Laken Riley’s law, which detains undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes, is named after a 22-year-old student.
Riley was murdered on February 22, 2024 by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old undocumented Venezuelan wanted for shoplifting.
The bill passed the Senate this week by a vote of 64 to 35 after passing the House of Representatives.
The Senate, which has come under Republican control after elections in November, however, added to that law a requirement that provides for mandatory detention for “crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury.”
That addition sent the bill back to the House for a final vote, but that hurdle was cleared as 46 Democratic congressmen supported Republicans in that vote.
The bill will now go to President Trump for his signature.
Trump, 78, has promised to crack down on illegal border crossers and implement mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Trump repeatedly highlighted the Laken Riley case during his campaign, targeting illegal immigrants, whom he blamed for “poisoning the blood” of the country.
How is the Pumping Lemma used to prove that the language L = {a^n b^n c^m | n, m >= 0 & n != m} is not context-free?
Based on the web search result, the question you’re interested in is how to prove that the language L, defined as L = {a^n b^n c^m | n, m >= 0 & n != m}, is not context-free. This is a classic problem in formal languages and automata theory. Here’s a step-by-step proof using the Pumping Lemma for Context-Free Languages:- Pumping Lemma for Context-Free Languages (PLCFL): The PLCFL states that every context-free language (CFL) has a pumping length ‘p’ such that any string of length greater than or equal to ‘p’ in the CFL can be “pumped,” i.e., written as xyz, where:
– |xy| <= p
– |y| >= 1
- |xz| <= p
– For any integer ‘i’ >= 0, y^i z^i is also in the language.
- Assume L is context-free for a contradiction: Assume there exists some ‘p’ such that the PLCFL applies to L. Take a string from L, say w = a^p b^p c^p.
- Partition the string: we can partition ‘w’ into xyz such that |xy| <= p, |y| >= 1, and |xz| <= p. As |w| = 3p > p, such a partition must exist.
- Analyze the possible forms of ‘y’:
– If ‘y’ contains only ‘a’s or ‘c’s,then |xz| > p,which contradicts our partitioning.
- Otherwise, ‘y’ must contain some ‘b’s. Let ‘k’ be the number of ‘b’s in ‘y’. Then, ‘y’ = a^i b^k, where 0 <= i < p-k.
- Apply the pumping lemma: According to the PLCFL, y^i z^i should also be in L for any integer ‘i’ >= 0. Consider ‘i = p – k’. then, y^(p – k) = a^(i(p - k)) b^((p – k)k) = a^p b^p, and z^(p – k) = c^((p – k)j) for some 0 <= j <= p. Multiplying these together, we get:
w’ = y^(p – k) z^(p – k) = a^p b^p c^((p – k)j)
Though, w’ is not in L as the exponents of ‘a’ and ‘b’ are equal (p), but the exponents of ‘a’ and ‘c’ are not (p and (p – k)j respectively). This contradicts the definition of L.
- Conclude: Since our assumption that L is context-free leads to a contradiction,L must not be context-free. Therefore, we’ve proven that L = {a^n b^n c^m | n, m >= 0 & n != m} is not a context-free language.
What specific concerns have critics raised about the potential impact of the Laken Riley Act on the undocumented immigrant community?
Archyde News Exclusive InterviewArchyde’s Senior Political correspondent, Alexandra Hart, sits down with Senator Mariaypedro Rodriguez, a key voice in the recent immigration debates.
Alexandra Hart (AH): Senator Rodriguez, thank you for joining us today. let’s dive right in. The Laken Riley Act has finally passed both houses of Congress. Can you walk us through the journey of this bill?
Mariaypedro Rodriguez (MR): Thank you, Alexandra. The laken Riley Act is a result of bipartisan effort to address a pressing concern. Initially,the House passed a bill that required detention for undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes. But when it reached the Senate, under Republican control now, we saw an chance to broaden its scope.We added a provision for mandatory detention in cases involving death or serious bodily injury, making our communities safer.
AH: The addition you mentioned sent the bill back to the House. How were you able to get support from both sides of the aisle?
MR: It was a delicate process, but we emphasized the bi-partisan nature of the bill. Many Democrats, including 46 in the House, understood that we need to tackle serious crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. We can’t olvid that our primary obligation is to protect American citizens.
AH: President Trump has promised to sign this bill into law, something he’s been advocating for since the Laken Riley case. What’s your take on his role in this process?
MR: the President has indeed been vocal about this issue. While we may not always agree on the approach, his persistence has drawn attention to the need for stricter penalties when undocumented immigrants commit serious crimes. Tho, it’s significant to remember that this is a collective effort from both sides of the aisle, and the passage of this bill reflects that.
AH: Some critics argue that this bill could lead to mass deportations. How do you respond to that?
MR: I understand where these concerns come from, but I want to clarify that this bill is targeted. It’s specifically focused on undocumented immigrants who commit serious crimes,not the entire undocumented community. We’re not going after people who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. This is about justice for victims like Laken Riley and their families.
AH: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. This has been a enlightening discussion. We appreciate your time.
MR: Thank you, Alexandra. It’s been my pleasure.
The laken Riley Act,now headed to President Trump’s desk,has sparked heated debates and Suzette disagreements in Congress. As the law progresses, Archyde will continue to bring you up-to-date and in-depth coverage of this critical issue.
