Connect with us

Politics

The Senate is considering the Laken Riley Act. Here's what it would do

Published

on

The Senate is considering the Laken Riley Act. Here's what it would do

The Senate could vote Tuesday on the Laken Riley Act, a Republican-led bill that mandates federal detention for immigrants who are charged with minor crimes and grants broad enforcement powers to states.

It passed the House earlier this month as the first bill taken up by the new, Republican-controlled Congress and moved forward in the Senate with significant support from Democrats.

The bill’s advancement illustrates the new willingness by more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing favor with voters on border security, a front-line issue in the November presidential election.

Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and be extremely costly to the federal government.

What happened to Laken Riley?

The bill is named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last year in Athens, Ga., by a Venezuelan immigrant who had entered the U.S. illegally in 2022. Border Patrol agents released him, like many migrants, with temporary permission to stay in the country.

Advertisement

Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, had previously been cited in Georgia with misdemeanor shoplifting from Walmart and was arrested in New York for driving a scooter without a license and with a child who wasn’t wearing a helmet. Supporters of the bill say federal authorities should have detained Ibarra after he was charged with those crimes.

In November, Ibarra was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Allyson and John Phillips, Riley’s mother and stepfather, wrote in a statement that the bill has their full support.

“Laken would have been 23 on January 10th,” they wrote. “There is no greater gift that could be given to her and our country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through this bill.”

What would the Laken Riley Act do?

The Laken Riley Act has three significant provisions: to require detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes; to authorize state governments to sue the federal government over its handling of individual immigrants; and to give states the power to demand that the State Department stop issuing visas for countries that refuse to accept the return of deported nationals.

Advertisement

“If you came into the U.S. illegally and then you chose to commit a crime against Americans — whether that’s against persons or property — on U.S. soil, you should go to the front of line when it comes to detention and removal,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) wrote on X.

The bill would require immigration agents to take into custody people who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting. It would override the current discretion afforded to federal officials to prioritize the detention of people with violent criminal records.

The legislation requires detention if a person is even charged with theft-related crimes. That means someone could be deported before getting the chance to defend themselves in court.

The bill also gives state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government over alleged mishandling of people in its custody, overriding the longstanding broad authority of the federal government over immigration matters. State officials could get a court to instruct immigration agents to track down people it had released from detention.

States would also be empowered to insert themselves into U.S. foreign policy matters. Some countries refuse to accept back their citizens whom the U.S. attempts to deport. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to stop visas from being issued for any country refusing to accept deportations.

Advertisement

Opponents say the law would lead to chaos in federal courts and the separation of longtime residents from their U.S. citizen family members as they are detained indefinitely.

“I don’t think that people understood what was in the bill when they were cosponsoring it,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, who works with Congress to develop policy.

Jason Houser, who was chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023, said the legislation would force federal agencies to divert manpower from the most dangerous offenders.

“If this bill is enacted, you will see less individuals in detention that are violent convicted criminals than you do today,” he said, noting that the federal government has a finite amount of resources, detention beds and staff.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it would need more than $3 billion to detain the 60,000 people it had identified to meet bill’s parameters.

Advertisement

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the left-leaning American Immigration Council said the visa provision raises serious constitutional and international relations concerns with potentially sweeping ramifications for the U.S. economy.

“You could see [Texas Atty. Gen.] Ken Paxton suing to block all H-1B visas from China. You could see somebody trying to prevent all business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “The prospect of 677 different federal district court judges around the country having the power to order the secretary of State to impose sweeping visa bans on other countries threatens to upend our system of government, giving states and the judiciary more power over diplomacy and immigration than the federal government itself.”

What is its history in Congress?

The Laken Riley Act passed the House last week, 264-159, with 48 Democrats in support. Among them were seven Democrats from California, including Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce), Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Garden Grove), who flipped seats previously held by Republicans.

Senators voted 82-10 on Monday to take up consideration of the measure. California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam B. Schiff, both Democrats, did not vote.

In an interview Sunday on NBC, Padilla said he would vote against the bill in its current form.

