandinistas, and neighboring El Salvador to support its right-wing military government. Neither turned out as Reagan intended.

Fast-forward to 1990. Carter, a decade out of office, was in Nicaragua to monitor what were supposed to be the country’s first democratic elections. Sandinista President Daniel Ortega had agreed to allow the election — but was refusing to accept the results when it appeared he was losing to his matronly opponent, Violeta Chamorro, owner of the country’s leading opposition newspaper.

Carter sat up all of one night with Ortega, trying to persuade him to accept the results. “I know what it’s like to lose,” Carter told Ortega. Eventually, Ortega relented and allowed a peaceful transition to democracy.

Such post-presidency missions to bolster foreign elections, fight disease and build homes for the poor made the increasingly elderly but always engaged and gracious Carter a hero to many abroad. His picture would hang in activists’ homes; crowds would greet him in the streets in cities in Latin America and Africa.

“Luck broke against him in many ways during his time in office,” Carter’s former speechwriter, James Fallows, said this week on CNN. “But he then had the luck to bring out the best in himself, the best in fellow citizens, the best in what he hoped to bring to the world.”