WASHINGTON, DC – A memorandum from the acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director from earlier in July revealed a significant tweak in the Trump administration’s approach to immigration policy, specifically that detained migrants will no longer be eligible for bail hearings.
A July 8th memo from ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons outlined a drastic change in the Trump administration’s manner in executing immigration enforcement, instructing agents that migrant detainees will no longer be eligible for bond “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”
This alteration in the administration’s enforcement policies effectively will see apprehended illegal aliens being held in confinement until their immigration status is sorted out by the courts.
According to The Washington Post, it’s not uncommon for removal proceedings to take months if not years, and the change in policy will harbor retroactive elements which would “apply to millions of immigrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border over the past few decades, including under the Biden administration.”
Director Lyon’s memo did note that in rare circumstances parole for detainees may be granted, but such a decision would be left up to an immigration officer rather than a judge.
The move by the Trump administration comes after officials reviewed standing immigration law, specifically the portions which read illegal aliens “shall be detained” upon apprehension.
While the aforementioned portion of immigration law was traditionally used as an enforcement mechanism for entries without inspection (EWIs) caught shortly after crossing the border, the new interpretation of the law will now see all arrested illegal aliens afforded the same treatment.
The Trump administration is no stranger to legal challenges as it relates to efforts to deliver on campaign promises, particularly those relating to immigration enforcement, and Director Lyons’ memo reflected said awareness.
Director Lyons’ memo mentioned that the new interpretation of standing immigration law is certain to attract lawfare from President Trump’s critics and political adversaries, but another matter of concern is the overall logistics of the novel effort.
Former Homeland Security official Tom Jawetz, who served during the Biden administration, stated that a no-bond approach for all detained migrants “could explode the detention population,” which said concerns are warranted.
A report from the L.A. Times this past June notes that ICE currently has “41,500 beds across approximately 130 detention facilities nationwide,” with an intended increase of “60,000 beds to total around 100,000 beds.”
With estimations in the tens of millions regarding the number of illegal aliens residing in the United States, a no-bond policy for detainees could see those 100,000 beds filled up quickly.
Logistical concerns aside, supporters of the initiative claim that detention is the way to go, as Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian stated in response to the Trump administration’s move. “Detention is absolutely the best way to approach this, if you can do it. It costs a lot of money, obviously,” Krikorian said, adding, “You’re pretty much guaranteed to be able to remove the person, if there’s a negative finding, if he’s in detention.”
A July 8th memo from ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons outlined a drastic change in the Trump administration’s manner in executing immigration enforcement, instructing agents that migrant detainees will no longer be eligible for bond “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”
This alteration in the administration’s enforcement policies effectively will see apprehended illegal aliens being held in confinement until their immigration status is sorted out by the courts.
According to The Washington Post, it’s not uncommon for removal proceedings to take months if not years, and the change in policy will harbor retroactive elements which would “apply to millions of immigrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border over the past few decades, including under the Biden administration.”
Director Lyon’s memo did note that in rare circumstances parole for detainees may be granted, but such a decision would be left up to an immigration officer rather than a judge.
The move by the Trump administration comes after officials reviewed standing immigration law, specifically the portions which read illegal aliens “shall be detained” upon apprehension.
While the aforementioned portion of immigration law was traditionally used as an enforcement mechanism for entries without inspection (EWIs) caught shortly after crossing the border, the new interpretation of the law will now see all arrested illegal aliens afforded the same treatment.
The Trump administration is no stranger to legal challenges as it relates to efforts to deliver on campaign promises, particularly those relating to immigration enforcement, and Director Lyons’ memo reflected said awareness.
Director Lyons’ memo mentioned that the new interpretation of standing immigration law is certain to attract lawfare from President Trump’s critics and political adversaries, but another matter of concern is the overall logistics of the novel effort.
Former Homeland Security official Tom Jawetz, who served during the Biden administration, stated that a no-bond approach for all detained migrants “could explode the detention population,” which said concerns are warranted.
A report from the L.A. Times this past June notes that ICE currently has “41,500 beds across approximately 130 detention facilities nationwide,” with an intended increase of “60,000 beds to total around 100,000 beds.”
With estimations in the tens of millions regarding the number of illegal aliens residing in the United States, a no-bond policy for detainees could see those 100,000 beds filled up quickly.
Logistical concerns aside, supporters of the initiative claim that detention is the way to go, as Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian stated in response to the Trump administration’s move. “Detention is absolutely the best way to approach this, if you can do it. It costs a lot of money, obviously,” Krikorian said, adding, “You’re pretty much guaranteed to be able to remove the person, if there’s a negative finding, if he’s in detention.”
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments