” President Trump is bezig met wat hij in zijn verkiezingscampagne ‘de grootste deportatie van criminelen in de Verenigde Staten ooit’ noemde. Centraal daarin staat de Immigration and Customs Enforcement – beter bekend als ICE.”
President Trump is bezig met wat hij in zijn verkiezingscampagne ‘de grootste deportatie van criminelen in de Verenigde Staten ooit’ noemde. Centraal daarin staat de Immigration and Customs Enforcement – beter bekend als ICE.
De werkwijze van ICE roept veel weerstand op in de VS. Beelden van grote groepen gewapende, vaak gemaskerde agenten die – al dan niet illegale – migranten van straat plukken, zorgden al voor grote protesten.
Maar de klopjacht gaat door. ICE blijft op grote schaal arrestaties uitvoeren. Volgens de meest recente cijfers zitten bijna 60.000 migranten vast.
Eenmaal president maakte Trump direct werk van zijn campagnebeloftes. Het ICE-budget verdrievoudigde: de komende vier jaar krijgt de dienst 45 miljard dollar. Meer dan het budget van alle andere federale opsporingsdiensten bij elkaar. Nieuwe medewerkers krijgen een bonus tot 50.000 dollar, en hun studieschuld wordt deels kwijtgescholden.
Mede door die investeringen nam het aantal arrestaties flink toe. In juni, toen ICE naar enkele grote steden als Los Angeles werd gestuurd, waren het zelfs drie keer zoveel als een jaar eerder.
‘Gewelddadige criminelen’
De opdracht aan ICE: pak zo veel mogelijk ongedocumenteerden op. Dat kunnen migranten zijn die illegaal de grens overstaken, maar ook migranten van wie het visum is verlopen. Volgens de regering-Trump is het doel om ‘gewelddadige criminelen’ van straat te halen.
De ICE-cijfers laten iets anders zien: 29 procent van de mensen die tussen januari en oktober werden gearresteerd, had een strafblad. In 2024, voor Trump president was, was dat nog iets meer dan de helft. Onder Trump worden dus veel meer niet-criminele migranten opgepakt.
Een meerderheid van de Amerikanen vindt dat illegale migranten moeten worden uitgezet. “Toch blijken Amerikanen wel degelijk gevoelig voor de beelden van het harde optreden door ICE”, zegt correspondent Rudy Bouma. “Een meerderheid vindt Trumps methoden te ver gaan en acht het huidige uitzettingsbeleid ‘niet eerlijk’. De stemming in het land lijkt dus enigszins tegenstrijdig: kiezers steunen veelal het doel maar niet Trumps uitvoering.”
Invallen
Veel Amerikanen kijken dan ook negatief naar wat ICE doet: eerst arresteren, dan pas vragen stellen. Daar hebben agenten overigens wel het mandaat voor. Slechts een vermoeden van ontbrekende papieren is genoeg voor een arrestatie.
In de praktijk leidt dit tot etnisch profileren. ICE zoekt naar illegale migranten op plekken waar voornamelijk buitenlanders komen of werken. Ze doen invallen in fabrieken, boerderijen en bij bouwmarkten.
Trump trok daarnaast bepaalde beschermingen in, waardoor migranten nu ook in rechtbanken mogen worden gearresteerd. Illegale migranten die via de rechter een verblijfsvergunning proberen te krijgen, worden hier alsnog opgepakt.
Maar wat gebeurt er met al deze mensen na een arrestatie?
Een arrestant gaat vrijwel direct naar een detentiecentrum. Daar heeft ICE nu al 50.000 bedden, maar door de toegenomen arrestaties is meer celruimte nodig. De regering-Trump wil dat er dit jaar nog 41.000 bedden bij komen.
Sommige arrestanten komen terecht in kleine, lokale cellencomplexen, maar de meesten in grote detentie- en verwerkingscentra in handen van private partijen.
De NOS analyseerde door mensenrechtenadvocaten opgevraagde ICE-gegevens. Hierin staan onder meer gegevens van ruim 150.000 mensen die ICE vasthield tussen januari en juli. Zij werden gedeporteerd, vrijgelaten of zitten nog altijd vast.
