The Laken Riley act was passed with Bipartisan support
Photo Courtesy of AP
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives gave final approval Wednesday to the Laken Riley Act, a sweeping bill that mandates the detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft or violent crimes. The bill, which marks the first significant immigration legislation President Donald Trump could sign into law, passed with a 263-156 vote, gaining support from both Republicans and a faction of politically vulnerable Democrats. This reflects the growing alignment between Congress and Trump’s hardline stance on illegal immigration.
Named after Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student murdered by a Venezuelan man in 2024, the bill highlights the shift in the political debate on immigration, which has swung notably to the right following Trump’s election victory. Immigration has historically been one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics, but this bill garnered enough bipartisan backing to secure passage. Notably, 46 Democrats joined Republicans to push the bill through.
Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, a Republican, hailed the bill as “perhaps the most significant immigration enforcement legislation” in nearly 30 years, emphasizing the political breakthrough in addressing border and immigration issues that have stymied lawmakers for decades.
However, the bill’s passage marks only the beginning of a larger effort. While it mandates a major expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) capabilities, it does not provide any new funding for the increased enforcement, which could present significant implementation challenges.
Meanwhile, President Trump has initiated a series of executive orders aimed at sealing the U.S.-Mexico border, including efforts to deport millions of immigrants without permanent legal status. On the same day, Trump canceled refugee resettlement programs and indicated plans to hold local law enforcement accountable if they do not enforce his immigration policies.
A Divisive Political Process
Republican leaders have made it clear they intend to follow through with the agenda set by the bill, but the real hurdle lies in securing the necessary funding to enforce these new measures.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the bill a “kickstart” for the legislative agenda he hopes to push through Congress.
Earlier efforts to pass the bill faced resistance. Last year, the House passed the legislation with the support of 37 Democrats, aiming to challenge President Joe Biden’s handling of the southern border. However, it stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate. This time, with Republicans in control of both chambers, the bill passed the Senate with support from 12 Democrats, and 48 Democrats backed it in the House vote earlier this month.
A recent AP-NORC poll revealed that most Americans support deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes. However, only 37% favor deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally but have not been convicted of a crime.
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), who backed the bill, emphasized that while it may not be perfect, it sends a clear message: “We think that criminals should be deported.”
Details of the Laken Riley Act
The Laken Riley Act mandates that federal authorities detain immigrants arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting. The Senate version expanded the scope to include individuals accused of more serious offenses, including assaulting a police officer or causing injury or death.
In addition, the bill empowers state attorneys general to sue the federal government over immigration decisions, granting states more control in setting immigration policy—a provision that Democrats in the Senate attempted to strip from the bill. Critics argue that this provision would further politicize immigration policy and create legal uncertainty.
Despite the bill’s passage, many Democrats warned that the lack of funding would render the bill largely ineffective. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) criticized it as a “totally unfunded mandate” that would burden federal authorities with new responsibilities without providing the necessary resources to implement them.
Another point of contention is the bill’s potential impact on due process rights. Critics, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), warned that the bill could force federal authorities to prioritize detaining immigrants accused of minor offenses, like shoplifting, over those accused of violent felonies.
The bill has sparked debates over whether it will effectively address crime. Studies have shown that immigrants tend to commit lower rates of violent crime than native-born citizens, though these findings are disputed by proponents of stricter immigration policies. Republicans, however, pointed to the tragic case of Laken Riley, arguing that the bill would have prevented her death by ensuring that the Venezuelan migrant accused of killing her would not have been released while awaiting his immigration case.
“If this act had been the law of the land, he never would have had the opportunity to kill her,” said Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.).
Implementation Challenges
Even with the bill’s passage, Ken Cuccinelli, former director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under Trump, warned that implementing the Laken Riley Act would require a surge of immigration judges, prosecutors, and other staff, as well as the use of military resources to assist with deportations. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that the bill would cost nearly $27 billion in its first year, including the addition of 110,000 ICE detention beds.
For now, the bill’s passage signals a significant shift in the U.S. approach to immigration enforcement, but its future depends on Congress providing the necessary funding and logistical support to meet the sweeping demands it imposes on federal agencies.