Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

Opinion

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A person's speech bubble being popped.

Getty Images, Malte Mueller

A tragic death sparked national attention, turning into a call to strengthen immigration enforcement to enhance public safety. In response, the Laken Riley Act emerged as a significant piece of legislation in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States. It purports to provide protection from crime but, in fact, could have an especially negative impact on survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

The new law allows for the detention of individuals who lack legal status, even if they have only been arrested or charged with minor offenses like theft or burglary. Notably, conviction is not required. This blatantly undermines the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty," eroding due process protections that keep innocent people from being incarcerated, separated from children and family, losing employment, and suffering mental and physical health consequences.


Mandating that the Secretary of Homeland Security take into custody any undocumented individual who is charged with a criminal offense—regardless of the offense’s severity or the individual's circumstances—risks creating a system where immigrants are being treated more harshly than U.S. citizens. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in fiscal 2023, more than 75% of convictions for federal crimes in the immigrant community were related to immigration status. Native-born Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than undocumented immigrants, according to the 2024 American Immigration Council Report.

More troubling is the expansion of authority to state/local law enforcement, empowering them to detain individuals “suspected” of being undocumented. This opens the door for racial profiling. Imagine a brown person, with a Latino surname or an Afghani accent, becoming a target because of how they look or sound. By reinforcing biases, the Act now creates an environment where individuals who "look different" are unfairly targeted—a practice that has led to documented cases of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) impersonators harassing community members.

Racial profiling increases the likelihood that survivors of domestic violence will be targeted based on their appearance, making them less likely to seek help from law enforcement and undermining their access to critical services. This leaves survivors trapped in abusive situations, often unable or unwilling to report their abusers.

With over 12 years of experience as an attorney who supports immigrant survivors of crime, including domestic violence, I have witnessed abusers manipulate the system by portraying themselves as victims, leading to biased arrests—sometimes of victims themselves—which, even if later resolved, inflict lasting trauma and deter survivors from seeking future help. This Act could dangerously impact survivors—particularly immigrants—who, out of desperation, commit minor crimes as it renders them deportable, exacerbating their vulnerabilities, deterring them from reporting abuse or seeking protection when fleeing their abusers, and ultimately denying them access to critical resources under this very law.

A 2019 survey conducted by the Tahirih Justice Center, underscored this crisis, revealing that 52% of advocates had worked with survivors who chose to drop civil or criminal cases because they did not feel safe, while 76% of advocates reported that immigrant survivors expressed concerns about contacting the police. These findings illustrate the urgent need for policies that prioritize survivor safety and restore trust in systems designed to protect them. Rather than enhancing public safety, harsh enforcement measures often risk empowering abusers.

By discouraging survivors from reporting abuse, the Laken Riley Act will lead to more significant harm in immigrant communities. We must not prioritize security concerns over human rights considerations. Policymakers must provide additional protections by securing due process rights for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking that ensure safety for them and the community while upholding fairness and due process for all. No one should have to choose between safety and deportation.

All survivors of domestic violence—regardless of immigration status—deserve the protection, resources, and legal support they need to escape abuse and rebuild their lives. You can help: Urge Congress to pass legislation that expands protections for survivors, including strengthening the Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA), strengthen and support legislation like the WISE Act that expands survivor’s access to immigration relief and necessary services, and secure more funding for legal aid agencies and critical supportive services such as shelters and mental health agencies.

Payal Sinha is a distinguished attorney who serves as Director of Strategic Partnerships and Community Engagement at the Tahrirh Justice Center, a national nonprofit that serves women, girls and all immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. She is a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project

.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
A solemn portrait of a woman looking down, bathed in dramatic light and shadow from window blinds, emphasizing solitude and deep thought in monochrome.

After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.

Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images

The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case

Three children are dead.

Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less