A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
Predicting the future, especially in the context of immigration, is like trying to catch a slippery eel. This adage, attributed to Yogi Berra, still holds true in today’s world. But upon careful examination of the changing immigration landscape, a striking difference emerges.
The Democratic Party stands in stark contrast to the Republican Party’s approach to addressing the border situation.
It’s puzzling that many Democratic lawmakers opposed the Laken Riley Act or expressed hesitation in repatriating undocumented immigrants. Considering immigration’s crucial role in the recent election, their reasoning is puzzling.
Reputable media outlets like The New York Times, CBS News and ABC News have conducted surveys that reveal a significant public sentiment in favor of repatriating undocumented immigrants.
This sentiment, comprising around 55 to 64 percent of the population, highlights the disparity between public opinion and the actions of Democratic governors and mayors.
President Trump’s stance on immigration is well-documented and poses a significant challenge for Democrats.
To avoid repeating the fate of the Whigs, who lost the election due to their radical ideologies, Democrats must reevaluate their position on immigration. Therefore, the question remains: do the Democrats have the wisdom to change their stance? The future holds the answer.
Robert Sica
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
reenjoe
Robert, Dems had every reason to oppose the Laken Riley Act. Under this law, non-citizens, even legal residents, must be detained, without bail, by Homeland Security if they are charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. Homeland Security must continue to detain the person in question even if the charges are dropped or the suspect is found not guilty. Put another way, a non-citizen legal resident could be accused of shoplifting, then video evidence finds that no crime was committed and Homeland Security MUST detain the person indefinitely or be sued by the State in which the non-crime happened.
What happened to Laken Riley is horrendous, but the answer isn't a law that strips away constitutionally protected due process rights. This law is the worst kind of partisan politics and the GOP has spread all sorts of misinformation around it - check it out for yourself.
As for hesitations regarding deportations, Republicans have expressed a desire to expel all the undocumented, even those here for decades, that work, pay taxes and obey our laws. I find that puzzling.
Saturday, March 22 Report this
wpeakes
@reenjoe
Agreed, 100%. Now we have the specter of over 500K Haitians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Cuban immigrants suddenly becoming "undocumented" because the president, with GOP support, intends to revoke their TPS extension. In addition, over 200K Ukrainians face the same fate. It's distressing that this will have an overwhelmingly negative impact on communities around the country with no discernable benefit to anyone. Among other things, these groups pay taxes, educate their children, and support the area businesses where they live. What do the president and GOP expect to happen or do they intend to use some warped application of the Laken Riley Act to detain almost a million people?
Sunday, March 23 Report this
JDonne
The bill was introduced following the murder of Laken Riley, by an illegal immigrant who had been previously cited for shop lifting on the campus of the University of Georgia, in Athens Georgia. If it were that the Laken Riley Act had been law, Laken Riley might be alive today. Her killer, an illegal alien, with a history of theft and child endangerment, would have been detained and deported before escalating his criminal behavior. This is not speculation; it is fact. This legislation will prevent more victims, more grieving families, and more erosion of trust in our institutions.
This legislation is a measure of moral clarity; it will prevent more victims, more grieving families, and more erosion of trust in our institutions.
Thursday, April 3 Report this
reenjoe
JDonne, no one is denying the facts or minimizing the horrific killing of Laken Riley. However, I reiterate that the solution cannot be another injustice. The Laken Riley Act as passed into law clearly violates the 14th Amendment's right to due process by requiring the indefinite detention of any non-citizen, regardless of their legal status, solely because that person faces a charge. The act doesn't even require a conviction on the charge.
That is unconstitutional to do to a U.S. citizen AND anyone in the U.S. The 14th Amendment does not distinguish who is entitled to due process based upon citizenship. This right is given to everyone in our country; it reads "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Moral clarity is adhering to our constitution when faced with challenges, not distorting it for political expediency.
Monday, April 7 Report this
JDonne
Reenjoe
The Laken Riley Act doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment. It specifically targets “criminal aliens” who have been charged with theft, assaulting law enforcement officers, or serious crimes that result in injury or death. The primary objective of the Act is to protect citizens from these individuals. Jose Ibara, an illegal alien, was responsible for the murder of Laken Riley. The Act ensures that “criminal aliens” are held accountable for their crimes against “American citizens” and are not released by local officials before they can be taken into custody.
(Note: The Laken Riley Act does not target law-abiding citizens.)
Tuesday, April 8 Report this
reenjoe
JDonne, You seem to be wrong again. The purpose stated on the Bill (H.R. 29) reads "To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes." No mention of "criminal aliens", their legal status or case outcome.
The reasons given by Democrats who opposed the Laken Riley Act are, that regardless of the objective, the law is poorly written, overly broad and requires indefinite detention of any alien merely on a criminal charge.
There are neither provisions exempting Green Card holders, HB1 Visa holders, those with Temporary Protected Status or other legal non-citizen residents nor is there any provision permitting the release those found not guilty. While it does not target "law-abiding citizens", it certainly can target law-abiding legal non-citizen residents.
The Lake Riley Act bad law and it is a violation of DUE PROCESS under the 14th Amendment.
Tuesday, April 8 Report this
JDonne
In your post, you critique the Laken Riley Act, which mandates the detention of “criminal aliens” charged with theft, for its poorly written nature, broad scope, and potential violation of due process. However, this assessment is inaccurate. The Laken Riley Act is written in clear and unambiguous language. I recommend that you review the amended bill for a more comprehensive understanding.
Thursday, April 10 Report this