How Are Immigrants Deported? A Comprehensive Guide to U.S. Removal Proceedings

#Immigrants #Deported #Comprehensive #Guide #Removal #Proceedings

How Are Immigrants Deported? A Comprehensive Guide to U.S. Removal Proceedings

1. Understanding the Basics: What is Deportation?

Let's be honest, the word "deportation" hits different, doesn't it? It's not just a dry legal term; it's a loaded concept, fraught with images of families torn apart, lives uprooted, and futures abruptly halted. For many, it conjures up visions of stern-faced agents and sudden, irreversible exits. In the U.S. immigration system, this concept – the forced removal of a non-citizen from the country – is a critical, albeit often controversial, mechanism. Its purpose, at its core, is to enforce the nation's immigration laws, maintain border integrity, and ensure that those residing within its borders do so in accordance with established legal frameworks. But let's clarify right off the bat: while "deportation" is the term commonly used in everyday conversation and in news headlines, the U.S. government officially refers to this process as "removal."

The scope of removal proceedings is vast and touches upon nearly every facet of immigration law. It's not just about individuals who may have crossed a border without authorization; it can also affect long-term lawful permanent residents, asylum seekers, students, and even those with temporary visas who have violated the terms of their stay. The breadth of circumstances that can trigger a removal action is astonishingly wide, ranging from serious criminal convictions to minor infractions, from overstaying a visa by a single day to alleged misrepresentations on an application decades ago. It's a complex web, and understanding it requires peeling back layers of legal jargon, policy shifts, and the very real human stories at its heart.

When we talk about the U.S. immigration system, we're discussing a behemoth of federal agencies, courts, and statutes. On one side, you have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), encompassing agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the border and ports of entry, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the interior. These are the enforcement arms. On the other, you have the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), serving as the judicial arm. This bifurcated structure means that while DHS initiates and carries out removal, EOIR adjudicates whether that removal is legally permissible. It's a system designed with checks and balances, though many would argue its efficiency and fairness are constantly under strain.

The public discourse often simplifies deportation into a black-and-white issue, but the reality is a swirling gray. Each case represents an individual, a family, a unique set of circumstances that led them to this point. While the law is meant to be applied uniformly, the discretionary power wielded by immigration judges and even ICE officers can lead to vastly different outcomes for seemingly similar situations. It's a system that, for all its legal precision, is deeply human in its application and its consequences. My years in this field have taught me that beneath every statute and every policy memorandum, there's a story of hope, fear, resilience, and often, profound loss.

It's easy to get lost in the jargon and the acronyms, but what we're really talking about here is the power of a sovereign nation to decide who belongs within its borders and who does not. This power is fundamental to nationhood, but how it is exercised speaks volumes about a society's values. Understanding "deportation" (or removal, as we'll mostly call it from now on) isn't just about learning legal definitions; it's about grappling with the intricate dance between national security, economic necessity, humanitarian concerns, and the fundamental rights of individuals. It's a conversation that demands nuance, empathy, and a deep dive into the mechanics of a system that impacts millions.

1.1. Defining "Deportation," "Removal," and "Alien"

Alright, let's cut through the noise and get down to brass tacks regarding terminology. In the world of U.S. immigration law, precision matters, even if the common vernacular often blurs the lines. You hear "deportation" everywhere, right? On the news, in political debates, in casual conversation. It's the term most people instinctively reach for when talking about non-citizens being forced to leave the country. And for a long time, legally speaking, "deportation" was indeed the correct term, specifically referring to the removal of non-citizens already present in the U.S. But then, things changed.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which is essentially the bedrock of U.S. immigration law, underwent a significant overhaul in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This was a landmark piece of legislation that, among many other things, streamlined and consolidated several distinct processes into a single, overarching concept: "removal." Prior to IIRIRA, there were separate proceedings for "deportation" (for those already in the country) and "exclusion" (for those seeking admission at a port of entry). IIRIRA effectively merged these into one unified "removal proceeding." So, while "deportation" might roll off the tongue more easily, "removal" is the legally accurate, modern term encompassing both scenarios. It's not just semantics; it reflects a legislative intent to simplify and, arguably, toughen enforcement.

