House Dem Says She Already Regrets Voting for Trump's Migrant Detention Law
A Democratic congresswoman says she regrets voting for the Laken Riley Act.
Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut said during a CNN town hall Thursday that after thinking about it, she would now vote 'differently.'
The legislation, named after a Georgia nursing student killed by a Venezuelan man who'd crossed the border illegally, was passed in January. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain undocumented immigrants accused of breaches of the law, ranging from theft to violent crimes.
Hayes said she voted for it because of a provision stating that individuals could be snared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if an attack 'caused injury or death to a police officer.' But, she told the network's Kaitlan Collins, that provision 'was one small piece of it.'
'As I've thought about it over the past couple of months, I probably would have voted differently. It's a vote that I regret,' she said. Collins called her response 'notable.'
Hayes added that she thought when the bill was signed into law Trump and his new administration were committed to working alongside their Democratic colleagues on securing the country's southern border.
'[Now, I'm] not really sure of that because I've seen the rhetoric that has come out and the attacks that have been targeted toward immigrants. So I am very cautious and careful when I am negotiating my votes moving forward.'
She added that immigrants, including those here legally who have followed the law, are being 'terrorized right now because they are unsure of what happens next.'
Hayes appeared at the town hall alongside fellow Democrat Derek Tran. The California representative was asked a question from a member of the public who was concerned about whether 'due process exists still in America.'
'Given your background both as an attorney and also the son of immigrants like myself, what made you vote yes on that?' engineer Johnny Nguyen, a Democrat voter, asked.
Tran, the son of Vietnamese immigrants, said while he has sympathy for those affected, he 'draws the line when it comes to crime.'
Some 46 Democrats joined Republicans in the House to vote for the Laken Riley Act. In the Senate, 12 Democrats gave their support to pass the legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats squaring off in Virginia primaries say one name a lot: Trump
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Two Virginia Democrats are battling Tuesday to be their party's nominee for attorney general. Yet, the name mentioned most in their campaigns is not that of their opponent, but rather a man who lives just over the Arlington Memorial Bridge: President Donald Trump. The barrage of changes Trump has wrought to American culture in the first few months of his second White House residency has ignited the campaigns of Virginia Democrats Jay Jones and Shannon Taylor as they appeal unrelentingly to the most devout swaths of their base ahead of down-ballot primary elections. The primary will also determine the party's nominations this year for lieutenant governor and some contested seats in the House of Delegates. In one of only two states electing governors in November — the other is New Jersey — the caustic anti-Trump rhetoric could be a hint of what voters nationwide will hear from Democrats in next year's midterm elections, when the stakes will be higher. Virginia's nominees for governor have been settled by default. Democrat Abigail Spanberger became her party's nominee after running unopposed, and Republican Winsome Earle-Sears was the only contender who gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot. The other statewide races are for attorney general and lieutenant governor, and Democrats in both contests seem to be vying to top each other with anti-Trump rhetoric and caustic ads. Republicans are not hosting statewide primaries this year, so only Democrats will pick a nominee for lieutenant governor. It's a part-time position that pays about $36,000 a year but is often a stepping stone to higher office. Six Democrats want the job , and most of them have pushed ad after ad on the airwaves and online about their commitment to taking on Trump if elected to the mostly ceremonial role. In the contest for attorney general, Jones and Taylor are competing in much the same way. Turnout is likely to be sluggish, which means firing up base voters is widely seen as the way to go. The last time a left-wing candidate for governor ran unopposed, roughly 142,000 Democrats voted for an attorney general nominee compared with more than 485,000 this past election cycle. Still, the AG's race has been spicy, more so when the candidates' criticism isn't directed at each other. Jones and Taylor have lambasted the White House and argued that the administration's actions should be litigated in court. When they are not lamenting Trump, their attacks are directed toward incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, who is seeking reelection. In their respective campaigns, the Democrats argue that Miyares submits to the president by not suing him. They say that sets him apart from more progressive attorneys general across the United States, who are going to court over such things as birthright citizenship and elections . Their main message: A Democrat will take the White House to trial when Miyares won't — and saving democracy starts there. 