The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday that would require federal authorities to detain immigrants charged with theft-related crimes, including burglary, larceny, and shoplifting. The measure would add these offenses to existing law that mandates detention for more serious crimes like murder and sexual abuse.

In particular, it would require Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to detain individuals who commit theft after entering the country illegally.

The bill passed by a vote of 264-159, with 48 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans in supporting the bill. All 159 representatives who voted against the bill were Democrats. Three Republicans and eight Democrats did not participate in voting.

The bipartisan margin signals growing concern in both parties about crime and immigration enforcement. Following a contentious presidential election cycle that focused heavily on immigration issues, the topic has become a key concern for voters across the political spectrum. According to an AP/NORC opinion poll released this week, immigration is the most critical issue Republican and Independent voters want the US Government to address in 2025, and the second most critical issue for Democrats.

H.R.29 is named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed in Athens, Georgia in February 2024. Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who had entered the US illegally and remained in the country pending the outcome of an immigration application, was convicted of her murder.

In introducing the bill last week, Republican Representative Mike Collins of Georgia cited the Laken case in a press release, which stated:

The bill directly addresses one of the federal policy failures related to Laken Riley’s murder. Her murderer, Jose Ibarra, is an illegal alien who had been previously cited for shoplifting by the Athens Police Department. If local law enforcement had called ICE, and ICE issued a detainer and picked him up, Laken would be alive. Ibarra was found guilty in November 2024 and has been sentenced to life without parole.

The case added fuel to an already roiling national debate over illegal immigration, with proponents of stricter immigration policies arguing that illegal immigration causes surging crime rates. Notably, a National Institute of Justice study released in September debunked this theory, finding that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of their US-born counterparts for violent and drug crimes, and at less than a quarter of those for property crimes.

Critics of the bill, including the National Immigration Law Center, argue that it would raise an array of due process concerns and would interfered with the executive branch’s ability to create immigration policy. The NILC also argues that the bill is duplicative given the federal government’s authority to detain anyone facing deportation proceedings, stating:

The Department of Homeland Security already has statutory authority to detain any undocumented person facing deportation proceedings including those charged with a criminal offense. What the bill does is apply “mandatory detention,” requiring detention without any opportunity to even request release on bond. In practice, this means the bill would require the government to detain an undocumented mother arrested on charges of shoplifting diapers without even granting her a bond hearing, for the duration of her deportation proceedings.

The legislation would also grant state attorneys general new powers to sue federal immigration authorities in federal court if they believe detention requirements aren’t being followed. States could bring legal challenges if they can demonstrate harm of at least $100 to the state or its residents, and courts would be required to expedite these cases. This provision marks a significant shift from current law, which primarily limits state involvement to information sharing and coordination with federal authorities.

According to immigration policy experts at Brookings, the Trump administration is expected to quickly end Biden-era humanitarian parole programs, conduct high-profile deportation raids, and restrict border asylum claims. While campaign promises of mass deportation may face logistical and resource constraints, enforcement is likely to be more aggressive than in recent years.