The Laken Riley Act Is Very Good

The Laken Riley Act Is Very Good

The Laken Riley Act Is Very Good

The Laken Riley Act Is Very Good

8

Min read

Jan 8, 2025

Jan 8, 2025

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

What happened to Laken Riley should make the blood of every sane person boil. And her name should be ten times more famous than George Floyd's.

To remind: Laken Riley was a 22-year old nursing student. She was known as a caring daughter, good friend, and devout Christian. She went for a jog, and was murdered. The circumstances of her murder are atrocious. Jose Antonio Ibarra tried to rape her, and she fought him back heroically for 18 minutes (imagine that for a second), until, in impotent rage, Ibarra bashed her head in with a rock.

Ibarra is an illegal alien, who had crossed the Southern border into the US, had been apprehended by Federal authorities, and then been released, under "catch and release." He had been previously arrested twice for petty crimes, and released every time.

Laken Riley was the victim of deliberate policy choices. She, and what her horrific murder represents, must never be forgotten.

With all that being said, your correspondent confesses that he is usually skeptical of bills named after victims of tragic circumstances. They are often cheap political ploys that seek to use law to remedy problems that new laws aren't necessary to fix. If existing law had been enforced, Laken Riley would still be alive; Ibarra would never have entered the US, or would have been deported upon being apprehended the first time.

That being said, when we looked at the Laken Riley Act, which as you know just passed the House and is headed for the Senate, where Democrats can't make up their mind as to whether they will filibuster it, we were actually quite pleased.

Here's a summary of the main provisions:

The bill requires DHS to detain illegal aliens who have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to committing theft-related offenses, including burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting.

The bill empowers state attorneys general to sue DHS if they claim their state or residents have been harmed by immigration policies.

The bill requires ICE to detain undocumented immigrants who have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to committing theft-related offenses, and to issue detainers for individuals charged with these theft-related crimes, regardless of the severity of the offense. It empowers ICE to take custody of these individuals and hold them until they can be removed from the United States, even if their criminal case has been resolved. The bill also expands the criteria for potential detention and deportation, moving beyond just violent or serious crimes to include nonviolent offenses.

It allows state attorneys general to seek to block visa approvals for specific nationals.

Finally, states can sue for injunctive relief if an immigration-related decision or failure by the federal government caused financial harm of more than $100 to the state or its residents.

These are all very good policies! And they are needed.

There are two basic bits that are very important.

The first is that ICE is required to detain and/or deport illegal aliens who commit crimes, even "small" crimes. This is common sense and necessary. The fact is that countless illegal aliens (and not just illegal aliens) go on to commit serious crimes after committing less serious crimes and being let go.

But the more important one is that it empowers states to essentially twist the Federal government's arm to do its job. Let it be granted that the Trump Administration will make a good effort to do mass deportations. Let us all wish that the mass deportation is successful enough, both substantively and politically, so that it not only doesn't prevent future Laken Rileys from being horribly murdered, but also creates the political conditions for an immigration settlement that allows us to stop worrying about this issue for 20 years. Let us all wish that twenty years of competent rule by Republicans who actually listen to their voters will give us all a normal, sane, immigration regime. Let us all wish that.

However, nobody can predict the future. Historically, the Federal government has been at best indifferent and at worst actively malicious when it comes to this issue, and has had great administrative freedom to do so. Meanwhile, historically, states, and border states especially (not all—looking at you, California) have been more repsonsive to their voters on this issue.

Therefore, a bill not just creating new legal mandates but empowering states to sue the Federal government if it doesn't carry out those mandates, is a very good tool for the future, should we go back to business as usual.

The Laken Riley Act is a good bill. It's good that it passed the House. It's good that Senate Republicans want to vote for it. And let's hope that Senate Democrats have the good sense not to block it.

And let us never forget Laken Riley.

Policy News You Need To Know

#OnlineGamblingIsBadThis monologue by podcaster Saagar Enjeti denouncing the impact of online sports gambling has been going viral, and for good reason. "The mass legalization and normalization of online sports gambling has the potential to rival the opioid epidemic in the United States in its destruction of the family unit. And yet today, all lawmakers are lockstep in their support of it." As you know, we rarely recommend videos or podcasts (except our own! Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube) but this one is very much worth your time. A key point Enjeti makes is that online gambling companies don't abide by their own policies and by basic fairness rules, since they deliberately target gambling addicts and kick off smart bettors who win. There could be a role for the Federal government in applying basic fairness rules (and advertising limits?) to online gambling companies. But this may upset the "Barstool Republicans"…

#OfflineGamblingsNotMuchBetter — Speaking of, a new report from the great folks over at the Texas Public Policy Foundation shows that an expansion of casino gambling in Texas would increase social problems like addiction and crime.

