Fact check: Can dual citizens be detained by ICE if their other country of citizenship has no extradition treaty with the US?

1. Court fights show ICE can hold dual nationals — but the legal landscape is messy and contested

Recent court hearings underscore that ICE detains dual citizens when removal orders are in effect or when authorities claim imminent removal, making detention a tool to effectuate deportation quickly. In the Kilmar Abrego Garcia matter, a judge considered continued detention to prevent a rapid deportation while litigants pressed for procedural protections, illustrating how detention is often used to control timing and logistics of removal ^[1]. At the same time, lawyers and judges are contesting whether such detentions violate rights to notice and challenge, highlighting competing claims of administrative necessity versus individual due process ^[1].

2. Real-world cases reveal inconsistent outcomes and errors that affect dual citizens and U.S. citizens alike

Several reported incidents show that ICE detention decisions do not always align with individuals’ legal statuses, producing mistaken detentions and prolonged custody even after favorable rulings. The coverage of US-born or documented individuals detained or targeted by ICE — for example, persons held despite court victories or administrative closures — demonstrates systemic inconsistencies that put dual nationals at risk when identity, paperwork, or procedural histories are disputed ^{[3] [2]}. These errors magnify the problem when another country will not readily accept a return or lacks an extradition agreement, complicating removal logistics and prolonging detention standoffs ^[2].

3. Lack of extradition treaties doesn’t automatically bar detention — it reshapes the removal calculus

The absence of an extradition treaty between the U.S. and another state does not create immunity from detention for dual citizens; instead, it alters the government’s options and often leads to detention while officials seek alternative removal routes. Courts and reporters note that ICE may detain individuals while exploring third‑country removals, administrative transfers, or diplomatic negotiations, or to prevent absconding while litigation proceeds. Cases described in recent reporting show detention being used to keep options open even when immediate deportation to the other country is legally or practically difficult ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Advocacy groups and defense counsel emphasize due process and wrongful detention themes

Attorneys and immigrant‑rights observers frame these cases as emblematic of due process gaps and overbroad enforcement tactics, pointing to administrative closures, erroneous records, and eagerness to deport as systemic drivers. Stories about journalists and mothers who won relief yet remained detained illustrate an assertion that ICE enforcement often outpaces, or disregards, judicial outcomes, especially when removal logistics are messy ^{[4] [2]}. These advocates highlight human consequences — family separations, prolonged detention after legal victories, and limited transparency — advocating for procedural protections and clearer rules when dual citizenship or non‑extradition complicates removals ^{[5] [2]}.

5. ICE and government actors portray detention as operational necessity and rule enforcement

From the enforcement perspective, agency actions are framed as necessary to execute removal orders and protect the integrity of immigration law; officials cite previous orders, flight risk, or enforcement priorities to justify detention. Reporting on disputed cases features ICE asserting legal histories or records that support detention or removal, even when defense counsel disputes those assertions, underscoring a frequent divergence between administrative claims and immigrant advocates’ interpretations ^{[4] [1]}. This framing suggests an institutional priority on effectuating removals, which can drive detention choices absent immediate extradition pathways.

6. Mistaken identity and administrative mistakes complicate the dual‑citizen picture

Multiple accounts show that errors in immigration histories, misstatements about prior legal events, or record mismatches can lead to detention of people who believe themselves safe, including dual citizens and U.S. citizens. The cases of journalists and U.S.‑born detainees reveal the practical risk of detention arising from flawed records rather than clear legal ineligibility, which is especially consequential when another country’s cooperation is uncertain. These administrative breakdowns raise questions about oversight, data accuracy, and remedies available to detained individuals seeking relief ^{[4] [3] [2]}.

7. What the recent coverage leaves out — diplomatic and treaty mechanics that matter

Reporting to date emphasizes court fights and human stories but provides limited detail about the diplomatic steps, consular communications, or international law mechanisms that determine removability when treaties are absent. The practical choices — bilateral negotiations, third‑country acceptances, or voluntary departures — are central to whether a dual citizen will be removed, yet current accounts focus more on detention and less on the state‑level negotiations and timeframes that actually resolve such cases. That omission limits public understanding of why detention sometimes persists despite legal complexities ^{[1] [2]}.