There is a common mantra among people who are skeptical of government power: If a law’s name is derived from a person’s name, it’s probably bad.
Typically, such bills are anchored on victims whose histories are truly tragic and sympathy is warranted, but the bill’s raw emotional package can be used as a shield from criticism and opposition. They often give lawmakers permission to enact authoritarian policies while using them as ammunition to criticize those who do so. Please don’t ride.
The Laken Riley Act, which moved closer to passage in the Senate on Friday, is no exception. The bill, drafted in response to the death of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student who was killed last year by an illegal immigrant named Jose Ybarra, has little to do with Riley’s death and instead packs harsh policies. It was something. Perhaps it will soon be enacted into law in her name.
Prior to killing Riley, Ybarra had been arrested for shoplifting. So the crux of this bill starts there. The bill would require illegal immigrants to be held in federal custody without bail, without a hearing, and if arrested for theft-related crimes, they would be subject to deportation.
“ice [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] There is no longer discretion to release these arrestees, and they must be held without bail while deportation proceedings take place,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. This aspect of the bill applies even if the person is later acquitted or the charges are dropped. ”
The latter part clearly raises due process concerns, as it applies to children, people protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and people residing in the United States who are temporarily in custody. Ru. On the other hand, the former provision can have rather dire unintended consequences. warned Because detention centers can only hold a limited number of people, the law could force authorities to release suspected criminals who pose a significant risk of danger. One of the undocumented immigrants who was previously arrested for shoplifting ended up committing a terrible act, leading lawmakers to require funds to go to shoplifting suspects rather than, say, people accused of more violent crimes. They may have good intentions. But that doesn’t mean it’s wise.
Additionally, although it appears to have little to do with Laken Riley, the law that bears her name also allows state attorneys general to file lawsuits challenging decisions to grant parole to immigrants. . block legal Immigrants from “rebellious countries”.
“The purpose of this provision is to make it easier for states to challenge federal programs that grant visas and parole (temporary legal entry, employment, and residence in the United States), such as those implemented by the Biden administration.” [Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela parole] program For people fleeing horrific violence and repression in four Latin American countries, including three countries ruled by brutal socialist dictatorships. ” I will write Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, of Volokk’s conspiracy. “Last year, a conservative federal judge An unfavorable judgment was rendered against the lawsuit. “A coalition of red states filed against the program on the grounds that the latter lacked standing because they had not suffered the requisite ‘harm’ due to the program.” According to the Laken-Riley Act, It will be much easier to find such a position. As the debate over high-skilled immigration continues to tear apart many of the ‘new rights’, the possibility that the attorney general could sue to block visas from, say, India, a ‘rebellious country’ There is.
“If this bill only mandated the deportation of immigrants convicted of petty theft, many Democratic members of Congress It would be logical for the government to support the bill.” I will write Michelle Goldberg new york times. But despite its far-reaching impact, many Democrats have The support for this bill is almost certainly attributable, at least in part, to the way the bill is structured so that the Republican-led bill has a better chance of crossing the finish line.
“You have to meet people where they are, even if your ideological background leads you in a different direction,” said Rep. Richie Torres (D-N.Y.), who voted yes. said. said of times. “I worry that by voting against bills like the Laken Riley Act, we risk appearing out of touch with the majority of Americans on issues of immigration and border security.”
What happened to Riley was an absolute tragedy. But lawmakers should be more concerned about bad legislation than bad optics.
