H.R.29 - Laken Riley Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.29, the Laken Riley Act, mandates the detention of aliens charged with theft-related offenses and grants state attorneys general the authority to sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to enforce immigration laws. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include theft, burglary, larceny, and shoplifting as offenses requiring mandatory detention. The bill also allows state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief against the DHS for actions or decisions related to the release or parole of aliens, and for violations related to visa issuance and detention requirements.
Expected Effects
The Laken Riley Act will likely lead to increased detention of aliens charged with theft-related crimes. It will also empower state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration enforcement policies in court. This could result in more stringent enforcement of immigration laws and potentially strain relations between state and federal governments regarding immigration matters.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Public Safety: By mandating the detention of aliens charged with theft, the bill aims to reduce crime rates and enhance public safety.
- State Empowerment: Granting state attorneys general the ability to sue the DHS provides states with greater control over immigration enforcement within their borders.
- Victim Advocacy: The bill is named after Laken Riley, suggesting a focus on protecting victims of crimes committed by undocumented individuals.
- Deterrence: Stricter detention policies may deter illegal immigration and criminal activity by aliens.
- Enforcement of Existing Laws: The bill seeks to ensure that existing immigration laws are fully enforced.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Strain on Resources: Increased detention will require additional resources for detention facilities and legal proceedings.
- Potential for Discrimination: The law could lead to discriminatory enforcement practices targeting specific ethnic or racial groups.
- Federal-State Conflicts: Empowering state attorneys general to sue the DHS could create conflicts and undermine federal authority over immigration matters.
- Due Process Concerns: Mandatory detention without individualized consideration may raise due process concerns.
- Economic Impact: The detention and potential deportation of aliens could negatively impact certain industries that rely on immigrant labor.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. While the federal government has broad authority over immigration under Article I, Section 8, clauses 3 and 4, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The provision granting state attorneys general the right to sue the federal government could be seen as an infringement on federal authority. Additionally, mandatory detention without due process may conflict with the Fifth Amendment.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).