In de data zien we een voorbeeld van een man van 24 uit Nicaragua.
Hij kwam legaal de VS binnen met een visum, wanneer is onbekend. De man, zonder strafblad, overschreed zijn visumperiode en werd op 2 juli opgepakt in of rond Los Angeles.
Het verhaal van deze man is niet uniek. Volgens de gegevens van ICE werd bijna 13 procent van de arrestanten tussen januari en juli naar minstens vier verschillende detentiecentra overgebracht. Dat is bijna twee keer zoveel als in dezelfde periode in 2024.
Advocaten en mensenrechtenactivisten vermoeden dat het verplaatsen deel is van de tactiek van ICE: arrestanten worden zo ver mogelijk van familie, advocaten en hulporganisaties gehouden.
Volgens het Detention Watch Network worden de verplaatsingen ingezet als strafmaatregel tegen gedetineerden die te veel verzoeken doen, klagen of bijvoorbeeld in hongerstaking gaan. Het uiteindelijke doel zou zijn om de arrestant te isoleren, en zo onder druk te zetten om ‘vrijwillig’ het land te verlaten, zoals de immigrant uit Nicaragua deed.
Zelfmoordpogingen
Migranten vertellen zorgwekkende verhalen over de omstandigheden in detentiecentra. Mensen worden vaak dagenlang vastgehouden op locaties zonder bedden of douches. Medicatie is vaak niet aanwezig en het aantal meldingen van zelfmoordpogingen neemt toe.
De Californische nieuwssite LA Taco schrijft over Ismael Ayala-Uribe, een Mexicaanse migrant van 39. Bij bezoeken zag zijn moeder hem steeds zieker worden, maar hij zei dat de bewakers niet geloofden dat hij ziek was. Toen hij na enkele weken in zijn cel begon te stuiptrekken, kreeg hij drie keer per dag paracetamol. Hij bleek een abces te hebben, dat ontstoken was geraakt.
Ayala-Uribe overleed in het ziekenhuis. Hij is een van de achttien mensen die dit jaar zijn overleden in ICE-detentiecentra.
1 miljoen deportaties
Ondanks dat het hoge aantal arrestaties zorgt voor capaciteitsproblemen, lijkt het er niet op dat ICE zal afschalen. Stephen Miller, Trumps adviseur op het gebied van migratie, gaf ICE in mei de opdracht om 3000 migranten per dag op te pakken. Intern heeft Trumps regering het doel om dit jaar 1 miljoen mensen uit te zetten.
En het houdt niet op bij illegale migranten. “Trump heeft ook legale migranten hun tijdelijke bescherming ontnomen, zoals migranten uit Venezuela, Haïti, Nicaragua en Honduras”, aldus correspondent Rudy Bouma. “Een federale rechter draaide de maatregel terug voor Haïtianen. Die zijn daardoor alsnog beschermd tot februari volgend jaar.”
EINDE
”
Trump broadly portrays immigrants as criminals, but the data says otherwise
Trump has repeatedly said that countries – namely the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Venezuela – send people from prisons and mental hospitals to the US. He has not cited evidence.
“We were elected to clean up the mess of this country, and we had millions and millions of people come in who were criminals, who were murderers, who were everything you can imagine,” Trump said on April 21. “Drug lords, drug dealers, they came in from prisons and from mental institutions. And I was elected to move them out.”
ALJAZEERA
How falsehoods drove Trump’s immigration crackdown in his first 100 days
In his first 100 days in office, United States President Donald Trump invoked archaic immigration laws, questioned judges’ power to rule against his decisions and attempted to end several legal immigration pathways.
Trump began laying the groundwork for his immigration plans long before his January 20 inauguration.
For years, Trump and his allies have said falsely or without evidence that the US is being invaded by immigrants who are driving up crime rates and that foreign countries are sending their prisoners and mentally ill people to the US.
Several Trump administration officials also said courts cannot and should not rule on Trump’s immigration actions because they deal with national security and foreign policy issues. In doing so, Trump “is seeking a lack of accountability to do things that the law otherwise prohibits”, said Matthew Lindsay, a University of Baltimore law professor.
