The Laken Riley Act is Unjust - and a Trojan Horse

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

54% : But, on balance, I oppose asymmetrical reduction in standing requirements that makes it easier for states to challenge federal policies that make legal migration easier, but not those that aim for the opposite effect.
45% : If we are going to reduce state standing requirements for challenges to immigration policies, we should at least do it for both sides.
45% : In recent years, the Supreme Court has been relatively restrictive on state standing, including in immigration cases.
43% : The main provision of the Laken Riley Act requires mandatory federal detention of any undocumented immigrant who "is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense."
42% : If a parole or visa program cost the state or one of its residents $101 on one occasion, that's enough, even if the state and its private sector actually derived large net benefits from the program, such as increased tax revenue and economic growth.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.