The Laken-Riley Act, currently under consideration in the Senate after passing the House with bipartisan support on Tuesday and advancing in the Senate on Thursday, has sparked significant debate over its potential legal and societal implications. The legislation aims to expand detention policies for undocumented immigrants charged with theft-related crimes.
Named after a Georgia nursing student killed by an undocumented immigrant, the bill has garnered support from many Senate Democrats. However, concerns persist about its financial implications and broad scope for immigration advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, highlighted its potential to lead to racial profiling and mass detention. As Sarah Mehta, senior border policy counsel at the ACLU, explained in a statement:
"This is the first immigration bill of the new Congress, and if passed, it will strengthen President-elect Trump's hand in unleashing mass deportations on our communities. It will force immigration authorities to detain individuals accused of nonviolent theft offenses like shoplifting regardless of whether or not law enforcement even deems them as a threat"
The Latin Times reached out to two immigration lawyers to explore the legal ramifications as well as the main concerns behind the controversial bill.
Anna Cabot, director of the University of Houston Law Center's Immigration Clinic, agreed with the ACLU's assessments on racial profiling, noting that the fact that the act "would require detention without a chance of bond for people who have merely been charged or arrested with these crimes or even 'who admits to having committed' these crimes", the opportunity is ripe for "exacerbating the consequences of already extreme racial disparities in criminal arrests in the US."
Furthermore, Cabot believes the bill would give the police "incentive to arrest or charge people they believe to be immigrants based on racial profiling with minor crimes because then those people would be taken by immigration authorities and held without bond," adding that "the logistical difficulty of proceeding with the prosecution of people in immigration detention would further insulate officials who acted this way from consequences as their immigrants would be unable to challenge the charges against them."
Immigration attorney Bradford Bernstein of Spar & Bernstein, on the other hand, highlighted that, under the act, immigration judges would lose the ability to assess cases on an individual basis, potentially separating families unnecessarily. "For example, a parent with minor children may be detained for a petty offense, forcing their children into foster care unnecessarily," explained Bernstein, adding that "this creates undue hardship for families and undermines the principle of proportionality in law enforcement."
Bernstein also pointed to the risk of weaponized charges:
"Under the Act, individuals charged with any crime involving a theft, even a petty theft of a stick of gum, would automatically be subjected to immigration detainers. This mandates local authorities to hold them until immigration officials take custody. If local authorities fail to comply, they risk being sued by state attorneys general. This creates an environment where charges can be weaponized against individuals, even if those charges are unfounded or cannot be proven in court"
Lastly, Bernstein also echoed Cabot's agreement with the ACLU's take on racial profiling, stating that they are "well founded":
"The Act provides opportunities for law enforcement to misuse their authority, whether intentionally or not. For instance, law enforcement or prosecutors could bring charges against individuals based on racial or religious biases, knowing that these charges would lead to immigration detainers. This could pressure individuals to accept plea deals for crimes they did not commit simply to avoid prolonged detention"
© 2024 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
