Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less