Democrats Show Zero Appetite for Resistance in 1st Major Fight vs. Trump 2.0

Some Senate Dems don’t even seem to have read the eight-page Laken Riley Act, preemptively handing Trump the vehicle through which to carry out mass deportations that could target nearly all immigrants.

By Kylie Cheung  |  January 10, 2025 | 4:40pm
Photo: Getty Images Politics
Democrats Show Zero Appetite for Resistance in 1st Major Fight vs. Trump 2.0

I hate to be a doomer, but it’s impossible to overstate just how dire things are: Senate Democrats appear poised to hand the incoming Trump administration all it could need to carry out mass deportations—and at least a couple of them don’t even seem to have done the reading.

The Laken Riley Act—named after a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed in 2024 by an undocumented immigrant man, who had previously been charged with shoplifting—is perhaps the broadest and most dangerous immigration bill in recent history. Despite its eight short pages, the bill does a lot—none of it good. And after it coasted through the House with bipartisan approval, Senate Democrats joined Republicans on Thursday to advance the bill for debate by an 84-9 margin.

For all the cringe exercises and embarrassing gaffes of the 2017 “resistance lib” heyday, at the very least, our Democratic politicians pretended to show some fight. My 20-year-old self, who watched Democratic senators like Catherine Cortez Masto and Chuck Schumer (both voted to advance the Laken Riley Act this week) speak at rallies against “kids in cages” in 2018, wouldn’t recognize what we’re seeing from Democrats, now. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who opposes the bill, warned this week, “I fear that it’s only going to be when it comes to peoples’ doorsteps that they’re going to realize fully what people have consented to.”

The bill would allow immigrants, even those who live and work in the U.S. legally, to be indefinitely detained without even being charged with a crime. If they’re so much as arrested—not even charged or convicted—for petty crimes like shoplifting, they could be held indefinitely in detention centers and potentially deported. As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out, this would apply to those who are mistakenly arrested by police error, or racial profiling, or any other nefarious motives. As Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), one of few Democratic voices who have criticized the bill, has pointed out, the Laken Riley Act would “enable authorities to detain 10-year-olds and younger who maybe stole a stick of gum.”

Immigration attorney David Isaacson explained the bill would apply to Dreamers—immigrants who legally reside in the U.S.—as well as refugees and individuals granted asylum, including children, and even legal immigrants if they leave then reenter the U.S. while waiting for their green card. 

But perhaps the scariest chunk of the bill is the sweeping power it grants state attorneys-general and district court judges, allowing them to sue the federal government if they allege that an undocumented immigrant has inflicted even just $100 in property damage, notes Drop Site’s Pablo Manriquez. At the request of a state attorney general, district court judges could sweepingly ban the issuance of visas from an entire country, so long as states proclaim they were “harmed” by immigrants in any way. On top of all of this, the bill is being fast-tracked, effectively rammed through Congress under the guise of an urgent, existential migrant “crime wave.”

Three Democratic senators—John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona—are co-sponsors of the bill, whose lead Republican sponsor is Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama. Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) have all signaled support for the bill, too. Throughout 2022, Fetterman campaigned on his immigrant wife’s story of coming to the U.S. without documentation and building a life here. He made a campaign promise to never act against Dreamers, which raises questions about whether he even read the bill or… just no longer cares—these seem equally likely. 

Even supposedly progressive Senate Democrats like Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, joined the 33 Democrats who voted to advance the bill for a floor debate, though Baldwin said she has “some major concerns and there must be changes to earn my support.” Other Democrats have expressed concerns with the bill—Chris Murphy and Amy Klobuchar suggested they’re interested in adding amendments to the bill but, as Slate’s Stern argues, tweaks couldn’t possibly fix its “foundational flaws,” because the bill’s fundamental purpose is a war on immigrants regardless of their circumstances.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) came out decisively against the bill on Thursday, with a simple statement pointing out that it’s “already the law undocumented immigrants that are convicted of felonies face detention and deportation,” and the new penalties created by the Laken Riley Act “[run] counter to our Constitution.”

But criticizing parts of the bill is the furthest Democrats have been willing to go to challenge the Laken Riley Act: no threats to filibuster or try to whip the vote against it—zero fight whatsoever about what civil liberties and immigration experts warn is one of the most sweeping, draconian pieces of legislation in recent history. During Trump’s first term, Democratic Congress members joined protesters marching in the streets against Trump’s immigration agenda—nothing of the sort is happening today.

Undocumented immigrants are substantially less likely than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes including violent crimes. The increasingly bipartisan “migrant crime wave” panics are rooted in pure racism and xenophobia. Democrats’ head-spinning 180, from posturing as the party of “everyone is welcome here” to… this, isn’t just heinous political cynicism—it’s a fundamental misread of the post-election situation. They seem to interpret Trump’s victory, largely won because key swaths of the electorate weren’t moved to vote at all, as a national mandate for xenophobia. But even as some polls do show pretty disappointing attitudes about immigration among U.S. voters, overall, Trump’s trademark mass deportation agenda is widely unpopular—there are zero reasons for Democrats to act like it is.

And, much as I loathe to sound like a Parks and Recreation character, polls and popular sentiment can’t dictate politicians’ every move. At what point do you step up as a leader to fight for your base (which, for Democrats, heavily includes immigrants), fight for the vulnerable, and fight for what’s right—even if it means challenging views that have been popularized by mass, right-wing disinformation? At what point do you fight for something, anything, really?

 
Join the discussion...