On Tuesday, January 7, the House passed the Laken Riley Act – a short bill that seeks to require the detention of any illegal alien who commits burglary or theft. With a 264 to 159 result, all Republican and 48 Democratic representatives voted to advance it to the Senate. This is not the first time the bill has been brought to the floor, but the dynamics, the mood of the country, and soon the administration are all very different.
Coming in at just nine pages, it is a simple proposition. However, it is also a test that Senate Democrats could easily fail – and the ramifications of that go far beyond a single bill; it has the potential to define the party for the duration of the 119th Congress and perhaps jeopardize any hope of coming back from the political graveyard.
A Trap in Two Acts
HR. 7511 has two elements: It says the Department of Homeland must detain illegal migrants who are involved in theft-related crimes and allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government if they believe it is derelict in its duty to enforce immigration law.
The bill is named after Laken Riley, the Georgia student who was murdered by Jose Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan who entered the country illegally. Ibarra had numerous run-ins with the law, including endangering a minor and a citation for misdemeanor theft. The GOP argument is that if this law were in place, he would not have been in the country to murder Riley. It’s a compelling argument – at least for the 48 Democratic lawmakers in the House who joined the Republicans in advancing the bill. But, in the Senate, it requires 60 votes to pass, and that number is far from guaranteed despite the Republican majority.
The current Senate balance sees Democrats in the minority; assuming all Republicans support the bill, they need lawmakers to cross the aisle. Notably, according to a memo from his office, the passage of the law is now co-sponsored by Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman (D). Speaking to Fox News, he said:
“For me it’s … really common sense. And I’d like to remind everybody that we have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of migrants here illegally that have [been] convicted of crimes. Who wants to allow them to remain in our nation? And now if you’re here illegally and you’re committing crimes and those things, I don’t know why anybody thinks that it’s controversial that they all need to go.”
He continued, referencing the November election, “There’s 47 of us in the Senate and if we can’t pull up with seven votes, if we can’t get at least seven out of 47, if we can’t then that’s a reason why we lost.”
With West Virginia’s Jim Justice (R) not being sworn in until January 13, it will require eight extra votes, not seven, but Fetterman’s point stands. There’s a good chance that other Democrats (and maybe even one of the two independents who caucus with the party) will join the GOP caucus. But how many are willing to break ranks, and what kind of optics are being presented to the American public by those who choose not to support the effort?
The Senate Math
Let’s start with the assumption that all Republican senators are in – this is not a guarantee, but still quite likely. Then there is Fetterman, who is co-sponsoring the bill. Who else has their head above the parapet?
Arizona’s Ruben Gallego is in. He said in a statement, “We must give law enforcement the means to take action when illegal immigrants break the law, to prevent situations like what occurred to Laken Riley.” Gallego’s fellow Arizonan Mark Kelly will apparently join the effort. His office said:
“Senator Kelly will vote for the Laken Riley Act and looks forward to working with Republicans and Democrats on it and other solutions to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system.”
Other Democrats who have also signaled their willingness to move the legislation ahead include Michigan’s Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, and Nevada’s Jacky Rosen. That’s six.
Several others have noted that they would be willing to pass a procedural vote to get things started and then look at amending its current form. Independent Angus King of Maine, Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, Georgia’s Jon Ossoff, and a couple of others fall into this category.
It’s Optics – It’s Always Optics
President-elect Trump has turned the immigration debate into a cause. And it’s one with which a large swath of the American public agrees. A Marquette Law School poll in 2024 found that 58% are in favor of “deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries.” A Gallup poll revealed that 47% favor “deporting all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country.”
And note: This consensus is just for people living in the US illegally – not for those who have committed further crimes. One wonders what the support for deporting illegal immigrants who have chosen to commit crimes in their new home would be. That question is likely concerning Democratic senators as they prepare to cast their votes and justify their decision to the electorate.
Naming this the Laken Riley Act was certainly a politically driven decision to create an immediate emotional connection. It has the appearance of saying: If you don’t vote for it, you don’t care about Laken Riley’s murder. But that is politics, and that’s the world in which senators have fought to live.
But the moniker is only the first element. Those who oppose the passage will almost certainly become targets of well-organized GOP campaigns that accuse the reluctant lawmakers of caring more about illegal immigrant criminals than about the innocent young women of the United States. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it an effective line of attack ahead of the 2026 midterm elections? Probably.
One suspects that a pressure campaign is taking place within the Democratic Party to convince enough senators to back the bill. As John Fetterman points out, “[I]f we can’t then that’s a reason why we lost.” This is a defining moment for the minority party in which they can either double down on the open border excess of the Biden administration or turn the page and start the long, slow process of becoming electable in a country that is firmly against such immigration largesse. It’s a close call which way they will go.