Why I voted ‘no’ on the Laken Riley Act

On Monday, I was in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol as President Trump was sworn in as our 47th President. Many of his first executive orders imposed temporary constraints on those wanting to enter our country, reflecting what many Americans said they wanted when they voted in November.

I agree that our immigration system and borders are broken; they have been for decades, and people are right to be angry and frustrated. I am, too. They are right to blame politicians for inaction. I do, too. We need permanent laws and policies, not executive orders that get reversed with each new administration. One such proposed law before Congress is the Laken Riley Act.

Most of us of a certain age remember “I’m Just a Bill” from many Saturday mornings watching “Schoolhouse Rock!” It was a short and catchy song that provided a basic civics lesson on the complex process of how a bill becomes a law. In short, one chamber of Congress (the House or the Senate) drafts and debates a bill, passes it, and sends it over to the other chamber for debate and amending. Once a bill is amended and each chamber passes the same version of the bill, it goes to the president’s desk for signature and becomes law.

The Laken Riley Act — which deports those here illegally who are accused of committing a crime — was a missed opportunity to see the best of “Schoolhouse Rock!” in action.

The Laken Riley Act is one of six high-priority GOP bills written to address the deportation of those here illegally who have committed crimes. I voted “yes” on the other five, but “no” on this one. The big difference is that the Laken Riley Act, as written, is unconstitutional while the rest are not.

The five are: H.R. 2494, the Police Act; H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Security Act; H.R. 6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act; H.R. 6976, the Protect our Communities Act; and H.R. the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. These all include due process and require a conviction, not just an arrest, for deportation. The Laken Riley Act alone allows states to sue the federal government over immigration policies they don’t like. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 ruled this was unconstitutional.

Removing these two unconstitutional provisions from the Laken Act could have been simple and easy during the “Schoolhouse Rock!” back and forth amendment process. Unfortunately, when the bill was before the House, no amendments were allowed. When it went to the Senate, amendments were allowed, but none were accepted that would fix the fatal flaws.

This week, it came back to the House, where I once again voted “no.” It now goes to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it into law.

It won’t be long before this law is challenged in court as unconstitutional, further throwing immigration law into chaos and again delaying the implementation of needed immigration reform.

As a member of the House, who takes an oath every two years to uphold and defend the Constitution, I am obligated to vote against bills that violate that oath.

I understand why the idea of this bill is appealing to so many. But I encourage people to read past the headlines, to read the bill itself, or to read nonpartisan summaries of the bill. We can make real and lasting fixes to secure our border and fix our immigration system without sacrificing our values and needlessly trading away Constitutional protections.

Bills such as the bipartisan H.R. 3599, the Dignity Act, or the Senate’s bipartisan efforts led by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, and Kyrsten Sinema, S. 4361, the Border Act of 2024, were such efforts.

Lastly, although not a reason to vote against the bill, it’s important to note how expensive the Laken bill is — $27 billion in the first year — and how little debate that’s getting. Put in perspective, the entire annual budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is approximately $8 billion. If Congress is going to tell state and local governments what to do, we should also provide the money to do it.

Even in this polarized environment, there is room for bipartisan, effective, and pragmatic legislative work. This is what my community — red and blue — sent me to Washington to achieve. I’m not giving up on that now.

Chrissy Houlahan is an Air Force veteran, engineer, entrepreneur, educator, and nonprofit leader. She is serving her fourth consecutive term representing the people of Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District, which encompasses Chester County and southern Berks County. Houlahan is the first female veteran named as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Military Personnel Subcommittee, and is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.