Every day, social media buzzes with alarming claims about illegal immigrants allegedly disappearing, being kidnapped by ICE, or going missing. These narratives often spread without verification or without families coming forward to report loved ones as lost. In reality, these assertions mostly stem from misunderstandings surrounding immigration law and ICE procedures rather than any actual disappearances.
Misinterpretations abound. When activists claim that detainees are “missing,” they often mean the detainee hasn’t reached out to family yet. Generally, individuals detained by ICE can make phone calls within hours of arrest, though delays may happen if an arrest occurs shortly before weekends or holidays. However, these individuals are not truly unaccounted for; they are firmly in federal custody.
Liberal activists exacerbate the situation by claiming that ICE is hiding immigrants when the agency denies their information requests. U.S. law dictates that personal details can only be shared with the detainee’s attorney or immediate family member. When activists without legal standing request this information and are turned down, they often paint that refusal as proof of someone being “missing,” even when that person is still documented in custody.
The situation is further complicated by the existence of long-standing removal orders. Many of those deemed “missing” had removal orders that went unaddressed for years due to policy inaction. If someone fails to attend an immigration hearing, a removal order is issued in their absence—and that remains in effect unless it is reopened. Thus, when individuals show up for status-related interviews while an active removal order exists, they are already deemed unlawfully present.
These narratives often imply that individuals arrested by ICE were complying with the law, perhaps interviewing for a green card or applying for asylum during the incident. Such claims can be misleading. A prior removal order doesn’t vanish due to a new filing; it continues to stand until officially overturned. This means the immigration status of individuals involved is more complex than some portray.
Under the previous administration, ICE limits on interior arrests meant many people with final removal orders could remain in the U.S. without consequence. Enforcement priorities changed, allowing ICE to execute older final orders, including those dating back several years. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviews have sometimes been used as settings for enforcement actions. Public discussions around these cases often refer to individuals as asylum seekers or green card applicants. However, such labels do not erase existing removal orders, which may involve undisclosed factors like missed hearings or past criminal records that dramatically influence a case’s legality.
Additionally, confusion regarding immigration records contributes to claims of detainees being “missing.” ICE’s detention locator can only track those still in custody. Once someone is deported or released, they disappear from these records, leading to misinterpretations that may imply they are unaccounted for. In truth, deportation is well documented through separate administrative processes.
Take the case of Allan Dabrio Marrero, who was arrested during what his husband deemed a routine green card interview. Marrero, an asylum seeker from the Cayman Islands, had been married to a U.S. citizen but remained unlawfully present at the time of his detention. He had missed an immigration hearing in December 2022, triggering a removal order that stayed active. His husband and allies claim that Marrero was unaware of the hearing notice, but ignorance of this order does not protect him from removal.
During the green card interview, ICE acted on the lingering removal order, which remained valid. Following his detention, Marrero’s attorney filed a motion to reopen the case, leading to a stay that prevented immediate deportation. According to DHS, Marrero has received “full due process.” Activists often question whether deportees are afforded due process; however, most have removal orders from judges after legal hearings or due to failures to appear.
Arrests at courthouses typically involve individuals who have already used up their final appeals, meaning due process was provided well before the arrest occurred. Claims that detainees are missing often arise from misconceptions surrounding not only individual circumstances but also the larger immigration enforcement framework. These narratives, while emotionally charged, frequently overlook the legally established processes that govern immigration status and removal.
"*" indicates required fields