'The job is to protect Virginians, to fight for them, to work for them, to keep us safe,' Jones said while campaigning in June in Falls Church, Virginia, adding, 'I don't understand why he is not going after them.' Last month, Taylor told a room full of Democratic voters that Miyares would enable Trump's overreaches in Virginia, and potentially double down on institutions that don't comply with the president. Either way, 'the result is the same for Virginians: getting hurt,' she said. In a wide-ranging interview in May, Miyares said he identifies as a balls-and-strikes Republican. The former Virginia Beach state delegate, elected top prosecutor in 2021, worked to reduce violent crime. He sought settlements from Big Pharma. When he felt President Joe Biden's administration overstepped, he went to court . But as Trump was ushered into office for a second term, Miyares entered new political terrain. Unlike most other states, Virginians will elect their attorney general this November, nearly a year after the country voted for the president and his consequential agenda. Miyares has waded into the political arena. He often spars on social media with progressive prosecutors throughout Virginia for being too lenient in prosecuting criminal cases. Still, Miyares rebuffed the notion that suing Trump is his top concern. He said the Democrats looking to replace him fail to understand the nature of his position. The attorney general touted meaningful work his office has shouldered: holding listening sessions for crime victims, designating resources to support law enforcement and beefing up his office's prosecutions of child support cases. He flashed his law enforcement badge, tucked within a leather wallet, and described the emblem as a guidepost for being an effective people's prosecutor. 'They seem very obsessed with Donald Trump, whereas I'm obsessed with how am I going to keep Virginians safe?' Miyares said. ___ Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Cities brace for large crowds at anti-Trump ‘No Kings' demonstrations across the US
Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades while officials enforced curfews in Los Angeles and Democratic governors called Trump's Guard deployment 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Governors and city officials vowed to protect the right to protest and to show no tolerance for violence. Advertisement Republican governors in Virginia, Texas, Nebraska and Missouri are mobilizing National Guard troops to help law enforcement manage demonstrations. There will be 'zero tolerance' for violence, destruction or disrupting traffic, and 'if you violate the law, you're going to be arrested,' Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters Friday. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe issued a similar message, vowing to take a proactive approach and not to 'wait for chaos to ensue.' Nebraska's governor on Friday also signed an emergency proclamation for activating his state's National Guard, a step his office called 'a precautionary measure in reaction to recent instances of civil unrest across the country.' Advertisement Organizers say that one march will go to the gates of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis warned demonstrators that the 'line is very clear' and not to cross it. Governors also urged calm. On social media, Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, called for peaceful protests over the weekend, to ensure Trump doesn't send military to the state. 'Donald Trump wants to be able to say that we cannot handle our own public safety in Washington state,' Ferguson said. In a statement Friday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, urged 'protestors to remain peaceful and calm as they exercise their First Amendment right to make their voices heard.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said his administration and state police are working with police in Philadelphia ahead of what organizers estimate could be a crowd approaching 100,000 people. Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, warned that anyone coming to Philadelphia to break the law or immigration agents exceeding their authority will face arrest. He invoked civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a guide for demonstrators. 'If you are doing what Martin Luther King would have done, you're going to be fine,' Krasner told a news conference. Some law enforcement agencies announced they were ramping up efforts for the weekend. In California, state troopers will be on 'tactical alert,' which means all days off are canceled for all officers. Why is it called 'No Kings'? The 'No Kings' theme was orchestrated by the 50501 Movement, to support democracy and against what they call the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 50501 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement. Advertisement Protests earlier this year have denounced Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Protesters have called for Trump to be 'dethroned' as they compare his actions to that of a king and not a democratically elected president. Why are they protesting on Saturday? The No Kings Day of Defiance has been organized to reject authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics and the militarization of the country's democracy, according to a statement by organizers. Organizers intend for the protests to counter the Army's 250th anniversary celebration — which Trump has ratcheted up to include a military parade, which is estimated to cost $25 million to $45 million that the Army expects to attract as many as 200,000 people. The event will feature hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers. It also happens to be Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. 