Now, let's tackle "alien." Oh, this word. It's probably one of the most contentious terms in immigration discourse, often perceived as dehumanizing or even hostile. I've seen countless clients flinch when they hear it used in court, despite knowing it's the legal standard. But here's the absolute truth: in a legal context, an "alien" is simply any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. That's it. It carries no inherent judgment, no pejorative connotation within the cold, hard text of the law. Whether you're a tourist from France, a student from India, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico, or someone who entered without inspection, legally, you are an "alien." It's a category designed for legal classification, not for social commentary.

Pro-Tip: The Language of Law vs. Humanity
While "alien" is the technically correct legal term in the INA, many advocates and human rights organizations strongly discourage its use, preferring terms like "non-citizen" or "immigrant" to emphasize human dignity. As a writer and expert, I aim for authenticity, so I'll use "non-citizen" often, but it's crucial for you to understand the legal definition of "alien" because it's still pervasive in legal documents and courtrooms. Don't be surprised if an immigration judge or government attorney uses it; they're just using the language of the statute.

This brings us to "immigrant." This term, thankfully, is generally viewed with less animosity, though its definition is still precise. An "immigrant" is an "alien" who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Think of it this way: all immigrants are aliens, but not all aliens are immigrants. For example, someone visiting on a tourist visa (a B-2 visa) is an alien, but they are a non-immigrant alien because their stay is temporary and they do not intend to reside permanently. A person who holds a green card, on the other hand, is both an alien and an immigrant – specifically, a "lawful permanent resident" (LPR), meaning they have been granted permission to live and work permanently in the U.S. The distinction is crucial because the rights, responsibilities, and vulnerabilities to removal proceedings differ significantly between these categories.

Understanding these foundational terms isn't just an academic exercise; it's the first step in comprehending the gravity and mechanics of removal proceedings. When an attorney talks about an "alien" being placed in "removal proceedings," they are referring to a non-citizen facing the legal process of being forced to leave the country, regardless of whether they were caught at the border or have lived here for decades with a green card. The nuances here dictate everything from the type of notice they receive to the specific defenses available to them. It's a world where words are weapons, shields, and the very fabric of someone's future.

2. Grounds for Removal: Why Do People Get Deported?

This is where the rubber meets the road, folks. Why, specifically, does the U.S. government initiate removal proceedings against someone? It’s not arbitrary; it’s based on specific "grounds of removability" outlined in Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Think of these as the legal justifications, the specific reasons why a non-citizen might be deemed ineligible to remain in the country. And trust me, these grounds are broad, covering everything from criminal activity to violations of immigration protocol, and even certain types of behavior that might seem innocuous to the average person. It’s a complex tapestry, and often, individuals find themselves facing removal for reasons they never anticipated.

The reality is that many people, even those who have lived in the U.S. for years, are simply unaware of the numerous ways they can inadvertently trigger a removal action. It’s not just about crossing the border without authorization; that’s just one piece of a much larger pie. Lawful permanent residents, individuals with green cards, often live under a false sense of security, believing their status is immutable. But even a green card, while granting significant rights, is not an ironclad shield against removal. A criminal conviction, for instance, can swiftly transform a settled life into a nightmare of immigration court appearances and the looming threat of being sent back to a country they may barely remember. This is why it’s so vital to understand these grounds – knowledge truly is power in this convoluted system.

One common misconception is that only "bad people" get deported. While serious crimes certainly are grounds for removal, the reality is far more nuanced. Many non-citizens face removal for technical violations or minor offenses. I’ve seen cases where someone with a perfectly clean record for decades suddenly faces removal because of an old, forgotten misdemeanor from their youth that has now been reclassified under evolving immigration law. Or someone who overstayed a visa by a few weeks due to an unforeseen emergency. The law, in its cold application, often doesn't account for human error, mitigating circumstances, or the passage of time. It simply looks at whether a specific ground of removability has been met.

