The primary intention of the Laken Riley Act is to enforce harsher detention policies for undocumented migrants. One provision would greatly expand state officials’ powers over immigration processes, handing them the authority to sue the State Department to stop the issuance of visas to entire countries.
The proposed legislation – which has drawn an unusual amount of Bipartisan support – would allow state attorneys to force the federal government to block nonimmigrant and immigrant visas from so-called “recalcitrant countries” that are slow to accept or do not accept their deported nationals.
The Bill also amends current law to remove such challenges from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, transferring the decision-making power to suspend visa issuance to local district courts, President’s Alliance CEO Miriam Felblum told The PIE News.
Felblum warned of the “significant impacts” of the proposed legislation on international students and other immigrants, which would have “rippling effects on the US’s reputation as a welcoming and prime destination for talented international students from around the world and result in adverse consequences for our economy and innovation.”
Laken Riley, the 22-year-old university student for whom the act was named, was killed in February last year by a Venezuelan migrant who had been arrested for shoplifting and released on parole.
Critics say the Act would give states the ability to override immigration decisions that have historically been under the authority of the US federal government.
While recognising that such a lawsuit could generate “tremendous anxiety and uncertainty” for international students, Felblum’s message was clear.
“Nothing has changed,” she said. “This is not the time to panic, and there would likely be swift legal challenges to such lawsuits in district courts.”
Nothing has changed. This is not the time to panic, and there would likely be swift legal challenges to such lawsuits in district courts
Miriam Felblum, Presidents’ Alliance
Commentators have argued that the sweeping ramifications of such a change have not been properly considered, with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) urging Senators not to pass the act.
“The provisions in this Bill would allow individual states to dictate immigration policy for the nation by allowing states to sue the government. Further, a state could sue to cease visa issuance to entire countries,” AILA said in a letter to Senators.
“The Bill raises constitutional concerns by providing automatic standing to states who file politically motivated lawsuits against the federal government,” warned AILA, adding that it would “overwhelm the courts” with litigation from the states.
NAFSA said that the Act could have “serious implications” for international higher education in the US, and is working closely with senior leaders to “quickly educate members of the Senate on the potential impact of this legislation on the international education and higher education sector”.
Though the government has not published an updated a list of recalcitrant – or uncooperative – countries, as of mid-2020, the State Department considered 13 countries recalcitrant including India and China, the US’s largest source markets of international students.
According to a 2020 Congressional Research Service report, the other countries on the list uncooperative nations included Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Cuba, Eritrea, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Pakistan and Russia.
In the 2023/24 academic year, nearly 650,000 students from these 13 recalcitrant countries were studying in the US.
The Act passed the House of Representatives on January 7 and cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on January 9, where only nine democrats were opposed.
One amendment has since been made, relating to the detention of migrants accused of assaulting a law enforcement officer, which means the act will return to the lower chamber for a second vote before its final passage in the Senate.
If the bill makes it to the White House, it is widely expected that Trump will sign it into law upon his coming to office on January 20.
