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

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin
Judge gavel and book on the laptop
Getty Images/Stock

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin

The Scene: The State of the Union Address, front row.

Thought bubble above the head of Chief Justice John Roberts:

Keep ReadingShow less
Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

A large plume of smoke rises over Tehran after explosions were reported in the city during the night on March 07, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

In what is being called “Trump’s War,” the United States has increased attacks against Iran recently, after the initial attack killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s Supreme Leader.

Congress did not approve the action, nor was informed of it—as is the law. Later, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejected a bid to rein in actions pertaining to the Iran war.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr attends U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

The “Unitary Executive” doctrine has become a talisman for expanding the sphere of Presidential prerogatives. Chief Justice John Roberts has been a key architect of this doctrine. It underlies the Supreme Court’s use of its shadow docket to reverse many detailed, well-reasoned lower federal court decisions over the last year. Those decisions, after carefully hearing and assessing the facts and the law, had enjoined unprecedented, far-reaching presidential actions (including the imposition of tariffs) that were almost certain to inflict immediate and substantial harm on millions of people and on the functioning of government itself.

As a lawyer, I have grave concerns about the so far unconstrained actions of this Executive branch and what they mean for the rule of law and the survival of our personal liberties. But even those too jaded to care or who think naively, “it will never happen to me,” should be concerned about ineptitude, greed, and waste. These are the costs imposed on all of us when government resources and employees are deployed on personal vendettas or redirected from critical government functions to support impulsive, arbitrary, and often futile actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

A protest group called "Hot Mess" hold up signs of Jeffrey Epstein in front of the Federal courthouse on July 8, 2019 in New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

In America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need, I argued that despite partisan division, Americans share core expectations. They want upward mobility that feels real. They want elections that are credible. They want markets where new entrants can compete. They want rules that bind concentrated wealth. They want stability without stagnation.

The Epstein case directly tests those expectations.

Keep ReadingShow less