Laken Riley Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 29.

I start by expressing my deepest condolences to Laken Riley's family. Her death was a tragedy, and we all mourn her loss. May her memory be a blessing.

I wish that we were considering legislation that was worthy of her name. Instead, the Republican majority is beginning this new Congress right where they left off in the last one, with legislation that targets and scapegoats immigrants, but does nothing to address the real problems in our broken immigration system, all while ignoring basic due process and constitutional principles.

Among other things, this legislation would subject to mandatory detention any undocumented immigrants who are merely charged with committing an act of theft or shoplifting, even if they are innocent.

This means if someone is merely accused of shoplifting, someone who might be innocent, who might be the victim of mistaken identity, and who has not had the opportunity to clear his name, would be subject to mandatory detention.

This bill is so broad that it would lead to the detention of people who have committed no crime and have no intention of harming anyone. That flies in the face of all notions of basic due process and reason. It is both pernicious and absurd.

Where will the Federal Government get the resources to detain all these people? Congress has never appropriated, and no administration has ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who fall under the mandatory detention categories. Even President Trump, during his first term, never tried to detain all migrants subject to mandatory detention. It was far too costly, even for him.

Since this bill is so sweeping, even Dreamers and people living here on temporary protected status, people who may have lived in this country for decades and shortly after their birth, could be subject to the bill's harsh provisions.

If that weren't bad enough, the bill also declares that States have standing to sue over certain immigration provisions so long as the State or its residents suffer even the most trivial financial harm. This appears to be a ham-handed attempt to circumvent recent Supreme Court rulings limiting States' standing to sue the Federal Government over immigration enforcement matters.

Merely declaring that the States have standing to sue does not make it so. This provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the lack of attention that Republicans pay to such matters perfectly sums up their entire approach to immigration.

Instead of working toward serious solutions to serious problems, they are content to simply play politics and consider it a job well done. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source