What powers do immigration officers have? Is Trump's ICE going too far?
The specific policies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement change whenever a new president is in the White House, but the statutory enforcement provisions have remained relative stable since the enactment of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Reuters reporters Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke claim that the changes under the current administration are due to White House demands to increase daily arrest statistics. The White House announced recently that it wants Enforcement and Removal Operations to triple the average number of daily arrests — an increase from 1,000 to 3,000.
The reporters claim that community members and Democrats are pushing back against the administration's focus on increasing arrests, 'arguing that ICE is targeting people indiscriminately and stoking fear.' But is this really the problem, or is it that the current administration's policy is to arrest anyone found in the U.S. illegally?
The previous administration's policy was to limit enforcement to aliens 'who pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America's well-being.' It would be more appropriate, however, to judge ICE on the basis of whether officers are complying with the statutory enforcement restrictions — and I suspect that few people know what these restrictions are.
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations enforcement authority comes primarily from two sections in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 1226 provides that, upon issuance of an administrative arrest warrant, an ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer may arrest and detain an alien 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.' Administrative arrest warrants are issued by officers.
It also provides that an illegal immigrant can be released on a bond of at least $1,500, or on his own recognizance. Some criminal aliens are subject to mandatory detention.
Section 1357 provides authority for officers to act without a warrant in specified situations. For example, an officer can question any 'person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.' Section 1304(e) requires aliens 18 years of age and over to carry specified immigration documents with them at all times.
An Enforcement and Removal Operations officer can 'arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law.'
And perhaps the most controversial one is that officers can arrest any alien they have 'reason to believe' is in the United States unlawfully 'and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.'
The Fourth Amendment, meanwhile, provides that the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
A search is considered 'unreasonable' if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. A 'reasonable expectation of privacy' means that there is an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and the expectation is 'one that society recognizes as (objectively) reasonable.'
Consequently, immigration officers are required to obtain consent or to have a judicial warrant to enter spaces that are 'not open to the public, including homes, schools, and areas labeled 'private.'' But Enforcement and Removal Operations officers do not need a warrant or consent to enter areas that are open to the public. Judicial warrants are issued by judges, not by ICE officers.
Section 1357(g), also known as 287(g), permits the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement authorizing state or local law enforcement officers 'to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.'
ICE operates three programs with these agreements. The first is a Jail Enforcement Model 'to identify and process removable aliens — with criminal or pending criminal charges — who are arrested by state or local law enforcement agencies.'
The second is a Task Force Model, 'a force multiplier for law enforcement agencies to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight during their routine police duties.' The third is a Warrant Service Officer program that 'allows ICE to train, certify and authorize state and local law enforcement officers to serve and execute administrative warrants on aliens in their agency's jail.'
DHS regulations govern the use of force. They provide that non-deadly force may be used when an ICE officer has a reasonable basis for believing that such force is necessary.
'Deadly force' is defined as 'force that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury.' This is only permitted when an ICE officer 'has reasonable grounds to believe that such force is necessary to protect the … officer or other persons from the imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.'
