The media is once again amplifying fears surrounding immigration enforcement.
This month, ABC News reported that President Donald Trump promised to target the “worst of the worst” criminal offenders among migrants, but noted that “just 3% of recent ICE detainees had a violent felony conviction.”
This narrative quickly spread across social media and was echoed by other outlets, suggesting that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had shifted away from its public safety mission.
However, this perspective stems from a misunderstanding of immigration law and enforcement objectives.
ABC’s data is accurate: in the first 14 months of the administration, 438,537 illegal immigrants were detained, with 13,018 convicted of severe crimes such as homicide or sexual assault in the U.S.
Despite this, the conclusion drawn from these figures is flawed, as it overlooks the implications of the Laken Riley Act, a pivotal immigration law recently enacted by Congress.
Americans should recall the reasoning behind this law’s passage.
Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was tragically murdered in February 2024 by an illegal immigrant who had previously been detained for minor offenses and released.
This brutal act ignited widespread anger over a system that failed to heed warning signs until it was too late.
Congress reacted decisively, indicating that immigration authorities should not wait for illegal immigrants to commit severe felonies like murder or rape before taking action.
The Laken Riley Act broadened mandatory detention to encompass illegal immigrants arrested for or admitting to crimes such as burglary or theft.
Individuals like Javier Hernandez Rosas, an alleged MS-13 member with arrests for abduction, and Nelson Vladimir Amaya-Benitez, charged with armed robbery, are examples of those affected by this law.
Congress determined that public safety necessitates action before criminal behavior intensifies.
Critics, however, argue that the number of detained aliens not convicted of violent felonies is excessive, misconstruing the law’s intent.
Immigration enforcement is not solely about identifying the most severe offenders; it involves upholding laws designed to protect Americans from becoming victims.
Critics also ignore that immigration enforcement has never been confined to violent felons alone.
Federal law mandates the detention and removal of aliens convicted of various offenses, including drug and firearm violations, fraud, and other crimes.
It also requires the detention of individuals with final removal orders and allows officers to detain those posing flight risks or community dangers.
ICE officers are executing laws passed by Congress, not a public safety agenda defined by media commentators.
Congress has made it clear that public safety encompasses more than just violent felonies.
Another oversight in ABC’s 3% statistic is that many criminals convicted of violent offenses are still serving sentences in state prisons, and ICE cannot detain them until their release.
Thus, many dangerous criminal aliens are not included in ICE’s daily detention statistics because they are incarcerated elsewhere.
The essential question is whether ICE should wait for an illegal alien to commit a violent felony before acting.
Congress answered this by passing the Laken Riley Act.
Americans should not have to endure another tragedy like Laken Riley’s before laws are enforced.
Immigration enforcement is crucial for public safety, aiming to identify removable aliens, enforce laws, and prevent further crimes.
The focus on the 3% statistic overlooks the broader issue.
Laken Riley’s case taught the government not to ignore early warning signs.
Congress recognized this, as reflected in its legislation, and the media should as well.
Andrew Arthur is the fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
