Trump signs Laken Riley Act into law

2MoreYears · 06:07 PM

I'm getting tired of winning! lol

Quote:

Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act Wednesday afternoon as the president approves a series of initiatives meant to tackle his key goal of curbing illegal immigration.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...y?id=118226963

Quote:

5 things to know about the Laken Riley Act:

1.- The bill would hobble the executive branch’s ability to make immigration policy, whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. The bill guarantees states standing to sue the federal government over a breathtakingly wide array of immigration-related actions ranging from detention and visa policy to detention and release decisions in individual immigration cases. Federal agencies, under Democrat or Republican control, would face litigation at every turn from states governed by the opposing political party. Administrations would likely stop even trying to issue new immigration policies when faced with endless litigation over every single memo and regulation.

2.- The bill is a recipe for chaos in the federal courts – chaos the Constitution intended to avoid. The doctrine of “standing” is a constitutional doctrine (based on Article III’s requirement that a case or controversy exist for the federal courts to intervene) that guarantees courts are not wasting their time on disputes where there is no potential harm for the courts to ameliorate. Yet the Laken Riley Act provides blanket standing regardless of whether a state has any interest whatsoever in the case or policy being challenged. Without the ability to dismiss for lack of standing, the federal courts would immediately be drowning in immigration lawsuits.

3.- The bill is duplicative – the federal government already has the authority to detain all people facing deportation proceedings. The bill amends the “mandatory detention” provision of federal immigration law to apply to undocumented people who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any theft-related offense. But the Department of Homeland Security already has statutory authority to detain any undocumented person facing deportation proceedings including those charged with a criminal offense. What the bill does is apply “mandatory detention,” requiring detention without any opportunity to even request release on bond. In practice, this means the bill would require the government to detain an undocumented mother arrested on charges of shoplifting diapers without even granting her a bond hearing, for the duration of her deportation proceedings.

4.- Requiring no-bond detention solely on the basis of a charge or arrest raises serious due process concerns. Prolonged detention without access to an individualized bail or bond hearing is an extreme measure in American law. Nearly all people facing criminal charges in the criminal justice system are entitled to an individualized bond hearing, even on charges as serious as murder. This bill is particularly extreme because it applies mandatory immigration detention solely on the basis of an arrest or charge, risking the prolonged detention of people innocent of the charges brought against them. These provisions also exacerbate racial disparities because Black and Brown people are arrested at disproportionately high rates throughout the United States.

5.- The bill would significantly disrupt prosecutors’ ability to proceed with criminal charges. Under this bill, immigration authorities would be required to take a person into immigration custody after a theft related arrest, even if a criminal judge found them to present no risk and released them on bail. The person would then be stuck in immigration detention with no ability to request release, even to attend their criminal court hearing on the underlying charges. Prosecutors already frequently face significant challenges in getting people transported from immigration custody to criminal court for ongoing proceedings; the bill would compound this problem greatly.

https://www.nilc.org/articles/nilc-o...ken-riley-act/

DogJuiceMan · 06:25 PM

Unfunded mandates are always going to be a great source of trouble. Best of luck. When even law enforcement tells you its a bad idea to pass these laws its best to listen.

2MoreYears · 01-29-2025, 06:31 PM

This bill prevents Trump from eliminating Birthright Citizenship, right? I wouldn't be surprised if they s h o t themselves in the foot lol

Got_Daca · 01-29-2025, 09:59 PM

It is gonna fill up the already overflowing fed detention centers to the brim

Not enough funding
Not enough personnel

Shits gonna unravel spectacularly

PapiChulo · 01-29-2025, 10:16 PM

REPORTER: Trump has repeatedly said he wants to help DACA and/or Dreamers. What's the Senate GOP plan to deliver for President Trump?

TUBERVILLE: "We'd have to look at it. I have no clue what area he's talking about [but] people here would listen to that. We would listen. We just gotta see what the text is."

vft1008 · 01-29-2025, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapiChulo

REPORTER: Trump has repeatedly said he wants to help DACA and/or Dreamers. What's the Senate GOP plan to deliver for President Trump?

TUBERVILLE: "We'd have to look at it. I have no clue what area he's talking about [but] people here would listen to that. We would listen. We just gotta see what the text is."

On a scale of 0 to 10, what's your excitement level?

PapiChulo · 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vft1008

On a scale of 0 to 10, what's your excitement level?

Around 69

"People are aroused. I haven't seen people so aroused in a very, very long time.
- Senator Chuck Schumer

Lambo Mercy · 01-29-2025, 11:48 PM

I’m aroused. Idk if it’s because of this or something else

Got_Daca · 01-30-2025, 12:27 AM

The meaning of "aroused" depends on the context:

General meaning – Feeling awakened, alert, or stimulated (e.g., He was aroused by the loud noise).
Emotional meaning – Being excited or stirred up emotionally (e.g., The speech aroused strong feelings in the crowd).
Sexual meaning – Experiencing sexual excitement (e.g., She felt aroused by his touch).

Let me know if you meant a specific usage!

Demise · 01-30-2025, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MoreYears

This bill prevents Trump from eliminating Birthright Citizenship, right? I wouldn't be surprised if they s h o t themselves in the foot lol

Nope. It's basically all mandatory detention. Cherry on top is the while previously whether or not to release one from immigration detention was not subject to judicial review, currently releases only are subject to judicial review.

So even if an IJ grants you a release because you had a clean record, and are just twiddling your thumbs until your F2B becomes current and could be fine with just an admin closure until you can file I-601A (where you'd recalendar and get a VD), whatever shithole state can sue and while the collateral review is going on you will likely just stay in detention.

Only real hope is that giving review powers to article III courts will lead to parts of the law being struck down on 5th amendment grounds since in general moving any immigration case to federal court is neigh impossible due to the Real ID Act.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

February

Trump signs Laken Riley Act into law