As part of the Laken Riley Act if a non-US national is implicated in a shoplifting incident the DHS is required to detain them, regardless of whether the offense is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under local law. Laken Riley Act does not apply to people on H1b or L1 or F1 status as far as they are maintaining legal status. But it will be applicable to H1b or F1 non-immigrants if they overstay or go out of status.
The Laken Riley Act primarily targets non-U.S. nationals who are unlawfully present in the United States. Specifically, it mandates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain individuals who:
- Are unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and
- Have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
Key Provisions of the Laken Riley Act:
- Mandatory Detention: The law requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who have been charged with specific offenses, including:
- Theft-related crimes (e.g., burglary, larceny, shoplifting)
- Assaulting a law enforcement officer
- Crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury, such as those caused by driving under the influence (DUI)
- State Authority to Sue: The act empowers state governments to file lawsuits against the federal government if they believe there is a failure to enforce immigration laws as stipulated by the act.
Critics contend that the law may infringe upon due process rights, as it mandates detention based on charges rather than convictions. several legislators have expressed opposition to the Laken Riley Act, particularly concerning its provision that mandates detention and potential deportation of non-citizens based solely on criminal charges, without a conviction. Critics argue that this aspect undermines due process and the presumption of innocence.
Under the Laken Riley Act, local law enforcement agencies are not mandated to alter their current procedures or take on additional responsibilities regarding immigration enforcement. The act primarily directs federal agencies, specifically the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to detain non-citizens who have been charged with specific offenses, such as theft-related crimes, assaulting a law enforcement officer, or crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. The legislation does not impose new requirements on local police to report or detain individuals based on their immigration status. While local law enforcement’s role remains unchanged under the Laken Riley Act, the effectiveness of the legislation relies on the collaboration between federal and local agencies. Some local police departments may choose to cooperate with federal authorities through programs like 287(g), which deputize local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement tasks. However, participation in such programs is voluntary and varies by jurisdiction. Several cities and states have enacted “sanctuary” policies that restrict local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers or sharing information about an individual’s immigration status. States like California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have laws or policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In some states, sanctuary laws explicitly prohibit local police from cooperating with ICE. If a state law bars local officers from:
- Honoring ICE detainers
- Sharing immigration status information
- Holding someone for ICE without a judicial warrant
Then local law enforcement must comply with the state law, or they may face legal action.
❌ Example: California
- SB 54 (California Values Act) prohibits local agencies from:
- Using resources for immigration enforcement.
- Holding individuals beyond their release date for ICE.
- Sharing information about immigration status except in specific criminal cases.
- Even if a local sheriff wants to work with ICE, they legally cannot unless the state law changes.
❌ Example: Illinois
- Illinois Trust Act prohibits local police from detaining individuals for ICE without a criminal warrant.
In summary, the Laken Riley Act’s mandatory detention requirements are directed at non-U.S. nationals who are unlawfully present in the country and have engaged in specified theft-related offenses.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
