The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed HR 7511, the Laken Riley Act, a bill named after a Georgia student killed by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela last year. The bill requires the detention of immigrants arrested on suspicion of theft. The bill reflects the Republican-led Congress' new focus on border security and was the first major legislative effort in the 119th Congress.
The bill passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 264-159, with all House Republicans joined by 48 Democrats. The Senate, currently under Republican control, is scheduled to consider the bill later this week, which could coincide with Riley's 23rd birthday.
legislative background
The act was named in memory of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered by Jose Ibarra. Ibarra is a Venezuelan immigrant who was previously arrested for shoplifting and was released on parole.
The bill was passed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) on February 15, 2024, as part of a broader Republican effort to tighten immigration enforcement in the wake of high-profile cases like Riley. Submitted for the first time.
The bill seeks to address gaps in the system by requiring the detention of immigrants accused of (but not necessarily convicted of) crimes such as theft, robbery, and shoplifting.
According to The Hill, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) praised the measure as a public safety initiative, saying:
We are very focused on border security. The Laken Riley Act makes it clear that if you commit a crime against people in America, it will not be tolerated.
The measure faces significant opposition from advocacy groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It also faces opposition from some Democrats who say it undermines due process protections and raises other concerns.
Main regulations
The Laken-Riley Act introduces stricter immigration measures. The bill focuses on the mandatory detention of immigrants charged with theft offenses and empowering state-level action against federal immigration practices. The main elements are:
Forced detention on theft-related charges. The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain immigrants who are charged with or plead guilty to robbery, theft, theft, or shoplifting, regardless of whether they have been convicted. The definitions of these crimes are governed by local law.
State litigation to enforce immigration laws. State attorneys general can sue the federal government for failing to comply with detention and deportation rules if the harm is clear, including economic damages exceeding $100. Courts should expedite such cases to ensure speedy resolution.
Stricter parole rules. The law limits the federal government's parole authority and allows states to challenge parole granted outside strict humane or public interest guidelines.
Expanding the role of the state in immigration enforcement. Each state is given authority to ensure federal compliance with detention requirements during deportation proceedings. That would embed more state-level oversight into immigration policy.
Supporters say the bill closes a loophole that allowed people like Laken Riley's killer to remain in the United States despite previous arrests.
Overall, the bill's provisions represent a major shift in immigration policy. A debate is expected in the Senate.
criticism
Critics of the bill say it undermines due process by avoiding the need for a conviction and requiring immigrants to be detained solely based on suspicion or arrest of a theft-related crime. This departs from the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and raises concerns about potential abuse.
The main objections include:
Detention without conviction. The law requires detention based on charges, putting individuals at risk of imprisonment or deportation before their day in court.
Erosion of constitutional protections. Critics say the bill diminishes basic due process rights by imposing punitive measures without a judicial finding of guilt.
Community Impact. Opponents also warn that the law could foster fear and mistrust among immigrants, reduce cooperation with law enforcement and make communities less safe.
In addition, groups such as the National Immigration Law Center argue that giving states broad authority to sue the federal government over nearly all immigration-related decisions would severely disrupt the executive branch's authority to set immigration policy. It warns that this is a possibility. The center also said the bill would give states automatic standing to litigate immigration cases, breaking the constitutional “right of standing” that prevents courts from intervening in cases without apparent harm. They claim that the principles are ignored. The organization warns that this risks overwhelming federal courts with frivolous lawsuits, creating the chaos that the Constitution was intended to avoid.
political implications
House Republicans see passage of the Laken-Reilly Act as a continuation of their campaign promise to strengthen border security. Chairman Johnson framed the bill as reflecting the priorities of his constituents, saying:
As promised, today begins with border security. If you surveyed the public or voters, they would say that was at the top of the list.
Prime Minister Johnson accused Democrats who voted “no” of “ignoring the demands of the American people.”
At the same time, the bipartisan nature of the vote suggests potential traction in the Senate, where Republicans reintroduced the bill today with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
In addition to Fetterman, Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) have also expressed support for the bill.
It remains unclear whether the bill will reach the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome the filibuster.
voter dynamics
Notably, as The Hill's analysis makes clear, this law reflects a changing political climate in which cracking down on illegal immigration is becoming more widely accepted among Democrats. So after voting against the bill last March, seven House Democrats, including Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) and Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), reversed their votes and passed the bill. supported the bill. In addition, 11 Democratic freshmen voted “yes.” Four of his former supporters are no longer in the House. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) also voted in favor after abstaining last time, but a former supporter, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D.J.), did not vote this time.
Click here to join the John Birch Society's efforts to end America's immigrant invasion.