#SALT — If you're a policy wonk, especially of the New Right persuasion, you thought the SALT cap was one of the best things about TCJA. It's bad policy, essentially forcing red states to subsidize blue states' tax-and-spend policies. It's also a reward to the sort of people who are most hostile to Republicans: high-income households in blue states. But Donald Trump likes SALT. Probably because he has lots of friends from New York. Probably also—and this is not a negligible consideration—because a lot of marginal House seats that we badly need are in states like New York and California. So expanding the SALT cap is definitely on the table for this year. The Tax Foundation estimates doubling the cap on state and local tax deductions to $20,000 for joint filers would add about $173 billion to the 10-year cost of TCJA extension, the excellent Erica York reports.

#AmericanManufacturing — New and very sad CBO report: Navy shipbuilding is still in the doldrums. On average ships cost more than 20% over the initial plan, and literally all programs are behind schedule.

#FinReg — We reported on this yesterday: the Biden Administration CFPB passed a new rule banning medical bills from consumer credit reports. We really enjoyed this analysis by AEI's Benedic N. Ippolito: "The new rule […] is motivated by the concern that medical bills may not always reflect creditworthiness. Instead, they argue these debts may stem from billing errors or the unpredictable nature of health care expenses, unfairly penalizing consumers," he writes. While this is partly true, he concedes, it's by no means completely true. "In response, health care providers are likely to seek more upfront payment," a trend which has been increasing lately. "Policymakers have also noted the sharp rise in medical credit cards—credit products offered by health care providers at the point of service. These cards allow providers to collect payment immediately while the card issuer takes the responsibility for securing payment from the patient," he notes. "In response, lenders could proxy for unobserved risk by placing higher weights on non-medical collections or other delinquencies, raising the cost of borrowing for consumers with those flags on their credit reports. It is unclear whether this would be preferable to the status quo. Alternatively, they could increase borrowing costs across all consumers or adjust lending behavior in settings where unobserved risk is deemed significant." Indeed. Policies have unintended second-order consequences? Who knew! Having medical bills, all else equal, reduces your ability to pay back debt. This may be sad. But it's still a fact of the universe, and mandating that it be hidden isn't going to change it.

#SmallBusiness — Yesterday we wrote about the new Corporate Transparency Act, which creates new onerous disclosure and reporting requirements for businesses, including small and even quite small businesses. A Federal court has just ruled it unconstitutional and issued a nationwide stay.

#AI — This is an AI regulatory issue we did not anticipate: are AI companies liable for potentially diffamatory speech produced by an AI's hallucinations? A case asking this question is winding its way through the court system. AEI's Clay Calvert explains.

#Immigration — Heritage's John Fabbricatore with an article pointing out how sanctuary policies have led to the proliferation of illegal alien criminal gangs. The Trump Administration's deportation programs depends in large part on its ability to end sanctuary policies.

#VotingRights — Remember the SAVE Act, which would make it illegal for noncitizens to vote? It failed last year. Well, Chip Roy and Mike Lee are bringing it back. File under "would pass on a voice vote if the Democratic Party wasn't held hostage by lunatics."

#California — Like your correspondent, you may have friends affected by the awful Palisades Fire. Just in case you're wondering: no, they are not caused by climate change. They are caused by a combination of bad forest management (caused by stupid green policies) and of (in many cases) homeless schizophrenics lighting fires. Also possibly DEI. A quintessential California problem, as earth sciences professor Matthew M. Wielicki explains. Preisdent-elect Trump talks about annexing Canada or Greenland: how about annexing California?

Chart of the Day

With each election, fertility becomes more predictive of voting behavior. (Via Lyman Stone)

Meme of the Day

This is a real New York Times headline.

PolicySphere

Newsletter

By clicking Subscribe, you agree to share your email address with PolicySphere to receive the Morning Briefing. Full terms

By clicking Subscribe, you agree to share your email address with PolicySphere to receive the Morning Briefing. Full terms

PolicySphere

Newsletter

By clicking Subscribe, you agree to share your email address with PolicySphere to receive the Morning Briefing. Full terms

By clicking Subscribe, you agree to share your email address with PolicySphere to receive the Morning Briefing. Full terms