Senate Democrats overwhelmingly back advancing Laken Riley immigration bill with Booker and Kim voting no
Pennsylvania’s senators voted for the bill. Both New Jersey Democratic senators voted against it.
Democrats in the Senate, including the representatives from Pennsylvania and Delaware, overwhelmingly supported advancing a GOP-led bill aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration Thursday. New Jersey’s Democratic senators, meanwhile, were among the nine members who voted against it.
The bill, which would require federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants arrested for theft-related crimes, was the first to be voted on by the newly installed Republican-controlled Senate.
Lawmakers named the legislation after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Augusta University nursing student who was murdered while jogging at the University of Georgia. Her convicted killer, Jose Ibarra, had entered the U.S. illegally and had previously been released after an arrest for stealing merchandise from a Walmart store. He was sentenced to life without parole in November.
Riley’s tragic killing became a flashpoint in the 2024 presidential campaign as President-elect Donald Trump and his allies vowed to crack down on illegal immigration.
The Senate voted 84-9 to begin debate on the bill, which could still be amended and would need to pass a final vote. Still, the wide margin of Democratic support reflects how the party is reexamining its stance on immigration, which played a key role in the presidential campaign in Pennsylvania and nationally.
Sen. John Fetterman was originally the lone Democratic cosponsor on the bill, which ended up gaining additional Democratic cosponsors before getting robust Democratic support.
» READ MORE: Fetterman cosponsors GOP-led Laken Riley bill, one of the few Democrats backing it
“Laken Riley’s story is a tragic reminder of what’s at stake when our systems fail to protect people,” Fetterman said in a statement earlier this week. “... Immigration is what makes our country great. I support giving authorities the tools to prevent tragedies like this one while we work on comprehensive solutions to our broken system.
Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick also cosponsored the bill, the first to advance in the new Congress.
“I’m proud that my first vote in the United States Senate was to advance the Laken Riley Act,” McCormick said in a statement. “... This commonsense bill gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority and strength they need to keep our communities safe.”
The Laken Riley Act cleared the House on Tuesday with the backing of 48 Democrats, including U.S. Reps. Brendan Boyle (D., Philadelphia) and Chris Deluzio(D., Allegheny).
Delaware Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons voted to advance the legislation toward debate in the Senate — though both said they wanted it amended.
“Senator Blunt Rochester has her concerns, but she is in favor of moving along to the full amendment process if it moves us closer to finding a comprehensive, bipartisan solution to immigration reform,” a spokesperson said.
A spokesperson for Coons said the senator looks forward to a “robust amendment process.”
In addition to requiring federal detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for theft, the bill would allow states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm caused to their citizens because of illegal immigration, greatly expanding the authority of state attorneys general.
Immigrant advocacy groups have cautioned that the bill does not grant due process to those accused of crimes, as any undocumented immigrant arrested for theft, as minor as shoplifting, would be detained by ICE and could face deportation. And the power of states to sue the federal government could also threaten the federal government’s constitutional role in overseeing immigration policy.
Booker and Kim vote no
New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, were among the nine ”no” votes on the bill.
“All of us should be in full agreement that individuals who are convicted of committing crimes face consequences, and it is already law that undocumented immigrants that are convicted of felonies face detention and deportation,” Kim said.
“But mandating detention for those facing accusations before they go before our judicial system runs counter to our Constitution,” Kim said, adding that he supports “urgently [taking] bipartisan action to fix our broken immigration system.”
Booker said in a statement that the bill doesn’t present solutions to immigration or public safety, and instead “is meant to scapegoat and intimidate immigrant communities. It would bring about a sweeping expansion of mandatory detention for people not convicted of any crime and would invite state and local law enforcement to profile and indiscriminately arrest immigrants,” he said.
A provision in the bill allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government if an undocumented immigrant is arrested, released and then commits a crime against the state or a resident of the state. Booker said that provision “allows a single state to decide immigration policy for the rest of the country.”
U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, one of five Pennsylvania Democrats in the House to oppose the bill, stressed that it removes the right to due process by applying to anyone accused or arrested of theft-related crimes. “Trump promised these kinds of dangerous changes, and the Republicans in Congress are desperately trying to satisfy him regardless of the implications of the legislation should it become law,” she said.
Last year, the bill did not advance out of the Senate, but several Democrats who opposed it then have changed their stances, and the chamber is now GOP-controlled. The Democratic shift on immigration restrictions reflects a public opinion pivot on immigration more broadly that occurred over the last year.
A Gallup poll found this summer that more adults — 55% — would like to see immigration to the U.S. decreased than the 41% who favored a decrease in 2023. It marked the first time since 2005 that a majority of Americans said they wanted less immigration.
The Senate reconvenes next week when Republicans would need seven Democrats to support passing the legislation as written. It would otherwise advance to amendments, in which case it would go back to the House for final passage.