'The flag doesn't belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,' the 'No Kings' website says. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere he isn't — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' What is planned at the 'No Kings' protests? Protests in nearly 2,000 locations are scheduled around the country, from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, organizers said. Demonstrations are expected to include speeches and marches, organizers said in a call Wednesday. The group says a core principle behind all 'No Kings' events is a commitment to nonviolent action, and participants are expected to seek to de-escalate any confrontation. No weapons of any kind should be taken to 'No Kings' events, according to the website. How many people are expected to participate? The No Kings Day of Defiance is expected to be the largest single-day mobilization since Trump returned to office, organizers said. Organizers said they are preparing for millions of people to take to the streets across all 50 states and commonwealths. Advertisement
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Ketter column: Showdown over federal powers
Federal courts rarely agree with presidents who discount the boundaries of the rule of law. But that hasn't deterred President Trump from his concept of unbridled executive powers. A worrisome example is his dismissive trait for the checks and balances of the co-equal legislative and judicial branches of government ingrained in the Constitution by the republic's Founders 247 years ago. Trump's first term set the stage for radical change with his selection of three conservative Supreme Court justices to join the three already on the nine-member tribunal. He also appointed over 240 federal appeals court and district court judges. Now some of those appointees are among the judges pumping the brakes on his goal to bend the government to his will, which he exaggerates as his electoral mandate. Still, it is damn the torpedoes. Trump's full speed ahead agenda has tested the nation's nerves with a storm of executive orders overriding Congress, firing thousands of federal workers, imposing teeter-totter tariffs, deporting illegal and legal migrants, stretching conflict of interest rules, punishing adversaries and causing economic uncertainty. That's just a synopsis. Trump has already signed over 150 executive orders, many of which encroach on legislative prerogatives or face constitutional challenge. If there is a savior in the system, it is the Supreme Court. Yet our judicial system is the institution most under Trump's thunderous attack. If the high court finds merit in his effort to upend constitutional restraints, the repercussion will be an authoritarian government. Congress and the judiciary will hold supplicant status. That may seem far-fetched. But take a few minutes to reflect on Trump's conduct to undermine the divided authority explicit in our three branches of government. His disruptive rhetoric bears witness. Asked by Atlantic magazine this spring how his second term so far differed from his first term, Trump replied: 'The first time, I had two things to do — run the country and survive. I had all these crooked guys. and the second time, I run the country and the world.' Back in February, Trump ordered a halt to tolls for vehicles entering New York City's traffic-clogged core streets, declaring on his social media site: 'CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!' In April, after several court orders blocking his worklist, he said: 'We cannot allow a handful of communist, radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States.' Then came the Supreme Court ruling in May that Trump could not abruptly deport a group of Venezuelan migrants by ignoring their right to due process hearings in court. The president attacked the justices for 'not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. This is a bad and dangerous day for America.' Dangerous is a word some legal scholars apply to describe Trump's conduct toward immigrants. Due process, after all, is a right required by the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which makes clear 'any person' subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws is entitled to it. It is not just the rule of law and the Constitution that have invited Trump's ire. He recently lashed out at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, and the American Bar Association for misguiding him on selecting judges in his first term. He blamed them for bad advice at a time he was new to Washington, relying on their counsel for judges aligned with his political views and sense of justice — even though federal judges take an oath to rule impartially and uphold the rule of law. This time he's insisting on deeper vetting of candidates for judgeships. Foremost, they must be diehard loyalists to his conservative causes, the same principal characteristic used to pick his lemming-like cabinet. That's the legacy of a dictator, not a president who promised meritocracy.
