Skip to content Skip to footer

By Voting for Laken Riley Act, Democrats Cede More Power to Anti-Immigrant Right

Republicans are pushing the new legislation, which will bring an already hostile immigration status quo into chaos.

Sen. John Fetterman speaks to reporters as he goes to vote on the Laken Riley Act, which he co-sponsored, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on January 9, 2025.

What does the Democratic Party stand for? That question has plagued Capitol Hill, and the voting public, for at least a decade. Now, in the wake of Kamala Harris’s crushing presidential defeat, as Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, the Democrats’ identity crisis shows no sign of abating. Thanks to a wall of support from Senate Democrats, the Laken Riley Act — a GOP-sponsored, anti-immigrant bill — is on track to be one of the first pieces of legislation Trump will sign into law when he takes office. This is, of course, after the Democratic Party tacked hard to the right on immigration in its 2024 platform, caved to right-wing myths about the border, rubber-stamped President Joe Biden’s crackdown on asylum seekers — and still lost the presidential election.

Perhaps “identity crisis” is too generous. This is the real Democratic Party in 2025, maybe unable but likely unwilling to mount a strong defense against an anti-immigrant agenda that spans from the center to the far right. Democratic politicians have shown that they are committed to digging this hole. Unfortunately, it’s everyone else — particularly undocumented and marginalized folks — who must lie in it.

House Republicans introduced the Laken Riley Act last year, named after a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered in Georgia by an undocumented immigrant in February. Jose Ibarra, Riley’s convicted killer, had previously been arrested for misdemeanor shoplifting and driving a child without a helmet on a scooter. Republicans quickly seized on the tragedy, pointing to Ibarra’s arrest record as evidence that he should’ve been deported before Riley’s murder could take place.

The Laken Riley Act would require federal authorities to detain immigrants without bail if they are arrested for theft-related crimes. The operative word here being arrested — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be compelled to hold immigrants who have not necessarily been charged with or even convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who are criminally convicted on misdemeanor or felony charges already face deportation, which is one reason why legal experts say the proposed law amounts to security theater.

The bill’s provisions raise serious concerns for due process and erodes the principle of presumption of innocence. This does not bode well for anyone’s civil liberties — U.S. citizens, documented immigrants and undocumented immigrants alike. Nevertheless, the bill passed the House with 48 Democrats in support, and earlier this week, senators voted 82-10 to move the bill forward in the process. Two Democratic senators, Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona) and John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) co-sponsored the Senate version.

But the federal detention mandate is not the only or even necessarily the most concerning part of the bill. The Laken Riley Act also allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government over its handling of individual immigrants and demand that the State Department stop issuing visas for countries that don’t allow deported citizens to return. Immigrant rights advocates have noted how granting states new, broad powers over federal immigration policy could quickly backfire.

“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,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council told the Los Angeles Times. “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.”

The expansive scope of the Laken Riley Act should be easy for House and Senate Democrats to shoot down. They could, for instance, express a commitment to the preservation of civil liberties and due process, or point out how allowing states to sue the federal government in such a way would wreak havoc in the federal court system. They could emphasize that immigration is — gasp — not something to be feared, that immigrants are people too, and that the bill is little more than cynical fearmongering for political gain. They could even appeal to the government’s bottom line: Democrats estimated that the bill would incur costs of $83 billion over the next three years, as the detention mandate would require an additional 118,500 beds, 40,000 more ICE personnel and 25 more deportation flights each week. That alone should be enough to shut the bill down — but dozens of Democrats continue to cling to anti-immigrant policies in a desperate bid for popularity.

All is not lost. There are, of course, many Democrats who have opposed the bill, including the 159 House Representatives who voted against it.

“It is essentially a highway to mass deportation, and you can have any number of people picked up and put into the criminal justice system simply for being accused, with no conviction, no admission of guilt,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) told MSNBC on January 12.

Two days later, Jayapal emphasized her opposition to the bill again on Facebook, noting that it “isn’t about making our communities safer.”

What the Laken Riley Act really is, she wrote, is these three things: “Unjust. Inhumane. Unconstitutional.”

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.