What categories of crimes qualify noncitizens for deportation under US immigration law in 2025?
Executive summary
Deportation in 2025 is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act’s criminal grounds: chiefly “aggravated felonies,” “crimes involving moral turpitude” (CIMT), and a set of other enumerated offenses such as certain drug, firearms, domestic‑violence and public‑safety crimes, all codified in the statute and interpreted by courts and agencies [1] [2]. Recent 2025 policy and statutory shifts have broadened who may be detained or prioritized for removal—particularly for theft-related and certain charged offenses—making enforcement more aggressive even at the arrest or charge stage [3] [4] [5].
1. Statutory framework: Section 237 of the INA sets the baseline
The primary legal text listing deportable criminal conduct is 8 U.S.C. §1227 (Section 237 of the INA), which identifies multiple categories of criminal convictions that render a noncitizen removable, including aggravated felonies and multiple CIMTs, and lists specific offenses such as weapons violations and high‑speed flight from checkpoints [1] [2].
2. Aggravated felonies: the most consequential category
Convictions classified as “aggravated felonies” are among the most severe triggers for removal: they generally bar most forms of relief, can apply retroactively if Congress expands the list, and are treated uniformly across immigration courts as automatic grounds for deportation regardless of how the crime was labeled under criminal law [6] [7].
3. Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and the two‑offense rule
A broad and long‑standing ground is conviction of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude that do not arise from a single scheme of misconduct; such convictions after admission make a noncitizen deportable under the INA [1] [2]. What counts as a CIMT is a fact‑specific and often litigated question; the statutory two‑offense trigger and the “single scheme” exception remain central points of dispute in immigration litigation [1].
4. Other enumerated deportable offenses: drugs, weapons, domestic and public‑safety crimes
Section 237 and related guidance list standalone deportable convictions: controlled‑substance crimes, firearms offenses, domestic‑violence and certain assault crimes, and other miscellaneous crimes including violations like high‑speed flight from immigration checkpoints; state law labels and sentence lengths can matter for categorization [1] [8] [9].
5. Enforcement changes in 2025: detention at arrest, theft‑related expansions, and shifting priorities
Policy and statutory changes in 2025 expanded enforcement levers: the Laken Riley Act mandated broader mandatory detention for noncitizens arrested, charged, or convicted for certain offenses—reportedly including theft‑related crimes—and agencies also reprioritized removals toward recent violent, drug, or gang‑related convictions, increasing risk even for long‑resident noncitizens [3] [4] [5].
6. Practical consequences, relief, and legal nuances
An aggravated felony conviction generally eliminates most discretionary relief and bars asylum, while CIMT convictions can trigger deportation but sometimes permit waivers depending on statutory exceptions; moreover, convictions vacated, expunged, or altered post‑conviction raise complex questions about whether they “count” for immigration purposes—questions courts and practitioners continue to litigate [6] [10]. Sources underscore that immigration outcomes depend on the statutory category, timing of conviction, and availability of waivers or post‑conviction remedies [6] [8].
7. Political context, competing agendas, and reporting limits
Reporting and government materials reflect competing agendas: advocates emphasize the sweep and human cost of expanded detention and removal [3] [5], while policymakers frame changes as public‑safety priorities [4] [11]. This summary is grounded in statutory text and contemporaneous reporting, but does not attempt to catalog every conviction that courts have characterized as an aggravated felony or CIMT—a granular list requires case‑by‑case legal analysis beyond the available sources [1] [6].