With ample support from Michigan’s congressional delegation, the Laken Riley Act is the first bill on the way to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature — though opponents called the bill anti-immigrant and said it threatens civil liberties.
The bill is named after Laken Riley, a University of Georgia student who was murdered by a man who authorities say unlawfully crossed into the United States in 2022 and had been previously charged with shoplifting.
The U.S. House vote Wednesday was 263-156, with 46 Democrats, including Michigan’s Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI 8) and Hillary Scholten (MI 3) joining all Republicans in support of the bill. In the Senate, the vote on the bill was 64-35 with 12 Democratic votes, including both Michigan senators.
The measure requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain those without legal status who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting. It also includes assault of a law enforcement officer and acts causing death or bodily harm to the offenses that would trigger federal detention.
Those provisions have sparked concern among civil rights groups, who argue they could lead to people being jailed and deported based on decades-old accusations, without facing trial or being convicted of a crime.
The bill would also give states the permission to sue the federal government for decisions related to immigration enforcement.
This marks the second time the legislation has been considered by Congress. The bill was first introduced last March, a few weeks after Riley was killed. At the time the bill failed to get enough votes in the Senate.
Scholten, a Democrat from Grand Rapids and a former immigration attorney, voted in favor of the bill when it came up in the last Congress. Scholten declined an interview but sent the following statement referencing the story of Ruby Garcia. Garcia was found dead on the side of a Grand Rapids highway in March of last year after her boyfriend, who did not have legal status, shot her four times.
“Just last year, our community was devastated by the tragic death of Ruby Garcia, a young woman who lost her life to domestic violence at the hands of someone who had illegally entered our country,” Scholten wrote. “I have heard from countless West Michiganders who sent me to Washington to work towards humane immigration solutions; that means growing our workforce and helping those who have contributed to our community step out of the shadows — but it also means ensuring that individuals who commit crimes are held accountable.”
Like Scholten, Michigan U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin also voted for the bill the first time around. In a statement earlier this month she wrote that she was in support of the bill even when it doesn't provide "all solutions to immigration concerns."
“But no matter what, this bill certainly doesn’t address the root causes of our broken immigration system, which we need to do to ever truly deal with immigration issues writ large in this country," Slotkin wrote.
But not everyone in Michigan's congressional delegation supported the bill. Representative Rashida Tlaib (MI 12), whose district is in southeast Michigan, voted against the measure. She said in an interview with Michigan Public that the legislation will put a target on the back of immigrants and increase militarization of local neighborhoods.
“It’s going to fuel hate for their communities,” Tlaib told Michigan Public. “It’s profiling our immigrant neighbors as somehow violent when we know we’ve all been living next to each other, within community together and feeling safe.”
Immigrant rights advocates questioned the bill's constitutionality.
Ruby Robinson, a managing attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said this change would be a dramatic departure from the current state of play in immigration courts.
“In the United States, people arrested or charged of a crime or an offense are innocent until proven guilty, and this law turns that on its head,” Robinson said.
“A child who goes to a gas station and takes a candy bar by mistake, regardless of their age, if they are cited for that offense, that child will be subject to mandatory detention and taken away from their parent" if they're in the country without documentation, said Robinson.
Michiganders should remain protected from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, Robinson said, and individuals can still request that enforcement agents show proper legal authority for searches to enter private areas like homes or schools.
Others who oppose the bill, like the American Civil Liberties Union, have called the bill a threat to civil liberties and constitutional principles because of the broad authority it grants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Even when an immigrant without legal status is arrested for shoplifting, the bill would keep them from being released from jail on bond or from arguing their case in front of an immigration judge. Under this bill, a parent of a U.S. citizen child who has been accused of stealing would be placed in mandatory detention without a bond hearing and separated from her child, wrote the ACLU's National Director for Policy and Government Affairs Mike Zamore in a letter to Congress.
The ACLU's national director for policy and government affairs, Mike Zamore, called the bill "unprecedented" and "likely unconstitutional" in a letter to Congress.
The bill "would result in a significant spike of racial profiling of longtime residents," Zamore said.
As President Trump prepares to sign the bill, concerns remain about how it would be implemented. Earlier this month ICE sent a memo to lawmakers stating the bill would be "impossible to execute with existing resources," citing $26 billion dollars in costs needed in the first year in order to be able to implement it.
That doesn't worry Michigan Republican Congressman Tom Barrett (MI-7). He said he views the bill as an opportunity to keep America safe and that he's expecting funds for implementation to be figured out during the budget reconciliation process.
"If the federal government is providing extravagant benefits for individuals that have crossed the country illegally, I think it would be wise to shift those enforcement mechanisms and things that we need to prevent people from coming and ultimately lead to the removal of those that are here without our permission as a country," Barrett said.
Immigrants without legal status are not eligible to receive most federal public benefits. Programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), non emergency Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income are reserved for U.S. citizens.
