Sanctuary Cities in the Crosshairs: The Laken Riley Act and the Trump Administration's New Immigration Offensive

 

By Santa Clarita Star Staff

Updated on 01/23/2025 at 3:30 PM

 

With Donald Trump beginning his second term, immigration enforcement is set to intensify through the advancement of the controversial Laken Riley Act, which mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of minor property crimes. Democratic Congressman George Whitesides of California’s 27th District joined Republicans in voting yes on the bill, which critics argue undermines sanctuary city policies, strains resources, and violates constitutional protections. As ICE raids on sanctuary cities like Los Angeles loom, the Act’s provisions, combined with planned deportations and the elimination of the CBP One app, signal a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy under Trump’s leadership.

 

 

LOS ANGELES, January 20, 2025 — With the swearing-in of Donald Trump for his second term as president, immigration enforcement is poised for a dramatic shift. Among the most controversial changes is the advancement of the Laken Riley Act, which Democratic Rep. George Whitesides of California's 27th District voted in favor of, aligning with Republican efforts to pass the bill. The act, which mandates the detention of undocumented individuals accused of minor property crimes, threatens to upend local law enforcement policies designed to build trust with immigrant communities. It could particularly disrupt cities like Los Angeles, where local agencies such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) have policies that discourage collaboration with federal immigration enforcement to prioritize community safety. Meanwhile, ICE is preparing for large-scale raids on sanctuary cities, starting just days after Trump’s inauguration, signaling the administration's aggressive approach to immigration enforcement. These actions, coupled with incoming Department of Homeland Security Secretary nominee Kristi Noem's pledge to dismantle systems like the CBP One app, will likely further strain an already overwhelmed immigration system, exacerbate backlogs, and deepen tensions surrounding U.S. immigration policy.

 

The Laken Riley Act

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called on Congress to reject the Laken Riley Act, warning that it would expand mandatory detention for nonviolent offenses and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The organization’s Jan. 9 letter to lawmakers highlighted several concerns, including constitutional issues and resource misallocation.

 

On Jan. 9, 2025, the ACLU sent a letter to U.S. Senators urging them to vote against the Laken Riley Act. The organization argued it unjustly expands mandatory detention for nonviolent offenses without improving public safety. The bill would mandate the detention of individuals, including longtime residents, children, and DACA recipients, without requiring a conviction or even charges, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. The ACLU highlighted several key concerns:

• Mandatory Detention: The Act requires detention even when deemed unnecessary by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or immigration judges, forcing costly and lengthy detentions without individualized hearings.
• Impact on Vulnerable Populations: No exemptions exist for children, victims of abuse, or individuals accused of minor infractions, such as petty theft.
• Expansion of State Powers: Provisions would allow states to sue federal authorities over immigration decisions. This could lead to politically motivated lawsuits and disrupt federal immigration systems.
• Constitutional Concerns: Mandatory detention violates Fifth Amendment protections and contradicts Supreme Court precedent favoring liberty over detention without trial.
• Resource Misallocation: By targeting nonviolent individuals, the Act diverts funds from addressing serious crime and benefits private prison companies at taxpayers’ expense.

 

“The Laken Riley Act would cost up to $83 billion in the first three years to implement — more than DHS’s entire annual budget,” Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wrote on social media. “That’s a lot of money to spend on a bill that’ll cause chaos, punish legal immigrants, and undermine due process.”

 

George Whitesides Votes Yes

Despite Democratic opposition, George Whitesides, a newly elected congressman from California’s 27th District, voted to advance the controversial bill. He was among 48 House Democrats who joined Republicans in supporting the measure. This vote puts him at odds with the Los Angeles County Democratic Party (LACDP), which applauded the decision by the LA City Council and Mayor Karen Bass to declare Los Angeles a “sanctuary city” in November 2024.

 

“This is the first step in protecting our values as Angelenos,” LACDP Chair Mark Ramos said in a press release. “We are a city that loves our people, and we open our arms and our doors to all who will be put in jeopardy by the Trump administration's discriminatory and predatory immigration enforcement. Today is a good day for Los Angeles.”

 

Impact on Sanctuary Cities

The main target of the Laken Riley Act is so-called “sanctuary cities,” large cities that have policies in place to allow undocumented immigrants to report criminal activity and go to first responders for help without the fear of being deported. It is likely that the Laken Riley Act could significantly impact the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) policy on undocumented immigrants by introducing federal mandates that conflict with the department's current practices. Here's how it might affect LASD's policy:

 

• Mandatory Detention of Undocumented Individuals: The act would require the detention of undocumented individuals for a wide range of minor offenses, even without criminal charges, undermining LASD's policy of not enforcing federal immigration laws. LASD deputies would be compelled to act against their policy by detaining individuals based on immigration status or reporting them to federal authorities, including ICE.

