On the same day that Representative Becca Balint voted “no” on the Lakin-Riley Act, tragedy struck Vermont. A U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot and killed in Newport while attempting to apprehend an illegal alien—a visa overstayer. What began as a routine effort to address a minor immigration violation escalated into a deadly encounter, with the illegal alien fatally shooting the agent in the neck. This incident serves as a stark reminder that the issue of immigration enforcement is not theoretical for Vermont. It is a real and pressing concern, with deadly consequences when enforcement gaps allow preventable tragedies to occur. At the same time, Vermont’s state and federal leaders demonstrated resistance to policies designed to close those gaps, raising questions about their commitment to public safety.
The Tragedy of Lakin Riley
The Lakin-Riley Act was born out of tragedy. Lakin Riley, a nursing student with a bright future ahead of her, was murdered by an individual who was in the country illegally and had previously been arrested for a property crime. Instead of being detained, the individual was released on their own recognizance (ROR) and cited to appear in court. While awaiting trial, this offender committed additional crimes, ultimately leading to Riley’s violent death. This preventable tragedy exposed significant flaws in the system: Individuals with no legal status, verifiable identity, or ties to the community were being released back into society. Many absconded or, worse, committed further crimes, posing a direct threat to public safety. The Lakin-Riley Act was crafted as a direct response to these failures, aiming to prevent similar incidents by ensuring that those accused of crimes and in the country unlawfully are detained pending trial.
What the Lakin-Riley Act Proposes to Do
The act is a preventative measure designed to close these enforcement gaps and protect public safety. It requires the mandatory detention of illegal aliens accused of certain offenses, such as theft-related crimes, to prevent flight risks or additional offenses. It grants states the authority to sue the federal government for failures to enforce immigration laws. It imposes federal funding conditions, meaning jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities would lose federal funds tied to public safety and enforcement.
Vermont’s Delegation: What They Did
Senator Bernie Sanders
- What He Did: Sanders voted no on the Lakin-Riley Act. Before doing so, he introduced an unrelated amendment focused on reforming the H-1B visa program. The amendment had no connection to the act’s purpose and was ultimately rejected.
- Why It Matters: Sanders’ actions appeared to prioritize political bargaining over public safety. By voting against the act after his amendment failed, Sanders demonstrated a lack of focus on preventing tragedies like those of Lakin Riley and the Border Patrol agent.
Senator Peter Welch
- What He Did: Welch voted yes on January 9, 2025, to advance the Lakin-Riley Act for debate. On January 15, 2025, he proposed an amendment that would have excluded children aged 0-16 from mandatory detention and limited detention for 17- and 18-year-olds to cases where they were deemed a danger to the community or a flight risk. The amendment also introduced a provision for detention reviews after three months. When the amendment failed, Welch ultimately voted no on the final passage of the bill on January 17, 2025.
- Why It Matters: Welch’s amendment, while appearing humanitarian in intent, introduced subjective and impractical standards that would have weakened the bill’s enforcement mechanisms. By exempting broad groups from mandatory detention and creating loopholes for juveniles, his proposal undermined the act’s core purpose of preventing flight risks and protecting public safety. His eventual “no” vote further reflects his resistance to the act’s objectives, despite the pressing need for stronger enforcement measures.
Representative Becca Balint
- What She Did: Balint voted no on the Lakin-Riley Act, continuing her consistent opposition to public safety measures, instead focusing on the concerns of illegal aliens and legal immigrants. She also voted against H.R. 7909, which sought to deport illegal aliens and legal immigrants convicted of violent crimes.
- Why It Matters: Balint’s actions reflect an ideological opposition to policies prioritizing public safety, even in the face of preventable tragedies. Her focus on protecting illegal aliens and legal immigrants, regardless of their criminal history, raises questions about her commitment to safeguarding her constituents.
Vermont’s Non-Cooperation Policies and the Risk to Federal Funds
Vermont’s current policies actively limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Many Vermont law enforcement agencies are prohibited from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), limiting their ability to detain or report illegal aliens. Under the Lakin-Riley Act, jurisdictions that maintain sanctuary policies will forfeit federal funding tied to public safety. Vermont faces a choice: cooperate with federal enforcement and retain funding, or maintain its policies and lose federal dollars. Vermont’s Attorney General, Charity Clark, and other state officials have doubled down on their resistance, emphasizing the need to protect undocumented workers vital to the state’s agriculture industry. However, this stance raises difficult questions: Does protecting undocumented workers justify risking public safety and losing federal funds? And what message does this send to law enforcement and Vermonters at large?
Conclusion: Public Safety vs. Ideological Resistance
The murder of a Border Patrol agent in Vermont on the same day as Becca Balint’s “no” vote highlights the real-world stakes of immigration enforcement. The Lakin-Riley Act is not about demonizing immigrants; it’s about stopping preventable tragedies by ensuring those who are in the country illegally and accused of additional crimes are detained and held accountable. Vermont’s congressional delegation has shown varying degrees of resistance to this principle. Sanders prioritized unrelated labor reforms over public safety. Welch offered an amendment that would have effectively undermined the act’s preventative measures. Balint voted against the act outright, continuing a pattern of opposing federal immigration enforcement legislation. As Vermont officials maintain their opposition to federal enforcement, the state risks losing critical funding while leaving its citizens and law enforcement vulnerable. Vermonters must ask themselves: Are our leaders prioritizing public safety, or are they allowing ideology to override common sense and responsibility?
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #PublicSafety #LakinRileyAct #ImmigrationReform
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply