Dems for Deportation? The results of the 2024 election have apparently made an impact on a significant part of the party, if the results of this week's commitments on a GOP bill to rapidly tighten federal enforcement on illegal-immigrant lawbreakers mean anything. 

The bill, named after murdered Georgia student Laken Riley, passed the House yesterday with the support of 48 Democrats in the lower chamber. Today, progressive Senate Democrat Ruben Gallego signed on as a co-sponsor for the Senate version, joining John Fetterman in advancing the bill in the upper chamber:

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) on Wednesday became the second Senate Democrat to co-sponsor a Republican-led bill to crack down on illegal immigration ahead of a procedural vote on the measure on Friday.

The Laken Riley Act, which cleared the House on Tuesday with the support of 48 Democrats, would require federal authorities to detain illegal immigrants charged with theft-related crimes until deportation.

“Not only am I voting yes on the Laken Riley Act, I’m cosponsoring the bill,” Gallego posted. “Arizonans know better than most the real consequences of today’s border crisis. We must give law enforcement the means to take action to prevent tragedies like what occurred to Laken Riley.”

Worth noting: Gallego had been the darling of progressive activists, who heavily recruited him to challenge Kyrsten Sinema in the primary this cycle. Sinema switched to Independent and briefly considered running in the general against Gallego. A few months later, Sinema retired instead. Fetterman also ran as a progressive darling in a primary against centrist Conor Lamb, but has suddenly become a common-sense liberal more in the Joe Manchin mold rather than a Bernie Sanders acolyte, even before the 2024 election cycle began in earnest.

But the enlightenment on illegal immigrants and crime is not limited to these two Senate Democrats. Six more signed up to allow debate on the bill, which will defeat any attempt at a filibuster -- for now:

At least eight Senate Democrats are expected to vote to advance the bill in the upper chamber, giving it the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster if all Republicans vote in favor. It would then begin debate on the bill, and eventually a vote on final passage, where it would only need 51 votes to pass and send it to the president's desk.

Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., Gary Peters, D-Mich., John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Angus King, I-Maine, and John Fetterman, D-Ariz., have all said they will support advancing the bill. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he is likely to support advancing the bill. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., previously voted for the bill in the House.

"You know, I plan. I plan to support it. Because if you're a criminal, you should be held accountable," Rosen said.

Not all of these Democrats are confirmed to sign off on cloture to end debate. However, it's clear that they feel the pressure to allow the debate to take place. It's a sure bet that not all of them will vote to pass the bill; Hickenlooper already says he opposes the Laken Riley Act "in its current form" and will seek to amend it in some fashion before supporting it. 

One likely bone of contention is that the new legislation does not require that the underlying crime be violent in nature before triggering deportation, but that misses the point. If illegal immigrants commit any subsequent crime, their deportation should be expedited to immediate. We are not required to wait for violence before enforcing the existing law to send illegal aliens out of our country. 

Some of these eight may well vote against passage. But will they vote against cloture after the debate, which is the other point in which a filibuster can take place? It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely, because the same social and political pressure that has forced them to allow this debate will ramp up even more to allow a floor vote on the merits. And Gallego's support for the bill may force a number of these eight to vote aye in the end, too. 

Wonderful thing, elections, writes Laurie Roberts with some cynicism at the Arizona Republic:

In fact, it will make immigrants more vulnerable and likely break up families, something Gallego has professed to oppose.

My guess is that most Americans don’t care. But I’m surprised that Gallego doesn’t.

Clearly, Democrats went too far in pretending that all was well as President Joe Biden allowed the world to traipse across the U.S.-Mexico border, and now the pendulum has smacked them upside the head.

Gallego, elected in a swing state that supported Donald Trump, is just reading the room.

If only he also would read the fine print of the bill. It’s advertised as a way to deport violent criminals — something surely no one would oppose — but, in fact, it does much more.

But hey, details.

More like, But hey, reality. Americans just delivered a massive message to Democrats about the chaos resulting from Joe Biden's border crisis, and they want it ended now. If illegal immigrants want to keep their families together, then they can get out just as easily as they came in. And if they commit crimes before or instead of doing so, then how important was "family unity" to them in the first place?

Don't blame Gallego for "reading the room" If Democrats had done that from the start, we wouldn't need a Laken Riley Act -- and Laken Riley would still be alive and taking classes at Augusta University.