ICE arrests

The New York Times used data from the Deportation Data Project at UC Berkeley to track the pace of daily arrests. During 2024, arrests averaged about 300 a day. At the outset of the Trump administration the pace jumped to 750, the settled in at about 600. The pace began to rise in late April, and then in early June jumped to over 1,000 a day. Thus, the pace of arrests now are triple over 2024.

In the first week of June, ICE data analyzed by Cato showed an average daily arrests of about 1,200 with 29% involving persons with convictions.  Since January, the share of arrests (or detentions) without a conviction has risen from about half towards three quarters. More than 93 percent of ICE book-ins were never convicted of any violent offenses. About nine in ten had no convictions for violent or property offenses. Most convictions (53 percent) fell into three main categories: immigration, traffic, or nonviolent vice crimes. The appendix table at the end of this post has data by detailed crime and broad crime categorization.

This posting is on ICE’s power to arrest and detain.

Detentions

The number of persons in detention went over 50,000 in early June, rising from an average in 2024 of about 35,000. As of June 14, ICE had booked into detention 204,297 individuals (since October 1, 2024, the start of fiscal year 2025).  This comes to an average of about persons a day.  15% of these cases involve property theft, violence or non-violent vice (such as drug offences).

During May, 28,000 were placed in detention – a daily average of about 950. While the number detained by Customs and Border Patrol has dropped, due to the collapse of the volume of persons crossing the Mexican border illegally (from 24,356 to 17,085), ICE detentions have soared (from 14,882 to 39,314). (These figures at January 26 and June 15.) The total of 53, 397 is comparable to the average of about 35,000 during 2024.  71% did not have a criminal record.

As of end of May, 185,825 persons were released by ICE with homing devices

(Go here, here and here.)

Deportations

There is a wide gap between what DHS says and what the actual data show.

On June 10, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration’s deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.

According to a careful tracking of ICE data, between January and early June, 106,465 persons were deported. 99,481 were sent to western Hemisphere countries.   The largest destination countries were Mexico (48,578), Guatemala (14,193), Honduras (12,214), El Salvador (4,697), and Colombia (3,858). These figures very roughly reflect their share of unauthorized persons in the U.S. except that Mexicans are estimated to comprise about 40% of unauthorized persons. (Go here.)

These deportation figures reflect longstanding migration patterns from Latin America and the Caribbean into the United States. When considering the entire Western Hemisphere—which includes nations across North, Central, and South America, as well as the Caribbean—the total number of citations amounts to 99,481. This accounts for a substantial share of the dataset, underscoring the regional concentration of deportation cases.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”  It declard that the children of certain noncitizen mothers would no longer be considered U.S. citizens at birth unless the father was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Specifically, it targeted U.S.-born children whose mothers were either unlawfully present or in the country only temporarily, including those on tourist, student, or work visas.

Many suits were filed to block the implementation of the Executive Order.  One was a class action suit was by the immigrant-rights organization CASA and others, in the federal District Court for District of Maryland. This suit and others obtained an injunction halting enforcement of the Executive Order.

The Supreme Court’s lifted the injunction in its decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. on June 27, 2025. The majority questioned the pursuit of a nationwide class action.  It was skeptical about whether the plaintiffs, particularly plaintiffs such as CASA, could represent the interests of a broad class of unborn children potentially affected by the Order.

CASE et al immediately reformulated its legal strategy and filed an amended class action suit  on the same day of the Supreme Court decision. They abandoned, at least temporarily, the pursuit of a broad nationwide class action. The amended complaint (8:25-cv-00201-DLB) focused on a narrower set of plaintiffs with clearly articulated, individualized harms. Plaintiffs included two non-profit groups, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, along with five pregnant women referred to by pseudonyms (Maribel, Juana, Trinidad Garcia, Monica, Liza)

CASA’s argument summarized

The complaint asserts that the foundational American legal principle of jus soli—the right of the soil—establishing that all persons born within U.S. territory, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, are citizens at birth. It contends that this principle, enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, was adopted specifically to prevent discriminatory denials of citizenship based on ancestry or legal status, such as those at the heart of the infamous Dred Scott decision. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is invoked.

On the matter of “subject to the jurisdiction” provision of the 14^th Amendment, “At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, “subject to the jurisdiction” was a commonly used phrase with “a clear meaning and scope.” ….And nearly everyone present in a sovereign’s territory, including noncitizens, is subject to that sovereign’s power of “governing or legislating,” entitled to that sovereign’s protection, and thus “subject to the jurisdiction” of that sovereign.”….“Regardless of the immigration status of their parents, children born in the United States are undoubtedly “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” at the moment of their birth. Both federal and state governments today extend to children born in the United States—as well as their parents while physically present in the United States—the equal protection of the laws and assert regulatory authority over them.”

The plaintiffs include organizations plaintiffs, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), and individual pregnant women who fear that their children will be denied citizenship under the Executive Order. These individuals face the prospect of statelessness for their children, unequal treatment of siblings born under different administrations, and legal uncertainty that could bar their children from education, healthcare, voting, and the ability to remain in their country of birth. “If denied United States citizenship, U.S.-born babies may lack citizenship in any country, leaving them stateless, “a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.” (Trop, 356 U.S. at 101.) Without a homeland, a stateless person’s “very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself.”

Also, the suit emphasizes the societal and economic costs of this policy, noting that birthright citizenship has historically contributed to U.S. prosperity by ensuring full integration and civic participation of native-born children, regardless of their parents’ legal status. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Executive Order is unlawful and unconstitutional.

 

 

Since 2000, international student attendance at American colleges and universities rose from 300,000 to over one million. It appears that over 200 colleges and universities have at least 10% of their student body made-up of international students (primarily visa category, F-1). Here is a log of steps the administration has taken to impact this flow.

Revocation and reinstatement of 1,800 + student visas

The Statement Department began sometime, perhaps in March, to revoke student visas without giving notice to the educational institution. By late April 280 institutions reported  1,879 revocations; there may have been as many as 4,700.

Secretary of State Rubio said that some 300 student visas have or are being cancelled: “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa“….”I hope at some point we run out because we have gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”(Go here). Also he said, “Rubio alleged that students came “not just to study but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings and cause chaos.”

On April 25, in the face of hundreds of lawsuits and temporary restraining orders, the administration reversed all revocations. The methodology for visa revocations was not fully revealed but appears to be identifying students with often minor infractions such as driving violations. It is possible that Jewish activist groups, such as Betar, had suggested to the administration persons it wanted removed.

All student visa applications under review suspended for a few weeks

On May 27, the State Department temporarily halted review of new student visa applications with the explanation that vetting guidelines needed to be reviewed.

Per Boundless, the State Department cable on June 18, told consular officers to renew the review of student visa applications and conduct a “comprehensive and thorough vetting” of each applicant’s online activity. Officers are instructed to look for “hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.”

Harvard University

ICE oversees the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. SEVP was created after 9/11 in order to manage international student enrollment. Educational institutions must meet standards of record keeping, instructional programming, accreditation, control over illegal entry and other features to receive certification.  Removal of certification normally is the result of audits by ICE. Total and permanent removal of certification has been rare and always associated with some form of visa fraud engineered by the school.

Harvard’s international student enrollment in 2024-2025 was 6,793, or 27% of total enrollment.  These figures in 2006-2007 were 3,941 and 20%.

On May 22, the administration revoked Harvard SEVP certification.  This came a month after DHS demanded from Harvard information about “criminality and misconduct” of international students. The revocation was justified by DHS as “Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.”

On May 23 Harvard obtained a temporary stay.

On June 4, Trump issued a proclamation banning Harvard from enrolling international students. The proclamation cited statutes authorizing the “President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.”

This proclamation as well has been suspended by a court. Both federal actions are addressed in one suit, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. DHS, Case No. 1:25-cv-11472 (D. Mass., filed May 23, 2025).

Partial revocation of Chinese student visas

On May 28 the administration began to revoke visas of some Chinese students with the justification that the Chinese Communist Party is exploiting American universities. On June 4 the administration appears to have suspended this revocation. It remains unclear what this was all about.

Post-graduation work visas

About 300,000 international students who graduated from an American college or university are today working under the Optional Practical Training program. It provides up to 12 months of work authorization in a student’s field post-degree. A STEM OPT extension provides an additional 24 months for STEM graduates.

The expected head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, testified to Congress in May that he wants to terminate OPT.

 

 

 

A June 2025 Congressional Research Service analysis addresses the legal framework for interior immigration enforcement ICE. It derives its authority from two statutes—8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1357—which allow immigration officers to arrest and detain individuals believed to be removable, typically with an administrative (not judicial) warrant.  The following is based on but goes beyond the CRS report.

Encounters in public and private areas, briefly detain

The Supreme Court has not decided whether immigration authorities may briefly detain individuals solely on a reasonable suspicion that they are unauthorised aliens, absent reasonable suspicion of their unlawful presence. However, some lower courts have ruled that an immigration officer may not detain an alien to investigate his or her immigration status (e.g., stopping a pedestrian on the street) absent reasonable suspicion of the alien’s unlawful presence. The officer may not rely solely on “generalizations,” such as an individual’s appearance, ethnicity, or inability to speak English, to establish reasonable suspicion.

An immigration officer conducting an inspection may not enter the non-public areas of a business, a residence, a farm (excluding private lands near the border) to question the occupants or employees about their immigration status in the absence of a warrant or the property owner’s consent. The immigration officer may enter publicly accessible parts of a business without any warrant, consent, or reasonable suspicion of the unlawful presence of aliens.

Interrogation

ICE may conduct interrogations and brief detentions as part of an investigation into possible immigration violations. Section 1357(a)(1) states that an immigration officer may, without a warrant, “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” But this cannot be done simply on a superficial ground, such as dress, tattoos and language spoken.