Advertisement

“It opens the doors for people simply being charged — without a conviction — to be detained and deported,” he said. “That includes minors, that includes Dreamers, that’s [for] shoplifting a pack of bubble gum. There has to be more of a focus on a piece of legislation like this.”

When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed 251-170, with 10 fewer Democrats in support. The Senate, which then held a slim majority, declined to take it up for consideration.

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he was hoping for a robust debate and the ability to offer improvements on the bill.

“Americans deserve for us to debate the issue seriously, including by considering amendments from the Democratic side,” he said. “We’re going to ask our Republican colleagues to allow for debate and votes on amendments.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Opinion: Someday, most likely, the buck will stop with Trump

Published

on

Opinion: Someday, most likely, the buck will stop with Trump

Since taking office last month, Donald Trump has governed like a man with a sledgehammer and a checklist. He’s moving at a breakneck pace — executive orders flying, agencies gutted, norms obliterated. USAID workers? Put on ice. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Unprotected. Low-flow toilets? Flushed. The Gulf of Mexico? No longer found on Google Maps. And that’s just a brief sampling.

Sure, the courts will put the brakes on some of it, but this is political whack-a-mole at its finest. That’s the genius of it: While first responders are scrambling to stamp out dozens of small fires, who will realize the whole city has burned down around them?

This is a stark contrast to the messier way things started the last time Trump won election. In 2016, he stumbled into the White House like a guy who had somehow wandered into the cockpit of a 747, started pushing buttons, and figured the autopilot would handle the rest. This time, he’s got a plan and a highly motivated flight crew — co-pilot Elon Musk, advisor Stephen Miller, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought — and they are shutting down the “deep state” faster than a Georgetown cocktail party when the open bar closes.

Trump and Co. are using two time-tested strategies to pull it off: “flooding the zone” and “expanding the Overton window.” The first overwhelms the opposition with an avalanche of activity, so no single scandal sticks. The second is an old-school haggling trick: Start with something extreme, and when you scale it back just a notch, your new position — although still extreme by the standards of a few moments before — suddenly seems conceivable.

Take Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The courts will probably bounce it faster than a bad check. But by the time that happens, we’ll all be debating the mechanics of mass deportation as though that were just another line item in the budget. “Should we fix potholes or round up a few million migrants?” That’s how this game works.

Advertisement

But here’s the thing: Throwing a million strings of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks is exhausting. Not only for stunned onlookers, but also for the guys doing the throwing.

Think of it like a football team that sprints through their first 15 scripted plays, running a hurry-up offense with precision. Then reality sets in. The defense adjusts. The playbook runs dry. Suddenly, your players are gasping for air, getting sacked at every turn, and hastily throwing interceptions.

Which brings us to Musk’s plan to inject Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” ethos into government.

The problem? When you break things in government, lots of people get hurt — people who did not choose to speculate in tech investments or work at a startup. You can’t just gut the Federal Emergency Management Agency and then reboot it right before hurricane season and expect the federal disaster response to function. You can’t lay off half the FBI and then roll out a “patch” to protect national security as well as those experienced professionals did. And if you’ve decimated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there’s no “undo” button available when the next pandemic hits.

Now, I’m all for cutting waste, streamlining bureaucracy and making the system work better. But any self-respecting conservative (as in “to conserve”) should understand that there’s a difference between fixing a leaky pipe and blowing up the water main.

Advertisement

The problem with the “government should run like a business” mantra is that, in business, when things go south, you can declare bankruptcy, pivot to selling NFTs or just ghost your investors. Last I checked, the United States of America doesn’t have a “going out of business” option built into its framework.

And here’s the real kicker: When you take a sledgehammer (instead of a scalpel) to the government, guess who gets crushed under the debris? Well, everyone. But among the folks down there in the rubble you’ll find the very people who orchestrated the destruction.

The folks who slashed FEMA? They’ll be the ones on TV explaining to incredulous Trump voters why no one showed up to offer relief after the next Category 5 hurricane. The guys who gutted the FBI will be shocked — shocked! — when a major terrorist attack “somehow” slipped through the cracks. And the ones who slashed National Institutes of Health funding will fumble their way through a public apology when the next mystery virus starts making the rounds.

I know what you’re thinking: Trump has a remarkable talent for dodging responsibility, always finding someone else to blame. Whether it’s Musk or a Biden administration DEI hire — just as he did after the recent midair collision near Washington, D.C. — he’ll find a scapegoat. But at some point, the “You break it, you buy it” rule kicks in, and the buck stops with the president. Trump’s failure to respond adequately to COVID-19 likely cost him the 2020 election. In that moment, at least, he was held accountable. It could happen again.

Then again, it’s possible the next four years will pass without some major test or system failure that would spark a backlash. Maybe the rules don’t apply to Trump and everything will work out fine. Maybe he’s magic, in which case he is about to redefine everything we think we know about American politics. Again.

Advertisement

Regardless of how this all shakes out, one thing’s for sure: Trump’s back. And this time, he’s not just pushing random buttons — he’s got a plan. Or at least a crumpled cocktail napkin with a zillion half-baked ideas scribbled on it.

And at the top, in all caps? “SHOCK AND AWE.”

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Agriculture pick confirmed as president racks up Cabinet wins

Published

on

Trump Agriculture pick confirmed as president racks up Cabinet wins

President Donald Trump secured two more Cabinet confirmations on Thursday, including his pick to lead the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Brooke Rollins. 

Rollins was easily confirmed by the Senate shortly after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Trump’s Health secretary.

Most recently, Rollins has served as president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) think tank, which she co-founded after Trump’s first term. 

In Trump’s first administration, she was his director of the Office of American Innovation and acting director of the Domestic Policy Council.

TULSI GABBARD SWORN IN AT WHITE HOUSE HOURS AFTER SENATE CONFIRMATION

Advertisement

Brooke Rollins, U.S. President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of agriculture, testifies before a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2025.  (Kaylee Greenlee Beal/Reuters)

The newly elected president announced his selection of Rollins for USDA chief in November, recalling she did “an incredible job” during his first term. 

“Brooke’s commitment to support the American Farmer, defense of American Food Self-Sufficiency, and the restoration of Agriculture-dependent American Small Towns is second to none,” he said. 

DOGE ‘PLAYBOOK’ UNVEILED BY GOP SENATOR AS MUSK-LED AGENCY SHAKES UP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

A side-by-side of President Trump and the United States Department of Agriculture

A side-by-side image of President Trump and the United States Department of Agriculture (Getty Images)

“As our next Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke will spearhead the effort to protect American Farmers, who are truly the backbone of our Country. Congratulations Brooke!”

Advertisement

The USDA nominee had a hearing before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee last month, before advancing past the key hurdle. 

DEM LOOKS TO CODIFY NEW AG BONDI’S DESIRED CRACKDOWN ON ‘ZOMBIE DRUG’ XYLAZINE

Split image showing agriculture secretary nominee Brooke Rollins with Donald Trump and a sign outside the USDA

Brooke Rollins is sworn-in for a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearing on her nomination for Secretary of Agriculture, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington.  (Getty Images | iStock)

The committee decision to move her nomination forward was unanimous, giving her bipartisan backing going into her confirmation vote. 

Rollins is now the 16th Cabinet official confirmed to serve in Trump’s new administration. With the help of the Republican-led Senate, Trump has managed to confirm his picks at a pace far ahead of either his first administration or former President Joe Biden’s. 

TRUMP LANDS KEY TULSI GABBARD CONFIRMATION FOLLOWING UPHILL SENATE BATTLE

Advertisement
Left: President Joe Biden; Right: President-elect Donald Trump

Biden and Trump during his first term lagged behind with confirmations. (Left: Pete Marovich/Getty Images; Right: Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images)

At the same point in his first term, Trump only had 11 confirmations and Biden had seven. Neither had 16 confirmed until March during their respective administrations. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Solutions: Here's how the Trump administration can curb housing costs

Published

on

Solutions: Here's how the Trump administration can curb housing costs

One reason American voters handed the country’s reins back to President Trump was the extreme inflation in housing prices that took place under his predecessor. The federal government has less influence over this issue than, say, California mayors and legislators — but whoever is in the White House can take certain steps to push prices down. The federal government can lower construction material costs, release more land for homebuilding and ensure that federal grants are used efficiently.

Unlike American manufacturing, residential construction has missed out on productivity improvements for decades. One reason is that building code updates, which are written by an industry group, increase costs more often than they decrease them. As a result, cost-conscious states usually stick with older, cheaper building codes. But that means they miss out on productive innovations. The Trump administration could start by creating a building code innovation module, consisting only of cost-decreasing updates, which states and cities could then adopt.

U.S. building codes have fallen behind peer countries in construction techniques for mid-rise buildings, which provide important, dense housing supply using little land. The administration could help California, Tennessee and several other states already in the process of identifying safety standards for the construction of four- to six-story buildings with a single staircase. A related innovation would adopt lower-cost elevator standards for small buildings, which would enable cost-effective accessibility in more new construction.

As the new administration sets tariff rates, it should balance construction costs among its priorities. The Biden administration doubled Trump’s original tariff on Canadian lumber, adding thousands to the cost of each new house. Cutting that tariff to its 2020 rate — or better yet, eliminating it and aiming tariffs at strategic opponents instead of America’s strongest ally — would bring immediate relief to builders and buyers. Instead, in his first few weeks back in office, Trump has scheduled higher tariffs on Canadian goods, including lumber, and added a 25% global steel tariff, which will make it much more expensive to build the next Trump Tower.

In addition to material costs, another factor that has driven up home prices and limited inventory is a chronic scarcity of construction workers, and the federal government has more control over this labor supply than states and cities do. Through immigration policy, the Trump administration could either aggravate the shortage or ease it, which would either raise or lower housing costs.

Advertisement

In land use, as in construction productivity, the federal government plays a quietly influential role. Trump has proposed building new “freedom cities” on federally owned land across the country. That’s one of several ways that huge federal landholdings could be opened for housing and jobs relatively free of local politics and NIMBYism.

Another idea is to expand nationwide the successful Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which allows the sale of federal land to support suburban growth. So far it has been limited to the Las Vegas area, where it has been successful and has generated funding to conserve and improve other valuable public land.

Other regulations and agencies influence the use of privately owned land. For instance, federal rules on storm water drainage are not only strict, but also complex and scattered. A first step would be to unify those rules in a single place. Once unified, they can be analyzed and streamlined as appropriate.

Some agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense, quietly influence local land use. An administration-wide directive could nudge them to affirm more homebuilding where appropriate rather than reflexively blocking it.

Yet the federal government’s most immediate connection to cities is through grant-making for a range of purposes. Many federal regulations require grantees to undergo expensive planning exercises to qualify for funding. Experience shows that the plans usually have no influence on subsequent actions. The new administration must ensure that money is used well by emphasizing outcome-based reporting for federal grantees instead.

Advertisement

Some grants are openly ill-spent. Several states waste federal funding for removing lead paint hazards by preventing out-of-state workers from contributing to that work. And some of the richest cities skirt the rules of the Community Development Block Grant program, using funds in ways that make housing more expensive, not more attainable. Federal agencies can easily curtail these inefficiencies.

Even better, the Department of Housing and Urban Development should find funding to offer technical assistance to small cities and towns that want to allow more housing. When I advised Auburn, Maine, on its nation-leading reforms, the limiting factor was local staff time. For municipalities that share Auburn’s goals, HUD can be a valuable resource.

Regulators at the Federal Housing Finance Agency have an outsize role in determining who gets a mortgage and why. The agency should seriously investigate the possibility that its own well-intended regulations have cut off mortgage lending to working-class families. My colleague Kevin Erdmann argues that unreasonably strict credit standards have eliminated most buyers for lower-cost homes and created a new constituency for single-family rentals. They would rather buy, if anyone would give them a mortgage.

Despite these many touchpoints, Americans should remember that the fault is not in our presidents, but in ourselves, that we are underbuilding. In California, for example, obstacles to construction include strict local zoning, NIMBY resistance and laws that require builders to pay above-market wages and force landlords to collect below-market rents. Such factors have aggravated a housing shortage and contributed to outmigration, homelessness and even more deferred dreams. Federal innovation and efficiency can support local efforts but cannot replace them.

Salim Furth is a senior research fellow and director of the urbanity project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending