In the early morning hours, immigration officers stationed themselves near a two-story building as the rhythmic sounds of a New York subway echoed from overhead. A sense of urgency filled the air. After a long two-hour stakeout, an officer observed a man fitting their profile. Wearing a gray hoodie and a backpack, the man appeared to be in a hurry. His observation led to apprehending a 23-year-old Jamaican man, guilty of inappropriate behavior with a minor.
A common misunderstanding is that these officers arbitrarily collect a group of individuals deemed as illegal residents and send them back to their respective homelands. However, this couldn’t be farther from the truth – a process known as ‘targeted enforcement’ is actually implemented. It’s more surgical and precise, refraining from a blanket approach that targets all but rather focusing on key individuals.
Against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s notable return to the White House, curiosity spikes around his immigration policy. His previous approach had voiced an agenda of extensive deportations, sparking a national debate. Trump’s latest immigration initiatives already have a guillotine of public scrutiny hanging over them.
It’s fascinating to think about the gravity of the task ahead. The list of people earmarked for potential enforcement has grown larger than the number of officers capable of executing such orders. During his tenure, the Biden administration specifically focused on those who posed public safety threats or recently violated border laws for deportations.
Now, with President Trump back at the helm, his border team is signaling that his administration will also prioritize those who pose a public safety threat. Individuals with criminal backgrounds will be the focus before attention shifts to those with court orders for removal from the U.S.
The scale of the task becomes clearer when considering the numbers. From the estimated 1.4 million people with final orders of removal, about 660,000 under immigration supervision are either convicted criminals or facing charges. On the other hand, only around 6,000 officers within the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are responsible for overseeing non-nationals, locating, and removing ineligible individuals.
The discrepancy in these numbers is stark as caseloads have grown fourfold over the last decade to 7.6 million while the staff strength has stayed relatively constant. Officers must first find leads, verify legal permissions to carry out arrests, and then locate the individuals. Strict regulations mean they are generally prohibited from entering residencies, resulting in planning to apprehend suspects outside their homes.
A glimpse at the operational reality of immigration removals offers some insights. Over a recent one-year period, ICE managed to deport more than 270,000 individuals. This is the highest number in ten years, underscoring the commitment and hard work of those in the department.
However, the count of non-nationals arrested by ICE was relatively lower, primarily due to reallocating staff to manage the border situation. Despite fewer arrests, there was a significant increase in those with severe criminal histories among the apprehended, illustrating the targeted approach to law enforcement.
While political philosophies differ, some cities and states choose to cooperate with ICE to handle non-nationals in their custody. On the contrary, several left-leaning regions conform to ‘sanctuary’ policies that limit their involvement with federal immigration authorities. This difference in approach continues to fuel discussions on immigration policy and enforcement.
Even as these activities garner attention, a group of immigrant advocates express deep-seated worries about ICE tactics, particularly with Trump’s imminent return to the office. This concern amplifies the need for a coordinated approach to satisfying these policy objectives.
Strikingly, critics suggest that the incoming administration’s stance on targeting public safety threats is nothing new. They argue against language that inspires fear of immigrants, pointing out that this narrative isn’t helpful or fair. However, these critics fail to recognize the administration’s focus on offenders rather than the entirety of the immigrant population.
They often bring up instances where individuals might have committed a crime in distant past and have since transformed. Similarly, they note a few may have moved before receiving a removal notice. While these scenarios are valid, they stray from the crux of the issue—addressing the number of criminals in the country illegally.