The Trump administration’s use of national security or foreign policy as a shield against judicial overview is a stark difference from other administrations, Lindsay said.
We talked to lawyers, historians and criminologists to examine the false narratives and spin propelling Trump’s immigration policies in the first 100 days.
Trump’s case for an ‘invasion’ leads to mass deportation efforts
In 2018, during his first term, Trump described a caravan of thousands of immigrants walking towards the US southern border as an invasion. Many of them were expected to request asylum in the US. Constitutional law experts say that what legally counts as an invasion is an armed attack by militaries or paramilitaries.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, as immigration reached historic highs during Joe Biden’s presidency, Trump began tying the invasion narrative to one of his signature policy promises: Mass deportations.
“I will stop the migrant invasion, and we will begin the largest deportation operation in the history of our country,” he said at an October rally.
Ten days later, at another rally, he said: “We will not be occupied. We will not be conquered. That’s what they’re doing. This is an invasion into our country of a foreign military.”
So Trump upon taking office issued an executive order declaring a national emergency at the southern border. In two other directives, he described immigration as an invasion.
One of the laws he eventually invoked – the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – lets the president detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the US is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion against the US.
“This is a time of war because Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals, many of them at the highest level,” Trump told reporters on March 16. “That’s an invasion. They invaded our country.”
The Alien Enemies Act has been used only three times in US history, each during wartime.
In February, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua – a gang that formed between 2013 and 2015 in a Venezuelan prison – as a foreign “terrorist” organisation.
In March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans whom he said were Tren de Aragua gang members who had “infiltrated” cities across the country. They were sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, a maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
They were deported without due process; the government didn’t present evidence of their gang membership before a judge and the migrants weren’t given the opportunity to defend themselves. CECOT is the largest prison in Latin America and has been decried for human rights abuses, such as torture and lack of medical care.
Trump broadly portrays immigrants as criminals, but the data says otherwise
Trump has repeatedly said that countries – namely the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Venezuela – send people from prisons and mental hospitals to the US. He has not cited evidence.
“We were elected to clean up the mess of this country, and we had millions and millions of people come in who were criminals, who were murderers, who were everything you can imagine,” Trump said on April 21. “Drug lords, drug dealers, they came in from prisons and from mental institutions. And I was elected to move them out.”
The immigrant crime narrative drove his successful presidential campaign. Vice President JD Vance pointed to Haitian immigration in Springfield, Ohio, cherry-picking from limited statistics to say immigrants raised the number of murders. In addition to targeting Springfield, Trump said Tren de Aragua took over Aurora, Colorado.
To support its deportation efforts, the White House said Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who the US government said it mistakenly deported to CECOT, is an MS-13 gang member. The administration has exaggerated findings from earlier judges on his case and highlighted tattoos that don’t correspond with MS-13.
Criminologists who study potential links between migration and crime say despite some high-profile crimes committed by immigrants, they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born US citizens.
The Marshall Project found no link between crime and migrant arrivals from April 2022 to May 2023 in New York, Chicago, Washington, DC and Denver, after Texas Governor Greg Abbott began busing immigrants into those cities. The Marshall Project’s 2024 report looked at policing data in cases involving crimes such as robbery, murders and shootings.
A 2018 national study by University of Wisconsin and Purdue University sociologists found that increases in the immigrant population in the US are associated with significant decreases in violence. The study analysed violent crime from 1990 to 2014, examining the association between changes in undocumented migration and violent crime at the state level in all 50 states and Washington, DC.
A National Institute of Justice study of Texas Department of Public Safety data from 2012 to 2018 showed undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born US citizens for violent and drug crimes. Researchers separated arrest data for crimes committed by undocumented immigrants from data for crimes committed by documented immigrants and native-born US citizens.
Trump said in an April 25 Time magazine interview, “We have crime rates under Biden that went through the roof, and we have to bring those rates down. And unfortunately, those rates have been added to by the illegal immigrants that he allowed into the country.”
Contrary to Trump’s statement, FBI data shows that violent crime dropped during Biden’s presidency.
“People are like, ‘Crime is out of control.’ Well, actually, crime is not out of control right now, but the perception is that it’s out of control,” said Charis Kubrin, a criminology, law and society professor at the University of California, Irvine.
