Dem
47
GOP
53
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), in hopes of hitting the ground running, decided to pluck some low-hanging fruit yesterday. So, he brought the Laken Riley Act up for a vote, and it passed, 264-159, with all Republicans and 48 Democrats voting for it.
The legislation is named in honor of Laken Riley, who was, of course, killed by a Venezuelan migrant who had been arrested for shoplifting and then released. Under the terms of the legislation, a large segment of the immigrant population of the U.S., including undocumented immigrants, dreamers, and individuals awaiting asylum hearings, would be subject to imprisonment if charged with certain crimes, including theft, burglary or shoplifting. Note that the word "conviction" does not appear in there; just the bringing of charges (and, in some cases, just being arrested) would be enough to trigger imprisonment until the person was cleared. Put another way, a person charged with stealing a pack of gum would be held, without bail, until their case was resolved.
This is obvious scapegoating, of course. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than non-immigrants, and so if the desire is to reduce crime, the legislation should apply to all people. It's also grandstanding; Laken Riley is not the first American to be killed by a migrant who was facing (or had faced) misdemeanor-level charges. But she was attractive, and white, and she was killed while a Democrat was president. So, she is a useful political prop. Another criticism here is the potential for abuse. Let us imagine you have a racist xenophobe like Stephen Miller, who just so happens to be visiting a town run by someone like former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. How hard would it be for Miller to get half-a-dozen brown-skinned people thrown in jail with false accusations of one sort or another?
So, why did so many Democrats cross the aisle to support the bill? Well, the answer to that should be clear once we consider the fate of the bill in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is expected to bring it up for a vote on Friday, and will need 7 Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster. Thus far, three Democratic senators have committed to supporting the legislation: John Fetterman (PA), Gary Peters (MI) and Jon Ossoff (GA).
Hmmmm.... what do those three fellows have in common? Hard to say. They all have tattoos? No, that's not it, because Ossoff doesn't. They all have MBA degrees? Nope, that also leaves out Ossoff. Receding hairlines? No, Peters still has a full head. Could it be... they are all up for reelection in purple states, either in 2 years (Peters, Ossoff) or 4 (Fetterman)? Ding! Ding! Ding! Most of the folks in the House who voted for the legislation meet that description, as well (and they are ALL up in 2 years, of course).
Given that Democratic officeholders have clearly decided they have to get "stronger" on immigration, then the votes could be there to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. John Hickenlooper (CO), Tina Smith (MN), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Ben Ray Luján (NM) and Mark Warner (VA) are up in 2026 in states that are D+5 or redder, while Mark Kelly (AZ), Michael Bennet (CO), Raphael Warnock (GA), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) and Maggie Hassan (NH) are up in such states in 2028. With 53 Republicans and three Democrats already in hand, Thune only needs four of these folks. (Z)