The bill known as Ley Laken Riley, currently under debate in the United States Congress, seeks to reach the major powers of the states to intervene in the enforcement of immigration laws, allowing, among other things, general state taxes and gaming federal officials have a more active role in deciding on detentions and deportations. The initiative, impulsive of the Republican Party, was approved in the House of Representatives and advances in the Senate with a bipartisan response, although for its final approval it will require the help of at least six Democratic senators.
The name of this legislation comes from Laken Riley, a young college student who was raped and assaulted by an undocumented immigrant who had been detained and released on multiple occasions. This tragic case not only became a symbol during the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, but also played a central role in justifying the resistance of the migration policies proposed in this law.
Expanded power for states
One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Laken Riley Act is the ability it would give states to ask the federal government in cases where they believe immigration laws are not being adequately enforced. Currently, Supreme Court precedent has limited these lawsuits, but the search bill has been reinstated by case law, allowing Texas states to intervene in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decisions related to the release of detained immigrants.
“States need tools to deal with a president who decides not to enforce immigration laws,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies at the Center for Policy Studies, a group that advocates for more restrictive immigration policies.
With this legislation, state fiscal generals can seek federal judicial orders to force the government to detain immigrants accused of certain crimes or even to limit the issuance of visas to countries that do not accept the repatriation of their nationals. For example, Texas General Revenue may require the suspension of work visas for Chinese workers or a ban on commercial tourism from India if these countries do not cooperate in the return of their deported citizens.
However, this expansion of jurisdiction will only work in one direction: states could ask the federal government to release an immigrant, but they will not have the ability to challenge illegal detentions.
Changes in the causes of mandatory detention
Another controversial aspect of the Laken Riley Act is the expansion of crimes that justify the mandatory detention of immigrants. Currently, these methods are applied in cases of serious or violent crimes, but the bill also includes minor crimes, such as evil or robots.
Critics warn that this could divert resources dedicated to detaining immigrants involved in violent crimes, replacing a system already limited in capacity and assumptions.
“These kinds of provisions could saturate the system and put the focus back on really high-priority cases, like dangerous criminals,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an analyst at the American Immigration Council, said during a briefing with reporters.
Context and legal antecedents
The project seeks to address Republican frustrations over the implementation of immigration laws under Joe Biden's administration and other precedents. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to request changes to the deportation priorities established by Biden's administration, giving priority to the expulsion of immigrants considered at risk to national security or shrouded in graves, leaving second place floor cases of infractions menores.
Ley Laken Riley will intend to restore the foregoing, respecting the states' right to request the federal government's interpretation of its immigration policies. Additionally, we will allow immigration gaming decisions related to the release of detainees to be challenged, something that is currently the sole purview of the Department of Justice.
“States have attempted on numerous occasions for the Biden government to meet their law enforcement responsibilities, but have been unsuccessful,” Vaughan added, underscoring the need for more effective legal mechanisms for states.
International criticisms and concerns
The possibility of states blocking the issuance of visas for cities in many countries has raised desperate concerns in some sectors, due to the political and economic impact this could generate.
“Allowing a juez de distrito or a fiscal general bloquee visados could trigger a diplomatic crisis with serious consequences for the state economy and immigration in general,” Reichlin-Melnick argued.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy also weighed in on the measure, arguing that it could turn the immigration system into a legal battleground in local courts.
“I don't think we want an immigration system that is constantly being litigated in district courts across the country,” Murphy said in a recent press interview.
Defenders and detractors
While many Democrats and pro-immigrant organizations criticize the bill as overbroad and potentially harmful, Republican advocates see it as a necessary tool to address what they see as the federal government's failure to enforce immigration laws.
“The provisions relating to general taxes are the heart of this law. If we eliminate this part, the project will lose 90% of its impact,” said Rep. Chip Roy, a key sponsor of Ley Laken Riley.
Likewise, advocates argue that current policy has not used the full arsenal of legal tools available to combat crimes committed by immigrants. According to them, the Ley Laken Riley will make it possible to close these breaches and guarantee a more restrictive application of the laws.
A hidden future for the bill
Despite its approval in the House of Representatives, the bill faces a difficult path in the Senate, where Republicans will have to enlist the help of everyone but Democrats to gain its final approval.
If signed into law, your provisions are likely to face legal challenges in federal courts, particularly those related to mandatory immigration detention and visa issuance. However, Ley Laken Riley has already relaunched the debate on immigration in the United States, marking a new stage in the search for more restrictive policy and the strengthening of the charter of states in this area.
Meanwhile, the discussion in the framework of this legislature highlights the tensions between the priorities of security and justice and the values of a migration system that has historically been seen as a pillar of national state identity.