I think the concern over the White House's call for Enforcement and Removal Operations to triple the daily arrest statistics is overstated. The administration is preparing appropriately to be able to handle the increase. It is going to hire 10,000 new ICE officers, in addition to a major increase in agreements with local authorities. As of April 2025, the administration had increased the program from 151 to 456 agreements.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
As partisan redistricting battles flare, Maine constitutional officers weigh in
Voters cast their ballots at the Quimby School gymnasium in Bingham, Maine on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. (Photo by Michael G. Seamans/ Maine Morning Star) Since President Donald Trump asked Texas to redraw its congressional maps to find five more Republican seats ahead of next year's elections, some Democratic states are considering redistricting to counter the effort. Maine is not, at least according to Gov. Janet Mills, though an anonymous group tried to encourage the Pine Tree State to intervene earlier this month by flying planes over Augusta with banners that read 'Mess with Texas.' The state's constitutional officers, Attorney General Aaron Frey and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, both Democrats, condemned Texas' move, and Trump instigating it, as a blatant abuse of power. But, they said Democratic states exploring the avenues legally available to them to redistrict outside the regular schedule is understandable. Bellows refrained from any judgement of those counter efforts, while Frey was more critical, particularly due to what he sees as a likely snowball effect. 'I am lamenting what this might mean for how our politics will continue, in terms of people trying to do the one-upsmanship,' Frey said in a sit-down with Maine Morning Star. 'As much as it probably sounds like it's a critique, it really is more of a concern about this being the evolution of where the politics is going.' The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the official party committee dedicated to electing Democrats to statehouses, called on Democrats on Aug. 4 to pursue redistricting opportunities to respond to possible changes to Texas' congressional map. Last week, California was the first state to release a proposal to that aim. Such ideas have also been floated by officials in New York, Maryland, and Illinois — whose governor has already waded into the redistricting battle by welcoming Texas Democrats who fled the state to block a vote on the Republican proposal. They've since returned. But, Republicans control more state legislatures than Democrats and Vice President JD Vance is touring those states to encourage more gerrymandering. Several, including Missouri, Florida and Indiana, are now considering redrawing their maps to counter the Democrats' countering. 'It should be a concern for all of us about what this means for the next time that the next majority is in power,' Frey said. 'I am hoping that I would have just as much concern if California would have been the first state to say that they were going to do this as I have about Texas saying that they're going to do this, even though it may be perfectly appropriate legally.' Redistricting procedures vary state by state but largely happen every ten years following new census data. Under the Maine Constitution, the state Legislature must establish a bipartisan advisory commission to draw its congressional and legislative districts every ten years. These maps are then sent to the Legislature for approval, though lawmakers aren't bound to those recommendations. Approval requires a two-thirds vote, and because neither party has held a supermajority in the last decade, this has typically required bipartisan support. The map is then subject to the governor's approval. Maine last went through this process in 2021. Mills did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether she supports the actions other Democratic states are considering to redraw their maps in response to Texas Republicans' attempts. A spokesperson told the Portland Press Herald in early August that she was not considering any actions related to redistricting in Maine. If the Legislature is unable to reach the two-thirds threshold, the Maine Supreme Court would draw the maps instead. 'It's understandable that other states are seeking to fight fire with fire,' Bellows said, echoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom, 'but none of what's happening outside of Maine would change unless the Legislature and the people of Maine decided to pursue a constitutional amendment.' A constitutional amendment in Maine requires a two-thirds vote, plus approval by the voters, so such a change, especially before the 2026 midterms, is not likely. When asked if Maine should get involved in the nationwide redistricting fight, Frey said, 'No, not at this point.' As the officer representing the state on legal matters, Frey said he doesn't see an opportunity for legal recourse given that other states drawing congressional districts is a state-level process pertaining to their residents and it doesn't have a direct harm to Maine. However, how these maps ultimately shape Congress will inevitably impact Maine, he said, looking at a list on his desk of lawsuits Maine has filed or joined against the Trump administration. Particularly if Trump gets his way in Texas, Frey said it could result in a continuation of a Congress that doesn't serve as an adequate check to the executive branch. Some politicians are seeking to choose their voters instead of their voters choosing them. – Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows Like other Democrats across the country, Frey and Bellows walked a line to frame their party's use of redistricting differently than Republicans'. 'The Trump administration is trampling all over the norms in our democracy, and it is really important that people stand strong for our values in this moment,' Bellows said. 'What's concerning about what Texas is trying to do is they are basically trying to cheat their way into electoral success in 2026 and 2028, so it's understandable that some of the larger states that are blue states are thinking about how they might respond.' Of those clear political aims, Frey similarly said, 'There's no mask to it,' arguing it would be different if Texas had come to a conclusion that redistricting mid-cycle was needed because its districts were no longer representative due to population shifts or another clear reason. 