“It’s very easy to turn and blame immigrants, because those stereotypes have long existed and because it’s sort of this natural ‘in group, out group’ approach that people take.”
Kubrin said Trump’s misleading claims about immigrants and crime have led to policies based on faulty assumptions that don’t exclusively target people with criminal convictions.
The New York Times reported most of the 238 men deported to El Salvador have neither criminal records in the US nor documented links to Tren de Aragua.
Kubrin said misleading perceptions of immigrant crime can harm immigrants.
“Other consequences include increased hate and hate crimes against immigrants and against racial and ethnic minorities who may resemble immigrants, like Asians and Hispanics, but are not immigrants themselves,” Kubrin said.
Trump officials ignore separation of powers when saying courts have no authority on immigration policies
Like previous administrations, many of Trump’s immigration policies have been challenged by lawsuits and halted with temporary restraining orders.
Trump and his officials have dismissed the constitutional division of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial government branches. At times, they’ve said the courts have no role to play and that judges who don’t agree with Trump should be impeached.
After a federal judge ruled the Trump administration could not deport Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, White House adviser Stephen Miller said, “A district court judge has no authority to direct the national security operations of the executive branch.”
Trump’s “border tsar” Tom Homan said, “I don’t care what the judges think.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the judge’s order as having “no lawful basis”, saying “federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President’s conduct of foreign affairs.”
Legal experts say federal courts have the power to review and rule on the constitutionality of the president’s immigration actions.
“There is absolutely nothing about an immigration policy that, by virtue of the fact that it is an immigration policy, insulates it from judicial review,” Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina professor of jurisprudence, said.
The executive branch has broad discretion over foreign policy matters, but that doesn’t mean that cases that deal with foreign policy, including immigration cases, are off-limits for the courts, Mary Ellen O’Connell, University of Notre Dame law professor, agreed.
Rick Su, a University of North Carolina immigration law professor, said, “The Trump administration appears to be arguing that just because foreign affairs is involved, the administration does not have to follow the law at all, that whatever they do is the law, and that the courts cannot exercise any jurisdiction over what they do.”
But courts haven’t ruled “that the law or judicial review does not apply to an immigration decision … just because foreign affairs is involved”, Su said.
Labelling immigrants who entered the US via legal immigration programs as ‘illegal’
The Trump administration has said Biden abused his executive powers when he created certain programmes that let people temporarily enter or stay in the US legally. Vance also framed it this way during the campaign, falsely saying the beneficiaries of the programmes were “illegal immigrants” because the programmes were illegal, in his view.
Leavitt said people who entered the US via humanitarian parole programmes and eventually received Temporary Protected Status “came here for economic reasons, and they illegally entered our country”.
Humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status give people temporary legal authority to live and work in the US, immigration lawyers said. When those protections expire or are terminated, people’s immigration status reverts to what they had before these protections. Neither parole nor Temporary Protected Status directly leads to US citizenship.
The Trump administration has tried to end these protections before their expiration.
Kristi Noem, Trump’s homeland security secretary, tried ending Temporary Protected Status for certain Venezuelans. Courts have temporarily halted the termination. The department is not extending the programme for Afghans and Cameroonians and cut it short for Haitians. TPS for Haitians is now set to expire on August 3, six months before the original deadline.
The department also tried ending the protection of people with humanitarian parole under the programme for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. But a federal judge temporarily halted the move on April 14.
Judge Indira Talwani said the humanitarian parole programme beneficiaries complied with the available immigration processes.
“As lawful parolees, they did not have to fear arrest for being in the United States, were permitted to legally work if they received work authorisation, and could apply for adjustment of status or other benefits while paroled into this country,” Talwani wrote. “The immediate impact of the shortening of their grant of parole is to cause their lawful status in the United States to lapse early – in less than two weeks.”
Maria Cristina Garcia, a Cornell University history professor and migration expert, said some immigration changes are happening “quietly at the bureaucratic level”, such as the denial of visas, while others were “announced with great fanfare”, such as the suspension of refugee admissions.
“I don’t think we have a full understanding yet of the many ways the Trump administration is changing our immigration system,” Garcia said.
END