• Policy Contradictions: LASD's policy prohibits inquiries into immigration status and forbids arrests for violations of federal immigration law, such as illegal entry or overstaying a visa. The Laken Riley Act could force deputies to prioritize federal immigration enforcement, contradicting these protections.
• Erosion of Community Trust: LASD's current policy aims to reassure immigrant communities that they can report crimes and seek assistance without fear of deportation. The Laken Riley Act’s mandatory detention provisions could cause immigrant communities to avoid law enforcement, reducing cooperation and hindering criminal investigations.
• Administrative Discipline and Legal Challenges: Deputies who are compelled to enforce provisions of the Laken Riley Act might face conflicts between adhering to LASD's policies and complying with federal law. This could potentially lead to disciplinary actions and/or legal challenges.
• ICE Collaboration: While LASD does not currently assist ICE in immigration enforcement, the Laken Riley Act would introduce new requirements that could indirectly force LASD to coordinate with ICE, undermining the department’s autonomy and commitment to focusing on local and state law enforcement priorities.
• Increased Resource Burdens: Enforcing the Laken Riley Act’s provisions would strain LASD resources, diverting attention from local crime and community safety to federal immigration enforcement.

 

The Laken Riley Act could dismantle LASD's immigrant-friendly policies by mandating immigration-related actions contrary to department guidelines, eroding public trust, and diverting law enforcement focus away from local safety concerns. The act would fundamentally alter the department’s relationship with immigrant communities. ICE has expressed concerns about the act’s logistical challenges. In a memorandum, the agency estimated that $3.2 billion would be needed for 64,000 additional detention beds, $14.8 million for personnel, and expanded enforcement teams. These requirements could strain resources and disrupt operations.

 

Migrant Crime Statistics

Supporters of the bill, such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), cite crimes committed by undocumented individuals as justification for stricter immigration policies. During a Jan. 16 Senate hearing, Hawley pressed Adam Isacson, the director of defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, about migrant crime.

 

“Here’s Laken Riley,” Hawley said as a large portrait of her was placed behind him. “Her murder, her horrific murder at the hands of this illegal migrant who was unlawfully paroled in the United States. Is her death not an actual issue?”

 

“I didn’t say that Laken Riley’s death was not an actual issue,” Isacson responded. “I said that migrant crime is not an actual issue. Migrant crime is much less of an issue than U.S. citizen-committed crime.”

 

A 2024 National Institute of Justice study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at significantly lower rates than U.S.-born citizens for violent, property, and drug crimes. The study found that undocumented immigrants were arrested at less than half the rate of U.S.-born citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter of the rate for property crimes. For homicides, they had the lowest arrest rates, averaging less than half that of U.S.-born citizens. Over the study period, arrest rates for undocumented immigrants remained steady or declined across all crime categories, including drug crimes, where rates for native-born citizens increased by nearly 30%. U.S.-born citizens consistently had the highest arrest rates, while documented immigrants generally fell between the two groups. Notably, the analysis showed no evidence of an increase in crime rates among undocumented immigrants during the study period. The findings underscore the importance of distinguishing immigration status in crime research and confirm that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at significantly lower rates than other groups.

 

Trump Administration Plans Raids

Amid the legislative debate, the Wall Street Journal reported that ICE plans to conduct large-scale raids on Sanctuary Cities, starting in Chicago on Jan. 21, the day after President Trump’s second inauguration. Incoming Border Czar Tom Homan confirmed the raids, emphasizing a focus on public safety threats but stating, “No one is off the table.”

 

DHS Leadership and Policy Shifts

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 17, 2025, as part of her nomination to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. During the hearing, Noem pledged to eliminate the CBP One app, a mobile application introduced by Trump’s first administration for customs.

 

The Biden administration expanded the CBP One app in response to the growing asylum backlog, which surged to over 3 million cases by November 2023, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The app helped manage this overwhelming influx by allowing migrants to enter the legal system while tracking their cases.

 

The app allows migrants to schedule appointments to notify U.S. authorities of their intent to arrive at a port of entry, with appointments at approximately 1,500 migrants per day. Since its launch, over 904,500 individuals have successfully scheduled appointments and been admitted into the U.S. While the Biden administration has argued that the app facilitates orderly and legal entry, Noem criticized it as enabling illegal migration and promised to end its use on her first day in office. However, she clarified that data collected through the app would be preserved to track individuals already in the U.S.

 

If confirmed, Noem will take charge of DHS during a period of intensified immigration enforcement, including a planned mass deportation operation targeting undocumented individuals. She pledged to work closely with Homan to enhance border security at both the southern and northern borders while managing deportation efforts.

 

The U.S. Senate voted to advance the Laken Riley Act on Jan. 17. The bill returned to the House for a final vote on Jan. 22. Rep. Whitesides left the Capitol to return to his district because of the Hughes Fire, and he did not cast a vote for or against the final draft of the bill. The bill is now headed to President Trump’s desk.