Senate Democrats In Shambles Over Laken Riley Missteps

Copper · 12:28 AM

Quote:

The Laken Riley Act is roiling the Senate Democratic Conference, as senators believe their party bungled immigration and border security in 2024 but aren’t happy about the swift passage of a bill they view as terrible policy. Democratic critics of the bill believe the rush to pass it is a political overreaction from Democratic colleagues scrambling to protect themselves on those issues.

Some Democratic senators are venting frustration about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) giving a green light to politically vulnerable colleagues to vote to advance the bill without getting an ironclad guarantee that Democrats would have more opportunity to amend the legislation.

Those Democratic lawmakers have likened the handling of the bill to a disorganized retreat and warn it has sparked deep frustration in a caucus still stung from the loss of their majority in November.

“There is huge frustration that the bill didn’t go to committee on something so consequential,” fumed one Democratic senator who requested anonymity to discuss the intense debate that rocked the caucus.

“There is huge concern because we’re talking about the mandatory imprisonment based on an accusation without a person even being charged, let alone being convicted, and this applies to kids,” the senator said. “It’s a sweeping assault on core principles, and it doesn’t even have a judicial review component.”

The senator voiced frustration that Senate Democratic leadership didn’t press colleagues to block the motion to proceed to the bill unless Republicans promised more votes on amendments to change the bill on the Senate floor.

“There is enormous frustration,” the lawmaker added. “They put up the white flag from the very beginning and said, ‘For too many people [in the caucus], immigration is too toxic, and we have to just get through this,’ without really understanding the gravity of this bill and what it represents in terms of violating the norms — indefinite detention, no judicial review, based on an allegation.”

Schumer downplayed the clash within his caucus, describing a lengthy debate at last Tuesday’s lunch as a discussion “of all the great issues.”

Democrats facing competitive reelections in 2026 and who represent swing states, however, were eager to vote to advance the bill after President Trump and Republicans bashed their party all year over the murder of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed by a Venezuelan migrant who entered the country without legal status and was previously arrested in New York and Georgia.

Ten Democrats voted Friday to advance the bill to a final up-or-down vote, including Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who face potentially competitive races next year.

The bill passed the Senate on Monday evening.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who blasted the bill as bad policy, said the lack of opportunity to modify the legislation on the floor — aside from three amendments — represents a broader failure of the entire Senate to meaningfully debate immigration policy.

“I think that this bill reflects the way the Senate has broken down, in some respects, in the fact that we’re not able to have votes on amendments that would have improved the legislation. It’s really problematic,” he said.

Bennet said he initially voted to proceed to the bill “so we could have debate and so we could have amendments, and I feel quite strongly that it would be better to leave decisions about whether [to] incarcerate [individuals] to law enforcement when it comes to nonviolent criminals.”

He was referring to the bill’s language that requires the mandatory detention of migrants without legal status who have been accused of theft but not convicted.

Eighty-two senators voted to proceed to the bill on Jan. 13, including 24 members of the Democratic caucus.

Bennet warned the bill would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to spend billions of dollars incarcerating nonviolent criminals instead of violent criminals. And he argued it would put state attorneys general in charge of immigration policy, something he said is a federal responsibility.

Bennet, a member of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight,” which put together the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the upper chamber with 68 votes in 2013, lamented that Democrats have ceded what they called their “position of strength” on the issue.

“We once had a position of strength that was defined by the work we had done on the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill that was a comprehensive approach. It reflected a comprehensive set of principles that included securing our border,” he said.

“Over the years, we have not transmitted effectively to the American people that we believe in border security and having an immigration system that better serves America’s economy,” he said. “I think it’s important for us to enter the debates like the one we just had [on the Laken Riley Act] with a clearer expression of where we stand together.”

Bennet said the Democrats’ strategy of trying to insulate themselves during the campaign from attacks related to the border by negotiating a border security deal with Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) wasn’t effective.

“I think it was unconvincing to voters,” he said.

Even though the National Border Patrol Council, The Wall Street Journal and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the bill, it garnered only four Republican votes to advance it on the Senate floor.

Trump and Republicans continued to pummel Democratic candidates over the huge influx of migrants during former President Biden’s four years in office, which totaled roughly 10 million people.

“Donald Trump turned our party into a punching bag when it came to immigration and the border, and there was no need for that to happen,” Bennet said.

Other Democrats vented over the swift passage of the Laken Riley Act, which is likely to pass the House and make it to President Trump’s desk.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) joined fellow Democrats in venting frustration over not getting an opportunity to vote on more amendments.

“It is bad policy,” he said of the bill that passed the Senate on Monday. “We had an amendment broadly supported by a big cross section of our caucus that would have fixed the bill.”

He said it would have changed the standard for detainment and deportation from arrest to conviction, “but [would have] allowed arrest to be sufficient if somebody had a history of failing to appear at immigration court proceedings.”

Kaine said, “There is frustration about it.”

“What’s frustrating is so many people signaled, ‘I’m going to vote for it, whether there are any amendments or not.’ And once the Republicans have enough Democrats who are on the record saying they’re going to vote [for a bill] regardless, what motive do they have to really have a robust amendment process … or to try to fix the bill?” he said.