Arrests

Note the distinctions between civil violation, misdemeanor, and felony.  A civil violation includes being present in the U.S. without lawful status and overstaying a visa. The following are usually classified as felonies: identity fraud, document fraud, harboring unauthorized workers, or knowingly hiring them. The great majority of unauthorized persons who work as employees and not independent contractors have committed identity and document fraud.

ICE can arrest some one in public without a warrant  then they have “reason to believe” the person is in the U.S. illegally, and the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. This “reason to believe” must be based on facts, not just appearance or presence in a particular area.

An administrative warrant, always for a civil not a criminal violation, is often used to arrest someone inside a home or other protected private place such as a worksite. An administrative warrant is issued by an official or officer within an administrative agency, such ICE and OSHA.  Is it usually based on reasonable suspicion, not full probable cause. It cannot be used to enter private dwellings without consent of the person controlling the site, for example to forcibly enter someone’s home –a constraint established by courts. not the law itself. A judicial warrant, used in criminal cases, is issud by a judge or magistrate.

Worksite raids to arrest multiple persons are typically undertaken using a judicial warrant, i.e. for felonies, and must be based on evidence of criminal activity. Permission of the party controlling the site is not needed. Arrest and deportation actions can be and typically are challenged post raid on the basis of lack of due process, such as fast tracking to detention and deportation without substantial case-by case-assessment and failure in declaration of right to attorney. If an administrative warrant is used, the persons can be arrested only for a civil violation, typically being present without legal status, and permission of the person controlling the site is required.

ICE officers may arrest without a warrant if the individual is observed entering unlawfully or is likely to escape arrest. These powers are constrained by the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause and prohibits warrantless home entries absent exigent circumstances or consent.

Detention

Detention is mandatory for certain limited categories, such as those with major felonies or terrorist involvement.

The Laken Riley Act (March 9, 2024) greatly expanded detention options as it allows ICE at its discretion to detain persons arrested for illegal presence (a civil violation) and charged with, arrested for, or convicted of non-violent offenses like burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assaulting a police officer, or any crime causing death or serious injury. Note that being charged is sufficient.

ICE is authorized, while removal proceedings go on, to release the person from detention on a bond or on the person’s own recognizance subject to specified conditions. The statute provides that the bond or parole may be revoked at any time, and that the alien may be rearrested and detained under the original warrant.

1-9 inspections

In workplaces, ICE may inspect I-9 forms with three days’ notice, without needing a warrant, but may not enter private areas without consent or a judicial warrant.

“Sensitive” or”protected” places

In 2011, ICE issued “sensitive locations” guidance via internal memoranda. The policy limited immigration enforcement actions—such as arrests, interviews, searches, and surveillance—at or near places of worship, schools, hospitals. funeral services and public religious or civil ceremonies. In DHS Policy on Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas (Oct. 27, 2021), “sensitive” locations was replaed by “protected areas” and the scope broadened to include, for example, courthouses, playgrounds and disaster response centers.

Note, however, that persons can be detained if arrested while in removal proceedings (i.e., have been issued a Notice to Appear).

On January 20, 2025, DHS rescinded the 2011 and 2021 guidelines. A court subsequently ordered ICE to reinstate the protections for places of worship.

 

In a motion filed June 11, attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked the U.S. District Court in Maryland (Judge Paula Xinis) to hold the federal government in civil contempt, alleging a sustained a willful campaign to defy court orders and obstruct the discovery process.

At the center of the motion is the government’s alleged failure to comply with a Supreme Court-backed order requiring it to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return and produce records explaining what steps it had taken to do so. Plaintiffs argue that for nearly two months, the government repeatedly flouted court directives: evading deadlines, producing almost no meaningful documents, asserting sweeping and unsupported claims of privilege, and fielding witnesses who either lacked personal knowledge or refused to answer questions.

“While the government was telling this Court one thing and the world something else, it was secretly working to charge Abrego Garcia with two felony immigration charges based on the alleged conduct that occurred years ago, and that it previously trumpeted in the media as justifying his removal. Although Attorney General Bondi declined, when asked by reporters, to state when the criminal investigation began, public reporting indicates that it started in April, around the same time that this court ordered an expedited discovery into the government’s apparent defiance of court orders. Moreover, even after the grand jury returned the indictment on May 21, the government represented to this court that plaintiff’s injuries were not redressable. That is, the government argued there was nothing it could do to return Abrego Garcia pursuant to this court’s order because he was “in the custody of El Salvador” so the court should just dismiss the case.”

Depositions of four high-ranking official, including DHS’s Acting General Counsel, yielded virtually nothing. Witnesses claimed ignorance of facts central to their sworn declarations and were instructed not to answer over 90 times. One deponent may have offered false testimony, as press reports suggest he privately acknowledged DHS had arranged for Abrego Garcia’s continued confinement in El Salvador, despite testifying otherwise.

The filing asks the court to impose strong sanctions. The lawyers portray a government operating in open defiance of the judiciary, not merely resisting discovery but actively concealing the truth and subverting the rule of law.