The 26 -year -old Venezuelan José Ibarra intercepted Riley while exercising at the Georgia University campus in Athens, tried to rape her and, as the victim resisted, hit her until death, as revealed in the trial.
Ibarra, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in November, is an undocumented Venezuelan migrant who had pending prior accusations of at least two minor crimes in the United States, one of them the theft of several products in a supermarket.
The case generated shock in American society. The conservatives argued that, if the aggressor had been arrested and expelled for his previous cases, Laken Riley would still be alive.
This led the Republican party to propose, one month after the event, a specific law to avoid similar cases.
In fact, under the Law Laken Riley, the Department of National Security (DHS) will be obliged to stop foreigners in irregular immigration situation that have been previously arrested by robbery, theft and the like.
The law is aligned with the hard line policies that Trump promised to apply during his presidency.
The Republican promised to execute the greatest deportation operation in the history of the United States, initially focusing on undocumented immigrants with criminal records, and their first decisions after arrival at the White House confirm it.
Tens of thousands of people illegally cross the border between Mexico and the US every year. Getty images
The Laken Riley Law, according to some experts, will facilitate the deportation of those who are accused of committing these minor crimes, which will be processed during their arrest and without the need for trial.
According to the previous legislation, only migrants to whom a court had sentenced firm for at least two minor crimes were subject to a possible deportation.
On the other hand, the authorities of each State may sue the Federal Government if they believe that the laws on migration are not applied correctly.
Complaints reportable for Washington include freeing migrants in custody, not arresting people with expulsion, granting probation inadequately to irregular or not applying visa restrictions to countries that reject receive their deported citizens from the US.
The processing
The Laken Riley Law was first approved in the House of Representatives in March 2024, but stagnated in the Senate controlled by the Democrats and returned to the Lower House.
On January 7, congressmen approved it again with 264 votes in favor, (including 48 Democrats) and advanced to the Senate again.
There he ran better luck than on the first occasion, since all Republican senators and a majority of Democrats (in total 84 votes in favor and 9 against) agreed to debate the text for their possible amendment and approval.
Experts point out that defeat in the 2024 elections, in which immigration was a central campaign issue, has led many Democrats to support more restrictive proposals in this matter, and even the party itself is changing its approach to it.
“I am in favor of giving the authorities the tools to prevent tragedies like this while we work in integral solutions for our broken system,” said John Fetterman, senator of the Democratic Party for Pensivania, one of the “pendulum states” that changed their vote To Republican last November.
Fetterman, one of the most popular Democratic politicians, voted in favor of the law in the Senate. Getty images
The deliberation phase in the upper house lasted about two weeks, and finally, after the Senate returned the law to the Chamber with an amendment, the text was approved on January 22.
Why is controversy
The apparent violation of the presumption of innocence of detainees is the most controversial aspect of this new law, which has generated a wave of criticism of those who consider it incompatible with the democratic and constitutional values of the United States.
Its defenders argue that, by depriving of liberty or expelling alleged criminals, the crimes communities committed by persons in an irregular situation will be protected.
They also argue that the possibility of deportation for minor crimes will deter undocumented migrants from getting involved in illegal activities.
Those who defend the law believe that it will reduce crime and protect citizens. Getty images
Meanwhile, critical voices consider it a threat to constitutional protections and a decline in the principles of justice.
«It is essentially a highway towards mass deportation; Any number of people can be arrested and put them into the criminal justice system simply for having been accused, without conviction or admission of guilt, ”said Pramila Jayopal, one of the congressmen who have criticized the project of the project of Law in the divided Democratic Party.
The detractors of this controversial legislation argue that the arrest of any bail of any accused migrant – although not necessarily convicted – of minor crimes such as theft would eliminate the right to individualized hearings, something guaranteed even in cases of serious crimes in the criminal justice system.
This raises serious concerns about the presumption of innocence and due process, according to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
In addition, it is feared that laws like this believe in society a hostile environment towards Latin American and Venezuelan migrants, unjustly imposing the stigma of criminalization.
The NILC also warns that forcing immigration authorities to stop people before they can attend their criminal hearings could seriously hinder the work of prosecutors, increase chaos in court and complicate the resolution of criminal cases.
The detractors of the law also believe that the avalanche of work that would fall on judges and prosecutors for minor crimes such as thefts or robberies would subtract time and resources to address cases of more serious crimes.
The Latin Voto organization argues that the law will not improve public security since there is no evidence of a correlation between immigration status and criminality.
This NGO considers the Laken Riley law a political tool to stigmatize migrants and accentuate social divisions.
His critics believe that it is an attack on the most vulnerable. Getty images
Another controversial aspect is the ability that the law grants to the States to sue the Federal Government on actions related to immigration policies.
According to the NILC, this could convert the courts into scenarios of endless disputes between the states and Washington, hindering the effective implementation of the law.
Its defenders, however, claim that it will allow local authorities, who know more closely the problems of their communities, participate more actively when applying and supervising immigration laws.
(Tagstotranslate) Donald Trump (T) Laken Riley (T) Law Laken Riley (T) Venezuelan migrant
Source link