“I hope my colleagues won’t just signal in advance, ‘Well, we don’t need to consider any amendments at all because I’m voting yes regardless.’ I think that was a strategic error,” Kaine added. “Leadership might have been able to give everyone a little bit of a woodshed talk before.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said he had concerns “about the bill, the process and the product.”

“This is a bill that has many, many deficiencies,” he said. “The concern is what kind of precedent it sets in terms of criminal justice and the degree we believe in due process.”

Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said he was concerned with how the bill was handled.

“We should use the committee process where there’s an opportunity to deliberate and discuss,” he said.

“My preference would be that deportation occur upon a conviction, not a charge,” he added.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-de...110000596.html

In summary, Chuck Schumer allowed his Democratic Senators to vote for this without including any amendments. Remember, Chuck Schumer was the one who said, "We can't let Dreamers occupy the whole stage." Let that sink in.

jorgeag92 · 01-22-2025, 05:06 AM

Democrats don't know who they are anymore. Might as well quit and let Republicans do what they want. Oh wait....Republican's always do what they want anyway. Its only Democrats that dont have the balls to pass legislation their base needs.

Manhattan2017 · 01-22-2025, 06:32 AM

Chuck Schumer- lost my faith in him YEARS ago. Might as well be as scumbag like the rest of them. It's obvious he only cares about staying in his seat and too bad his constituents in NY will probably vote him in for eternity anyway. What an absolute shame.

hDreamer1988 · 01-22-2025, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Democrats don't know who they are anymore. Might as well quit and let Republicans do what they want. Oh wait....Republican's always do what they want anyway. Its only Democrats that dont have the balls to pass legislation their base needs.

It seems Dems only find their spine when legalization is involved or we would have GCs by now

cmeow · 01-22-2025, 07:24 PM

This law just passed the house and will most likely be law soon. I was reading some stories of people who accidentally scanned a different item twice at a self check out and if the employee is having a bad day, it can go bad really fast.

Another story of a person going into the gas station to ask for gas, the employee messes up and gives more gas than asked for. Its possible for the employee, in order to not piss off the boss or have to pay out of pocket, to say the gas was stolen.

There's a lot of scenarios where something small can turn into a big issue.

I don't know if this takes into the consideration of how severe the crime is and if it applies retroactively. I read somewhere that there's a petty exception that allows for a one time exemption, I'm not too sure on that. If someone that has more experience in legal text, they can provide better information.

Copper · 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmeow

This law just passed the house and will most likely be law soon. I was reading some stories of people who accidentally scanned a different item twice at a self check out and if the employee is having a bad day, it can go bad really fast.

Another story of a person going into the gas station to ask for gas, the employee messes up and gives more gas than asked for. Its possible for the employee, in order to not piss off the boss or have to pay out of pocket, to say the gas was stolen.

There's a lot of scenarios where something small can turn into a big issue.

I don't know if this takes into the consideration of how severe the crime is and if it applies retroactively. I read somewhere that there's a petty exception that allows for a one time exemption, I'm not too sure on that. If someone that has more experience in legal text, they can provide better information.

I am deeply concerned about the fact that some dreamers are thinking they will be immune to this situation. We are not immune to anything at this moment. I am sure we all have undocumented family members or friends who we see everyday and drive together.

There have been cases where individuals have been falsely accused of transporting undocumented immigrants when that is not the case. I agree with you that there could be many scenarios to consider. It is clear that the Democrats dropped the ball on this big time.

And to answer your question, yes, one petty theft can lead to deportation without due process.

Swim19 · 01-22-2025, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmeow

This law just passed the house and will most likely be law soon. I was reading some stories of people who accidentally scanned a different item twice at a self check out and if the employee is having a bad day, it can go bad really fast.

Another story of a person going into the gas station to ask for gas, the employee messes up and gives more gas than asked for. Its possible for the employee, in order to not piss off the boss or have to pay out of pocket, to say the gas was stolen.

There's a lot of scenarios where something small can turn into a big issue.

I don't know if this takes into the consideration of how severe the crime is and if it applies retroactively. I read somewhere that there's a petty exception that allows for a one time exemption, I'm not too sure on that. If someone that has more experience in legal text, they can provide better information.

I believe for shoplifting it has to be greater than $100 so at least that protects you from forgetting to scan a lemon at self checkout. That being said it is a terrible law and at the least should only apply if convicted rather than accused.

cmeow · 01-22-2025, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swim19

I believe for shoplifting it has to be greater than $100 so at least that protects you from forgetting to scan a lemon at self checkout. That being said it is a terrible law and at the least should only apply if convicted rather than accused.

I guess it depends on the state but some states have theft of $100 or less as misdemeanors. Even though the punishment is very minimal and even just a fine, from what I understand this new law would still apply as it falls into the category of "theft".

And yeah, no conviction required so it's very harsh.

vft1008 · 12:43 PM

Tariffs incoming and with deportations of agricultural workers a lot of us that are left here are going to have issues worse than getting our sacred green card.

I don't think our dear POTUS is going to get the cost of eggs down, sadly. This is heartbreaking. My MAGA heart was really wanting cheaper eggs!

This country is going to become a MAGA shithole. Quality of life will be trailer trash level. LOL, thanks, America. The general public is full of idiots.

leo86 · 01-23-2025, 09:00 AM

The Democratic party is a party of Eunuchs when it comes to the immigration issue.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

March

Senate Democrats In Shambles Over Laken Riley Missteps