The U.S. Senate is set to begin debate Friday on legislation that supporters say will protect people from criminal acts by “non-U.S. nationals,” but which opponents say is redundant and would breach constitutional norms.
The Laken Riley Act, the first bill ushered in by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and approved earlier this week in a bi-partisan vote, would require the Department of Homeland Security to detain those who are in the country without valid documentation and who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting.
It would also allow states to sue the federal government “for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.” These “failures” could include decisions to “release non-U.S. national[s] from custody,” failure to “fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission” to the U.S. and “failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed” from the U.S., among other things.
Lawmakers named the legislation after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Augusta University nursing student who was murdered while jogging at the University of Georgia. Her convicted killer, Jose Ibarra, had entered the U.S. illegally and had previously been released after an arrest for stealing merchandise from a Walmart store. He is serving a life sentence without parole.
The legislation has pitted Democrats in Pennsylvania against one another, with U.S. Sen. John Fetterman signing on as one of the bill’s co-sponsors in the upper chamber while many of his state colleagues in the House have voted against it.
“Laken Riley’s story is a tragic reminder of what’s at stake when our systems fail to protect people,” Fetterman said in a joint news release sent by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Katie Britt (R., Ala.). “No family should have to endure the pain of losing a loved one to preventable violence,” the Pennsylvania Democrat continued. “Immigration is what makes our country great. I support giving authorities the tools to prevent tragedies like this one while we work on comprehensive solutions to our broken system.”
The bill passed the House on Tuesday with the support of 48 Democrats, including Pennsylvania Reps. Brendan Boyle of Philadelphia, and Chris Deluzio, who represents a section of western Pennsylvania outside Pittsburgh.
But U.S. Reps. Madeleine Dean, D-4th, of Glenside, Chrissy Houlahan, D-6th, of Easttown, and Mary Gay Scanlon, D-5th, of Swarthmore — who represent the “ring counties” in southeastern Pennsylvania — all voted against the measure.
In a statement on her Facebook page, Houlahan explained her vote.
“There’s a reason H.R.29, the Laken Riley Act, is the first bill we’re voting on in the 119th Congress — and it’s not immigration reform,” she wrote. “H.R.29 is carefully written to intentionally erode Constitutional protections, beginning with undocumented immigrants. I encourage people to read the text, which clearly shows how the bill removes the right to due process.
“Trump promised these kinds of dangerous changes, and the Republicans in Congress are desperately trying to satisfy him regardless of the implications of the legislation should it become law,” she said.
“This bill is not about immigration reform, and that’s why I voted no today,” Houlahan continued. “We need immigration reform legislation, which I have supported time and again with my votes and my voice. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft, support and pass legitimate common-sense immigration reform that will make meaningful and lawful change — in keeping with our American values and without undermining our Constitutional protections.”
Houlahan’s vote was quickly seized on by her opponents in Chester County.
“It’s disappointing to see Democrats prioritize criminals over the safety of American citizens,” the Republican Committee of Chester County posted on its own Facebook page. “If a Republican represented PA-6, they would’ve voted yes on the Laken Riley Act — putting the lives of American citizens over criminal illegal aliens. She didn’t.”
The legislation broadens the charges for which undocumented immigrants can be held and eventually deported. Those charged with burglary, theft or shoplifting, for instance, would be required to be detained by federal authorities if the bill becomes law.
Opponents note that the new rules would punish those charged before their cases were heard by a judge or at trial by a jury — a breach of due process. A person who, for example, had overstayed a student visa could be accused of a minor crime such as shoplifting and taken into federal immigration custody before they were found guilty. It would also skip any court-ordered punishment for their crime, and would allow them to return to the United States after their deportation.
Scanlon, in a press release, called the bill “legislative clickbait,” meant to generate headlines and social media clicks, “rather than actually solving a problem.”
“Existing laws already provide for detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes. (The Laken Riley bill) does nothing to fund efforts to enforce those provisions, and it does not make serious attempts to make our communities safer.
“Instead, (it) creates new opportunities to undermine community safety and the rule of law. The bill requires detention of people who have been accused of crimes, without regard to their actual guilt, and does not provide funding for the massive increase in detentions this would cause. This denial of due process opens the door to coercion and misuse of our immigration laws.
“H.R. 29 also encourages partisan judge shopping. The bill gives state attorneys general the ability to sue cabinet secretaries for alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act – a blatant attempt to allow conservative states to find friendly courts and judges to block federal immigration laws they dislike.
“Simply put, rather than providing resources to strengthen immigration enforcement, H.R. 29 exploits a young woman’s tragic death to score cheap political points.”
Calls to Dean’s office for a comment were unsuccessful.
As it stands in some courthouses in the state, including Chester County, those who plead guilty to charges are routinely notified by the judge overseeing their case that their decision may have an impact on their immigration status. Many of those who are incarcerated at the time they appear in court have had detainers placed on their custody by the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
And those who are arrested in the county and face proceedings before a magisterial district judge are not quizzed on whether they are in the country illegally or not.
“It has not been a policy to ask,” said one such judge on Thursday. “I don’t think any of us ask. I don’t think we’re allowed to. Immigration status is irrelevant for the purposes of bail, in the first place. But I think things are going to change, as they do with every incoming administration.”
In addition, a spokesman for Chester County Prison said authorities there do not determine the immigration status of inmates.
“That being said, we do email ICE a daily population report to inform them about individuals that were incarcerated and/or released the previous day,” said David A. Byerman, the county’s chief executive officer.
“Chester County Prison’s policy is that it will not hold individuals who are committed on an ICE detainer only, there being no other pending charges or holds,” he said, noting that conforms to the constitution al protections and case law.
“If ICE arrives to detain an individual before the individual is processed out to be released, custody of that individual is turned over to ICE,” Byermnan said. “We have no information on where that individual would be taken from there.”
To contact staff writer Michael P. Rellahan call 610-696-1544.