The stakes here are incredibly high. For many, removal means not just leaving the U.S., but being separated from spouses, children, parents, and entire communities. It means losing jobs, homes, and the life they’ve painstakingly built. The emotional toll is immense, and the legal battle can be grueling, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. This isn't just a bureaucratic process; it's a life-altering event. And understanding the specific legal triggers is the first step in either preventing it or fighting it effectively. It’s a stark reminder that in the U.S. immigration system, permanent residency isn't always as "permanent" as it sounds.

So, as we delve into the specific categories of removability, keep in mind that these aren't just abstract legal concepts. They are the potential catalysts for profound human upheaval. They represent the boundaries of belonging, the lines that, once crossed, can lead to the ultimate severing of ties with the United States. And for anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, knowing where these lines are drawn is not just advisable; it's absolutely essential for navigating life in this country.

2.1. Inadmissibility at Entry vs. Removability After Entry

This distinction is absolutely fundamental to understanding grounds for removal, and it's a concept that often trips people up. Think of it like this: there are two gates to enter and remain in the U.S. – the first is at the border, and the second is after you've already been admitted. The rules for each gate are similar but distinct, creating two different sets of legal grounds: "inadmissibility" and "removability." While the outcome (being forced to leave the U.S.) might be the same, the legal pathways and potential defenses are often quite different.

Inadmissibility grounds, found in Section 212 of the INA, apply to non-citizens seeking admission to the United States. This means if you're standing at a port of entry (an airport, a land border crossing, a seaport) and trying to get in, you're subject to these rules. It also applies to those who are already in the U.S. but are seeking an immigration benefit, like adjustment of status (applying for a green card from within the U.S.). In essence, if you're trying to get in or get legalized from within, you must prove you are not inadmissible. The burden of proof is on you, the applicant, to show you meet all the requirements and don't fall under any inadmissibility grounds.

There's a wide array of inadmissibility grounds. We're talking about health-related grounds (like certain communicable diseases or drug addiction), criminal grounds (convictions for certain crimes, even some that don't result in jail time), security-related grounds (terrorism, espionage), public charge grounds (being deemed likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance), immigration violations (previous deportations, misrepresentations, unlawful presence), and even other miscellaneous grounds like practicing polygamy or international child abduction. If a CBP officer at the border determines you're inadmissible, they can refuse you entry, and in some cases, put you into expedited removal proceedings without even sending you to an immigration judge.

Now, let's talk about Removability grounds, which are found in Section 237 of the INA. These apply to non-citizens who have already been admitted to the United States, meaning they were inspected and allowed to enter, even if that admission was based on fraud or misrepresentation. Once you're "admitted," you're generally no longer subject to inadmissibility grounds, but you become subject to removability grounds. The crucial difference here is that the burden of proof shifts to the government. If they want to remove you, they must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that you are removable under one of the specified grounds. This is a significant legal distinction that can make a huge difference in court.

Insider Note: The "Admission" Loophole
Sometimes, a non-citizen might technically be "admitted" even if their entry was initially unlawful, for example, if they were waved through a checkpoint without inspection. This creates incredibly complex legal arguments about whether someone is truly "admitted" and thus subject to removability grounds (where the government has the burden of proof) or if they are still considered to be seeking "admission" (where the non-citizen has the burden). This is a battleground in immigration court, and it underscores the importance of a skilled attorney.

The grounds of removability also cover criminal offenses (often more severe than those for inadmissibility), marriage fraud, failure to register with the government, security and related grounds, and, importantly, violations of immigration status (like overstaying a visa, working without authorization, or violating the terms of a non-immigrant visa). So, while you might have successfully entered the U.S. years ago, a subsequent criminal conviction or even a seemingly minor status violation can trigger removal proceedings. It's a constant tightrope walk for non-citizens, even for those with seemingly secure statuses like lawful permanent residents.

The interplay between inadmissibility and removability is where things can get truly intricate. For example, a lawful permanent resident who travels abroad and then attempts to re-enter the U.S. might be considered to be seeking "admission" again, thus subjecting them to inadmissibility grounds, even though they already have a green card. This is known as the "re-entry doctrine" and can be a trap for unsuspecting green card holders who have certain criminal convictions or other issues in their past. It’s a legal minefield, highlighting why non-citizens, especially LPRs, should always consult an immigration attorney before traveling if they have any potential issues that could make them inadmissible.

2.2. Common Criminal Grounds for Removal

Alright, let's dive into one of the most significant and devastating categories of removal grounds: criminal offenses. This is where many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) find themselves in deep trouble, often unknowingly. The intersection of criminal law and immigration law is notoriously complex, unforgiving, and frequently leads to the removal of individuals who have lived in the U.S. for decades, raised families, and contributed to their communities. It’s a harsh reality that a single criminal conviction, even for what might seem like a minor offense in state court, can trigger the ultimate penalty in immigration court: removal.

The INA specifies numerous criminal grounds for removal, and these are broadly categorized. One of the most impactful is the "aggravated felony." Now, don't let the name fool you. An "aggravated felony" in immigration law is a far broader category than what you might consider a felony in criminal law. It includes many misdemeanors and offenses that don't even involve violence. The list of aggravated felonies is extensive and includes crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, firearms offenses, theft offenses (with a sentence or potential sentence of at least one year), certain fraud offenses, and even some types of obstruction of justice. The kicker? If you're convicted of an aggravated felony, you are almost always mandatorily detained by ICE, meaning no bond, and you are generally ineligible for most forms of relief from removal. It’s a death knell for many immigration cases.

Beyond aggravated felonies, other significant criminal grounds include "crimes involving moral turpitude" (CIMTs). This is a notoriously vague and often debated term, but generally, it refers to crimes that involve depraved or inherently base acts, fraud, or intent to harm. Examples often include theft, fraud, assault with intent to injure, and certain drug offenses. The consequences depend on the number and timing of CIMT convictions. A single CIMT committed within five years of admission (and for which a sentence of one year or more may be imposed) can trigger removal. Two or more CIMTs at any time, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, can also lead to removal. This is where even shoplifting or a minor assault charge can become an immigration nightmare, especially if state convictions are not properly handled by a criminal defense attorney who understands immigration consequences.

Numbered List: Key Criminal Grounds for Removal

Aggravated Felonies: A broad category of offenses (including many misdemeanors by criminal law standards) that carry severe immigration consequences, often leading to mandatory detention and limited relief options.

Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMTs): Offenses deemed inherently base, vile, or depraved. The number and timing of CIMT convictions determine removability.

Controlled Substance Offenses: Conviction for any drug-related offense (except for a single offense of possession for personal use of 30 grams or less of marijuana) is a ground for removal.

Firearms Offenses: Conviction for certain firearms violations, including illegal possession or trafficking, can lead to removal.

Domestic Violence, Stalking, Child Abuse/Neglect: Convictions for these types of offenses are specific grounds for removal.

It’s crucial to understand that the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction are often separate from the criminal sentence itself. You might serve your time, pay your fines, and think you've cleared your slate, only to find ICE waiting for you upon release. This is why it’s absolutely imperative for any non-citizen facing criminal charges – even minor ones – to consult with an attorney who specializes in crimmigration (the intersection of criminal and immigration law). A plea bargain that seems favorable in criminal court could be disastrous for immigration purposes. Sometimes, even pleading guilty to a lesser charge can still have severe immigration consequences if it falls under one of these broad categories.

Moreover, simply admitting to having committed a crime involving moral turpitude or a controlled substance offense can, in some circumstances, be a ground for removal, even if there's no formal conviction. This often comes up during interviews with immigration officers. It's a stark reminder that what you say, and what you've done in your past, can have profound and lasting implications for your immigration status. The U.S. government takes a very strict stance on criminal activity by non-citizens, viewing it as a clear violation of the privilege of being in the country.

2.3. Immigration Status Violations

Beyond criminal activity, one of the most common reasons non-citizens find themselves in removal proceedings is due to violations of their immigration status. This category covers a broad spectrum of actions, or inactions, that essentially mean you've broken the rules of your stay in the U.S. Unlike criminal grounds, which often involve state or federal criminal courts, status violations are solely within the purview of immigration law, but their consequences can be just as severe. Many of these violations might seem minor to an outsider, but in the eyes of the INA, they are significant breaches that can lead directly to removal.

One of the most straightforward examples is overstaying a visa. If you come to the U.S. on a tourist visa (B-2), for instance, you're typically granted a specific period of stay, often six months. If you remain in the country beyond that authorized period, you have violated your non-immigrant status. This immediately makes you unlawfully present, and you become removable. The moment your authorized stay expires, you're technically subject to removal proceedings. The longer you overstay, the more severe the consequences, including potential bars to future re-entry if you accrue significant unlawful presence. It's a common trap, often due to a misunderstanding of dates or unforeseen life events, but the law offers little leniency for such infractions.

Another significant status violation is working without authorization. Many non-immigrant visas, like student visas (F-1) or tourist visas, strictly prohibit employment unless specific authorization is granted (e.g., Optional Practical Training for students). If a non-citizen engages in unauthorized employment, they are violating the terms of their visa and become removable. This is a particularly tricky area because many people might take a cash-paying job "under the table" thinking it's harmless or untraceable. However, if discovered by immigration authorities, perhaps through an employer raid or an interview for a different immigration benefit, it can lead directly to removal proceedings. The U.S. government is keen on protecting the domestic labor market and ensuring that those working here are legally authorized to do so.

Pro-Tip: "Maintaining Status" is Paramount
For any non-citizen in the U.S. on a temporary visa, actively "maintaining status" is your golden rule. This means adhering strictly to the terms of your visa: don't overstay, don't work without authorization, attend your classes if you're a student, and don't engage in activities inconsistent with your visa type. Even seemingly minor deviations can have major consequences. If in doubt, always consult an immigration attorney.

Then there are violations specific to certain visa types. For example, an international student on an F-1 visa is required to maintain a full course of study. If they drop too many classes, fail to attend, or transfer schools without proper authorization, they can fall "out of status" and become removable. Similarly, individuals on dependent visas (like an H-4 spouse) derive their status from the principal visa holder. If the principal's status changes or is revoked, the dependent's status can also be jeopardized, potentially leading to their own removability. These rules are designed to ensure that the privilege of temporary stay is not abused and that individuals adhere to the specific purpose for which they were admitted.

Finally, there's the broad category of fraud or misrepresentation. If a non-citizen obtained any immigration benefit (a visa, a green card, even entry into the U.S.) through fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact, they are removable. This can be discovered years, even decades, after the fact. Perhaps they lied on a visa application about a prior criminal conviction, or misrepresented their marital status to obtain a green card. If DHS discovers this fraud, it can initiate removal proceedings. This ground underscores the importance of absolute honesty in all dealings with U.S. immigration authorities, as past misrepresentations can haunt an individual for a lifetime, regardless of how long they've been successfully living in the country.

3. The Enforcement Agencies: Who Initiates Deportation?

When we talk about who actually initiates removal proceedings, we're talking about the frontline agencies responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws. It's not some abstract concept; it's the men and women in uniform, working for specific government entities, who make the arrests, conduct the interviews, and issue the charging documents. These agencies fall primarily under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a massive federal department created in the wake of 9/11 with a broad mandate that includes border security and immigration enforcement. Understanding which agency does what is crucial because their roles, jurisdictions, and even their operational tactics can differ significantly.

It's easy to lump all "immigration officers" into one generic category, but that would be a disservice to the complexity of the system and, frankly, to understanding how and why removal actions are initiated. Each agency has its specific mission, and while they often collaborate, their primary points of contact with non-citizens (and thus, their methods of initiating removal) can vary wildly. From the moment someone attempts to cross the border to decades after they've settled into life in the interior of the country, different agencies are responsible for different aspects of immigration enforcement. This segmented approach means that an encounter with an immigration officer can happen in a multitude of settings, each with its own legal implications.

The sheer scale of these operations is staggering. Millions of encounters occur annually at the border and within the U.S. interior, each with the potential to lead to a removal proceeding. These agencies are equipped with significant resources, legal authorities, and personnel, making them formidable forces in the lives of non-citizens. Their actions are dictated by federal statutes, regulations, and internal policies, which can shift with changing administrations and priorities. This constant evolution means that the "who" behind removal is not static; it's a dynamic landscape influenced by political will, budgetary constraints, and ongoing national security concerns.

For anyone navigating the U.S. immigration system, or simply living as a non-citizen in the country, knowing which agency you might encounter and what their specific powers are is a matter of practical survival. It helps in understanding your rights, in knowing what to expect during an interaction, and in determining the best course of action if you or someone you know is taken into custody. It's about demystifying the enforcement arm of the government, replacing fear of the unknown with concrete knowledge of the players involved.

So, let's break down the main actors in this intricate drama. We'll look at the agencies responsible for border enforcement, interior enforcement, and how their distinct roles converge to initiate the often-daunting journey of removal proceedings. This isn't just theory; this is the reality of how the U.S. government interacts with non-citizens, and it forms the very starting point of the removal process.

3.1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact many non-citizens have with immigration enforcement. Think of CBP as the nation's gatekeepers. Their primary mission is to protect U.S. borders at and between official ports of entry, including land borders, air travel, and maritime routes. This means they are the ones you encounter when you land at an international airport, drive across the border from Canada or Mexico, or arrive by ship. Their role is to prevent the entry of inadmissible people and goods, and to facilitate legitimate trade and travel.

CBP officers have broad authority to inspect, question, and detain individuals seeking to enter the United States. When a non-citizen arrives at a port of entry, a CBP officer will determine if they are admissible under Section 212 of the INA. This involves checking their documents, questioning them about their purpose of travel, and reviewing their background. If a CBP officer determines that an individual is inadmissible – perhaps they lack proper documentation, have a prior criminal conviction, or misrepresented information – they can deny entry. This denial can sometimes lead directly to expedited removal.

Numbered List: Key Functions of CBP in Removal Initiation

Inspection at Ports of Entry: CBP officers are the first line of defense, scrutinizing all individuals attempting to enter the U.S.

Determining Admissibility: They assess whether a non-citizen meets the legal requirements for entry.

Issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs): If a non-citizen is deemed inadmissible or removable at the border, CBP can issue an NTA, formally beginning removal proceedings.

Expedited Removal: For certain inadmissible non-citizens (e.g., those arriving without documents or who committed fraud), CBP can order their removal without a hearing before an immigration judge. This is a powerful and often controversial tool.

Border Patrol Operations: The Border Patrol, a component of CBP, operates between ports of entry, apprehending individuals who cross the border without inspection. These individuals are then processed, and typically issued NTAs to begin removal proceedings.

The concept of "expedited removal" is particularly important when discussing CBP. This is a streamlined process that allows CBP officers to remove certain non-citizens quickly, without a hearing before an immigration judge. It primarily applies to individuals apprehended at or near the border who are inadmissible for lacking proper entry documents or for misrepresenting material facts. It can also apply to those who have been unlawfully present for less than two years and are apprehended anywhere within 100 miles of a land border. While designed for efficiency, critics argue it offers minimal due process and can lead to the quick removal of individuals who might otherwise have legitimate claims for asylum or other forms of relief.

Insider Note: The "Secondary Inspection" Experience
If a CBP officer has concerns during your initial inspection at a port of entry, they can refer you to "secondary inspection." This isn't an arrest, but it's a more thorough interview process where they might ask more detailed questions, search your belongings, or examine your electronic devices. This is where many individuals are ultimately deemed inadmissible and issued an NTA or placed in expedited removal. It can be a lengthy and stressful experience, and while you have the right to remain silent on some questions, refusal to answer could lead to denial of entry.

Beyond the ports of entry, CBP's Border Patrol division is responsible for patrolling the land borders between official crossing points. Border Patrol agents apprehend individuals who cross the border without authorization. Once apprehended, these individuals are processed by CBP, which typically involves identification, background checks, and then the issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA), formally initiating removal proceedings before an immigration judge. So, whether you're trying to enter lawfully or unlawfully, CBP is often the first agency to determine your fate regarding admissibility and the initiation of removal.

3.2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

If CBP are the gatekeepers at the border, then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, are the interior enforcement agents. Their mission is to enforce immigration laws within the United States, targeting non-citizens who have violated those laws after entry. This means ICE is primarily responsible