H.R.29 - Laken Riley Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The Laken Riley Act mandates the detention of aliens charged with theft-related offenses and expands the ability of state attorneys general to sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal officials regarding immigration enforcement. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include specific theft offenses as grounds for mandatory detention and grants state attorneys general standing to bring legal action against the federal government for alleged failures in immigration enforcement that harm the state or its residents. The Act also modifies provisions related to parole and injunctive relief.
Expected Effects
The Act will likely lead to an increase in the detention of aliens charged with theft offenses, potentially straining DHS resources. It could also result in more lawsuits filed by state attorneys general against the federal government over immigration enforcement policies. The changes to parole and injunctive relief may further restrict the ability of the federal government to manage immigration cases flexibly.
Potential Benefits
- Increased public safety due to the detention of aliens charged with theft.
- Empowerment of states to enforce immigration laws and hold the federal government accountable.
- Potential reduction in financial harm to states and their residents due to crimes committed by certain aliens.
- Greater clarity in the definition and handling of theft-related offenses in immigration law.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential strain on DHS resources and detention facilities.
- Increased litigation between states and the federal government, leading to legal costs and uncertainty.
- Risk of discriminatory enforcement and potential violations of due process rights.
- Possible negative impact on international relations and perceptions of U.S. immigration policy.
Constitutional Alignment
The Act's constitutionality is complex. While Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The expansion of state attorneys general's standing to sue the federal government could be seen as an infringement on federal authority over immigration. The Fifth Amendment's due process clause could be implicated if the mandatory detention provisions are applied unfairly or without adequate procedural safeguards.
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).