Laken Riley Act Could Have Implications for Higher Ed

Approval of U.S. visas—which has historically been up to federal officials in Washington—could soon be put in the hands of state attorneys general, creating immense uncertainty for colleges, universities and the international students and scholars they serve.

It all depends on whether the Senate passes the Laken Riley Act, an immigration measure that Republicans have championed as one of their first actions of the new 119th Congress.

Named after an Augusta University nursing student who was murdered in Athens, Ga., early last year by an undocumented migrant with a criminal record, the bill’s primary aim is to introduce harsher detention policies. But another section of the legislation that has largely flown under the radar could impact visas for lawful, documented individuals applying to work or study in the States.

This particular provision of the eight-page bill would expand the power of state appointees, allowing them to sue the federal government and seek sweeping bans on visas from countries that won’t take back deportees. This includes countries such as Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador that are south of the U.S. border and frequently a part of immigration debates, but it could also apply to countries like China and India, which colleges often depend on for large swaths of their international student population.

The bill swept through the House last week with support from 216 Republicans and 48 Democrats. Now, as the Senate resumes consideration, policy experts say it’s possible that enough Democrats will back the bill to help it clear the more difficult 60-vote threshold.

All but nine Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in advancing the Laken Riley Act to debate on Thursday. Senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, both Democrats, co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill, and Senators Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Jacky Rosen of Nevada indicated they would vote yes.

Fetterman told The Washington Post that while he “never suggested that it necessarily is a perfect bill,” it is “necessary.” When asked what he made of other Democrats choosing to consider the bill, he said, “It was a blinding flash of common sense.”

The bill was heard on the Senate floor Monday afternoon and could possibly receive a vote before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20. If all six continue to support the bill, only one more Democrat would have to back the bill in order to send it to the president’s desk.

Some higher education policy experts told Inside Higher Ed that they were unfamiliar with the bill and only started following it in recent days. But Miriam Feldblum, co-founder and executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, said college and university leaders should absolutely be concerned.

“We’re talking about loss of talent, loss of enrollment, loss of financial revenue contribution, not only for the campus, but for the community,” she said. “This may not have been fully understood when the bill was formulated, and for those who may be supporting different components of the bill, it’s important to recognize what these provisions could really implicate.”

How Would It Impact Higher Ed?

By enabling state attorneys general to file lawsuits not only about the handling of one individual deportee but also all visa applicants, the bill’s impact instantly becomes rather broad and can inadvertently harm the success of colleges and industry groups, Feldblum said.

“There’s a need for talent from specific countries such as China and India. We’re bringing in nonimmigrant professionals on H-1B [visas], or students on F-1s, or immigrant visa holders who are coming in to join family members,” she said. “Those individuals who are coming in legally through established processes should not be harmed.”

But if the bill passes as it stands, it very well could affect those individuals as well as institutions that enroll a high proportion of international students, she said. The legislation could also make it more difficult for families of existing students or scholars to access visas, deterring them from continuing to teach or research in the States.

Republicans who introduced the bill, however, seem to be less focused on the bill’s broader potential impacts and more on the acute issue of seeking justice for the Riley family.

“The Biden administration’s open-border policies have had a devastating impact on too many American families,” Senator John Boozman of Arkansas said in a news release introducing the bill. “Laken Riley’s loved ones now face that reality daily, coping with her unimaginable loss. This bipartisan, commonsense legislation to safeguard our communities by requiring ICE to arrest illegal immigrants who have committed crimes can help spare future victims and uphold the rule of law.”

The legislation is likely to be challenged in court as unconstitutional, since immigration oversight has historically been deemed a federal authority. But up until a state attorney general takes action and the first case makes its way through the court system, Feldblum says, the bill could still cause a significant chilling effect.

“It sends a message. If this is something that a state attorney general can do … it really creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty and anxiety among all international students,” she said.

Will the Bill Become Law?

If the bill makes it to the White House in its current form, President-elect Donald Trump would likely sign it into law when he takes office. The incoming executive has repeatedly blasted the Biden administration’s immigration policies and blamed them for Riley’s death at a campaign rally in March.

But Feldblum noted that parts of the bill are at odds with Trump’s increasing emphasis on ensuring that what immigration does occur legally promotes the introduction of skilled workers.

“The provisions we’ve been talking about are at odds with the goal to support, recruit, retain global talent and bolster national security and economic prosperity,” she said. “There’s bipartisan support for supporting international talent to be able to come study, work and contribute in the U.S., and, at the same time, there are clearly other forces that can undercut that.”

For those reasons, the alliance director was hesitant to say how likely the bill is to pass. Instead, she says the focus should be on making lawmakers aware of the damage it could do and helping to make amendments that ensure national security and public safety while continuing to attract top-level academics from around the world.

“Colleges and universities are very committed to supporting national security and the recruitment and retention of international students and scholars, and that’s not a contradiction,” she said. “What’s important now is to raise awareness about measures that undercut such imperatives that we have, and to work together to try to support our students.”