'Let's say this was Joe Biden who in 2023 was like, 'California, Gavin Newsom, you like us, California does a lot of stuff that supports the administration, I need you to go redistrict and get me five more seats in Congress,'' Frey said. 'What would people say?' But while Frey said Democratic states may be legally within their right to explore counter measures, he doesn't see it as a productive way to resolve political discord nor address the priority issues of everyday Americans, such as the cost of living. 'If anything, it's creating a system that is going to be more unable to meet what it is that, I think, Mainers and the American people are asking for,' Frey said. As Trump eyes election changes, Secretary Bellows warns of fallout Earlier this month Bellows officially responded to the U.S. Department of Justice's request for sweeping voter data, questioning the federal agency's intentions and asking that the request be withdrawn. She sees a throughline with that effort, Trump's executive orders and his push for Texas Republicans to redistrict. 'Some politicians are seeking to choose their voters instead of their voters choosing them,' Bellows said. 'Many of these initiatives seem designed to shrink the population of people who are participating in elections, to spread fear and deter people from participating, or to create artificial barriers to participation.' Frey also sees connections. The day before speaking with Maine Morning Star, Frey had returned from a trip to Washington, D.C., where he saw National Guard troops and FBI agents gathered on the mall. 'They are pushing boundaries to see how far they can get,' Frey said of the administration. Pulling up the president's post on Truth Social ordering the U.S. Commerce Department to start working on a new U.S. Census that does not count people in the country illegally, Frey asked, 'What's the end?' He sees all of these moves as a test of the democratic foundation of the country, the U.S. Constitution. 'If enough citizens out there who are protected by this contract decide that they are unwilling to hold the president to the limitations that the constitution places on government action, I mean, at a certain point that contract by both parties is just going to dissolve,' Frey said. The book 'The Storm Before the Calm' sat on his desk as he added a hopeful nod, explaining the current moment could provide an opportunity to be reminded of the importance of those protections. The book, by geopolitical forecaster George Friedman, views American history through cycles, enduring upheaval and conflict but, ultimately, increasing in strength and stability. With 2026 on the horizon — when Maine's governorship, U.S. Senate seat, two U.S. House seats and Legislature are all up for reelection — Frey said, 'Maybe there will be an opportunity for renewal.' Time will tell how redistricting may play a part in that. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hotel Worker Detained by ICE at Routine Immigration Appointment
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Colombian man seeking asylum was arrested by federal agents while attending a routine immigration appointment in Tennessee, his girlfriend told Newsweek. Morgan Bowser, 28, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained her partner, John Ever Pineda Calderón, 35, a hotel renovation worker seeking asylum, inside the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) Office in Memphis. Bowser said she was waiting in the parking lot as the arrest unfolded on August 7 around 10 a.m. An ISAP appointment is a scheduled check-in that immigrants are required to attend while their immigration cases are being processed. Bowser, who described waiting for hours without knowing what had happened to Calderón, said she was left heartbroken after receiving a call from him confirming he had been detained and transferred. Morgan Bowser with her partner, John Ever Pineda Calderón. Morgan Bowser with her partner, John Ever Pineda Calderón. Supplied Calderón, who has been in the United States since February 2023, had recently applied for asylum and withholding of removal, Bowser said. His application had been filed four days before his detention, she added. "He felt nervous, but not that he felt anything would happen to him. It was just a feeling he had. We even contemplated getting out of the car to hug, but we did just in case it would be our last for a while," she said. Bowser said she returned to her car with her laptop to work while waiting, keeping track of people coming and going. After several hours and checking with Calderón's lawyer, she discovered he had been taken to another facility about five minutes away. Calderón called her briefly to explain he had been transported and reassured her before ending the call. The Trump administration has ramped up immigration arrests of those who entered the country during former President Joe Biden's administration. The White House has ordered several agencies to work together to carry out President Donald Trump's pledge of widespread mass deportations. The administration has maintained that anyone living in the country illegally is a criminal. In a statement to Newsweek, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended Calderón's detention. "John Ever Pineda Calderon, an illegal alien from Colombia, illegally crossed the southern border on February 10, 2023. Under the Biden Administration, Border Patrol arrested and RELEASED him into our country," DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek. McLaughlin encouraged migrants to self-deport, noting a federal program that offers $1,000 and a free flight for those who voluntarily leave the United States. Calderón is in federal custody at the ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana, according to the ICE detainee locator. His family in Colombia is anxious and uncertain about his detention, said Bowser, who added that they do not fully understand the complexities of the U.S. immigration system or why he was taken into custody. "I am feeling an array of emotions ranging from fear, distraught, grief, hope and support," Bowser said. "I have to keep a smiling face and maintain composure when I'm speaking to John on the phone or visiting him because I know how easily those who are detained can lose hope," she said. "No one should have to live in fear. No one should have to fight an immigration case from detention. It is inhumane," she added. Bowser said Calderón had a scheduled hearing on August 20 in Jena.
