The Laken Riley Act requires ICE to detain illegal immigrants who have committed theft, burglary, or shoplifting. I suppose that's fine. But the Republicans who wrote the bill weren't satisfied with just that:
The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a
- decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;
- failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;
- failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;
- violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or
- failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States.
"Financial harm of more than $100" is essentially an open door for state attorney generals to sue the federal government over any immigration policy they dislike.
"Non-U.S. national" includes legal as well as illegal immigrants.
"Stop issuing visas" means an end to legal immigration from unfriendly regimes—some of which are the most politically repressive countries around.
"Case-by-case basis" puts a stop to humanitarian parole programs for countries like Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, and others. It also could mean the end of DREAMers, who are technically illegal immigrants allowed en masse to stay in the country.
All of this is just vague enough to make it unclear what the law would actually do. But it would certainly go far beyond the detainment of illegal immigrants convicted of theft. That's the bumper sticker Republicans are selling, but it's pretty far from the whole story.
It's almost always a bad idea to vote for a bill named after a person. That's probably the case here as well.
That bill is insane - it would essentially give state attorney generals and a favorable right-wing judge the right to throw a bomb into US relations with other countries over immigration issues.
It's also pretty obviously aimed at Mexico, since Mexico could throw a wrench into Trumpist deportation fantasies by refusing to accept deportees.
Democrats should filibuster this, although it sounds like some of them are in full quisling mode and have defected to support this. There was a good piece by Greg Sargent about how Fetterman and Gallegos undermined any Democratic effort to get this part of the bill watered down by immediately endorsing the whole thing. Gallegos is openly lying about it, claiming it doesn't impact DREAMers.
Just for clarification, if they get arrested for this stuff, it requires ICE to show up and grab them for deportation? That sounds like a really good way to choke off cooperation on any of these cases with police by unauthorized immigrants, and create a massive detention problem for ICE.
Why should Susan Collins be the only recipient of the Neville Chamberlain Award For Conspicuous Credulity? …
+1
The main reason she shouldn't win the award is that it's name slanders Neville Chamberlain. He wasn't credulous. He knew that the chances that Hitler would stay within the bounds of the Munich Agreement pretty much zero.
The common understanding of his actions in Munich is wrong. He wasn't trying to achieve peace, though he would have been very glad if he'd gotten it. He was playing for time.
The British and French were in the midst of a massive rearmament program. At the same time, the Nazis' attempts to do everything, rearmament, massive public works programs, and a drive to autarky had badly overheated the German economy and they weren't accomplishing much of anything by the fall of 1938. The longer the Allies could put off the war, the better their position would be.*
Munich was also shaped by two major and mutually reinforcing military intelligence failures. Anglo-French intelligence significantly overestimated the Wehrmacht's strength, while the Abwehr significantly underestimated Allied power. Together, they resulted in a situation in which Chamberlain and Daladier were too cautious, and Hitler was insanely aggressive.
On balance, sacrificing the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia was the wrong call. The gain in Anglo-French military power was probably outweighed by the disappearance of the small but competent Czechoslovakian military and their border forts. But it was a mistake that derived from bad information rather than credulity.
*Which is, in fact, what happened. Also contrary to the common understanding, the Allies didn't experience the disaster of May, 1940 because the French were useless or cowardly. The Germans won so speedily because they successfully drew to an inside straight on four consecutive hands.
Allies should have attacked in September '39.
+25, and thank you. We need to remember that much of the history we learned in grade school has turned out to be just plain wrong.
And misrepresented it as “Peace in our time.”
Perhaps he meant, "Peace for a short time"? It doesn't actually violate any rules of logic.
Strange Victory by Ernest R. May explores a lot of these themes and, as far as I can recall from reading it well over a decade ago, entirely supports TMD's thesis here.
So, my reading of political speech is that "I suppose that's fine" only endorses the concept of detaining illegal immigrants who have committed theft, burglary, or shoplifting.
*I* suppose THAT is fine. He will either get rid of the objectionable part later, or kill it with a filibuster.
Nothing at all is undermined. This is politics. It's not really how I like to do things, but that ship sailed long ago.
Fetterman is determined to be the next Sinema.
He’s gonna switch to independent then republican.
He'll have to dress better. He doesn't look like anyone on Fox News.
That's the point. They want to be able to deport any immigrant, nip those labor and sex abuse scandals in the bud.
Gallego. There's just one of him.
And it seems enough Senate Democrats are on board to advance it in the Senate: https://apnews.com/article/senate-laken-riley-immigration-schumer-thune-af98bb565d6cf7530c4e702ed3f8aab1
I’m put off by the provisions around suing the federal government but it’s probably not going to be used against trump so… let’s do it. Criminals suck. They don’t deserve any leniency. It’s not worth it.
Criminals deserve a punishment fitting the crime. An H1B holder accused of a $100 shoplifting incident does not deserve detention without trial if a criminal judge finds them to present no risk and released them on bail.
Deportation is not, in my view, punishment or some attempt at rehabilitation. It’s in a different category… administrative in nature. It’s Unrelated to all the justice system has to say about defendant. I’m telling my Democratic senators to support it.
"I’m telling my Democratic senators to support it."
You? Who are you?
Michigan senator slotkin already got the message. I’m her constituent. That’s all.
So you don't think it's punishment, but you think it's perfect in cases to replace the investigation, trial, and punishment?
WTF?
Actually we forgo all that. It’s more like getting fired from a job. They really don’t need an excuse, but if they catch you stealing, you get shown the door. Don’t steal.
+1.
An H1B holder accused of a $100 shoplifting incident should be deported if ICE determines that he is most likely guilty - same standard as for a civil action, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as for a criminal case.
For non-Americans, staying in the US is a privilege, not a right, and it is totally appropriate for us to revoke that privilege from anyone who is probably not a net benefit to the US. Criminals are not a net benefit to the US so we should deport anyone who is probably a criminal. For major crimes, it should be after they are punished. For minor crimes, just kick them out. No need to go to the trouble of a full criminal case.
Ken Paxton (A.G. Texas, and all-around stinker) will use this to force the federal government to do what he wants - which is uncompassion to the max. And he'll promote himself as well.
I would not want to be a swing state Democrat who votes against this bill. Yes, CLEARLY, there are lots of challenges with the bill: however, the campaign ad almost writes itself....
I have to wonder if it was crafted with that in mind, to get some of those most unsavory bits through.
So does the argument: Criminals are already deported. This just creates random chaos where people are deported without due process, and states sue for undefined losses.
This law does not remove due process.
Deportation still requires due process. However, now we kick out criminals and pressure countries to take back their criminals.
This whole waving the the bloody shirt when an illegal immigrant commits murder really turns my stomach. Yes it is horrible when an illegal immigrant murders someone, just as it is horrible when a Sagittarius murders someone, or a left-handed person, or a person with blue eyes.
Painting of all immigrants with the crimes of a few is just so fundamentally fascist it makes me want to puke.
And I am someone who is all in favor of reducing immigration to the country. I just don't want to be a monster about it. Crack down on the employers. It's as easy as that. Unless someone wants to punish employers who hire illegal aliens then you know that person is not serious. They are looking to hurt people and treat people as enemies, not actually solve a problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
"...Crack down on the employers. ..."
This would require a change in the law. Currently all an employer has to do is ask a prospective employee if they are legally allowed to work in the US. If they say yes and provide an ID (from a long list some of which are easy to forge) that is not obviously fake then the employer isn't required to inquire further. As result only very stupid or very lazy employers are actually violating the law. Do you favor changing the law?
Of course! But you know who doesn't favor changing the law? Any Republican because so many of their big donors rely on the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide.
They prefer performative cruelty that makes them seem "tough" on immigrants to voters, but don't favor anything that would actually cause illegal immigration to decrease because the freakin LOVE illegal immigration.
I thought the government maintained a website where employers coud verify social security numbers and identities, to ensure that they did NOT inadvertantly (heh) hire illegal immigrants?
Or is that only when the business has a federal government contract?
"I thought the government maintained a website where employers coud verify social security numbers and identities, to ensure that they did NOT inadvertantly (heh) hire illegal immigrants?"
Employers aren't required to use it.
In Florida employers have to use EVerify if they have more than 50 (I think) employees. It should be a national law.
+3
I have no major problem with illegal immigrants who work hard, do not commit crimes or cause other problems, and hope to one day become Americans so I have no interest in cracking down on employers. My problem is with non-Americans who commit crimes, cause other problems, rely on public assistance, etc.
I find it very telling that people on the left are more interested in making life unpleasant and encouraging self-deportation for the best illegal immigrants - the ones who work and add value - than in getting rid of criminal scum who will be unaffected by any sanctions on employers.
Well, that's certainly an ad hominem dredged up from your Id, MoFo. Where did you get the idea that "people on the left" care one whit about illegal immigrants who "work and add value" except to praise them.
What "those on the left" are you talking about? Name some names so we can evaluate the veracity of your crazily illogical charge, or at least provide some "for instances" when it happened.
Well, see
"Crack down on the employers. It's as easy as that. Unless someone wants to punish employers who hire illegal aliens then you know that person is not serious. "
That's realrobmac in the comment I was replying to.
Obviously, this would hurt illegal immigrants who work but would do nothing about the ones who live as criminals or vagrants.
So you want a shadow work force with little to no protections? Vulnerable to all sorts of abuses. A work force that may displace American workers. Besides all that , you don't think hard working illegal immigrants break the law on occasion?
Why don't they have protections and why are they vulnerable to abuse?
In general, immigrant workers do not displace American workers. There is always more work that can be done. We can build more houses, we can keep more tech work onshore.
Hard working illegal immigrants certainly break the law sometimes. So do members of any group you can think of. So? I think hard working illegal immigrants are probably one of the low crime groups. They have more to lose since they are actually building productive lives here usually earning far more than they could do at home.
It's amazing how much you don't understand human nature. Or choose to ignore it.
How lazy of a writer can one be? That linked article verbatim includes the entire congressional summary of the bill, straight from the bill as submitted to a vote.
Aside from that criticism, the bill is surely lacking in responding to its intended purpose.
When a local jurisdiction releases a perp, which is what one does when a person receives a misdemeanor citation, the window to respond, if there is any, is tiny. In each of Ibarra's arrests -- once in NYC and once in Athens, GA -- local officials released him before ICE could detain him. This bill does not do anything to address this.
Frankly, the bill has language that does not make any sense. They intend to insert language that contradicts other sections of the law on immigration detention.
While Congress may think granting states this new right to action obviates presidential discretion under the Take Care Clause, all it actually does is create a new balance of power conflict between the Court and Executive on a case-by-case basis. Crowding the courts with lawsuits -- how does that resolve anything?
Are there competent lawyers in the House? One wonders.
Are you kidding? The competence needed in the House is dialing for dollars.
Also, the plural of attorney general is attorneys general; likewise inspectors general, an endangered species.
I can see California using this to get a nice payday by claiming that H1B immigrants pay lower state taxes as they get lower wages than the Americans who would otherwise be hired. A meatpacking company might sue if the Federal government drives up the cost of labor by cracking down on immigration. There are all sorts of ways this can be played.
I think you're glossing over the important point here:
"The Laken Riley Act requires ICE to detain illegal immigrants who have committed theft, burglary, or shoplifting"
The term "committed" is vague.
What I'm hearing is that it requires ICE to detain immigrants who have been **arrested for** theft, burglary, or shoplifting. That's miles away from "committed" and it empowers any officer to start deportation proceedings simply by effecting an arrest.
Note that, in practice, any LEO can effect an arrest on a whim. The remedy for unjust arrest is to meekly submit to it, then fight the charges or, in extreme cases, sue, but in this era of Qualified Immunity, really all you can hope for is that the weekend you spend in jail just leads to the charges being dropped.
And for immigrants, none of those remedies would be available. Because the real punishment--the jaws of ICE closing around you--is triggered by the mere arrest, and can't be rolled back even if the arrest was improper.
Listen to the supporters of the bill and they understand this point very clearly, and love it. You can see examples of it in this thread.
I'd be delighted to learn that I'm misinformed about this bit. Am I? And please, if you're about to reply something like "you're not misinformed, but this is how it outta be", please go fuck yourself in advance. Thanks.