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

Donald Trump
Donald Trump
YouTube

When Belief Becomes Law: The Rise of Executive Rule and the Vanishing of Facts

During his successful defense of the British soldiers accused of killing Americans in the Boston Massacre of 1770, John Adams, the nation's second president, famously observed that "facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Times have changed. When President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, saying that the jobs numbers compiled by the agency's nonpartisan analysts and experts "were RIGGED” some pundits observed that you can fire the umpire, but you can’t change the score.

Keep ReadingShow less
Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

People protest in Chicago as part of the No Kings Rallies at Daley Plaza on June 14, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Photo by Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty Images for No Kings

Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

Background

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised voters, “One day, I will launch the largest deportation program of criminals in the history of America.” On his inauguration day, he published a directive for Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers to use their own discretion when conducting immigration arrests. Since then, ICE officers have arrested immigrants in or around courthouses in at least seven different states.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less