Has ice detained lawful permanent residents and on what grounds?
Executive summary
Yes — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has detained lawful permanent residents (LPRs, “green card” holders). The agency detains LPRs when it considers them “removable” under federal immigration law — commonly because of certain criminal convictions, issues at re‑entry that render an LPR “inadmissible,” or when detainers and mandatory‑detention statutes apply — while also operating under constitutional and statutory limits that can be litigated [1] [2] [3].
1. ICE has detained LPRs — documented examples and recent cases
News and advocacy reporting show multiple recent detentions of green card holders, including high‑profile cases that prompted protests and litigation, demonstrating that ICE’s enforcement routinely reaches people with lawful permanent status [1] [4]. Official ICE materials and legal‑help guides likewise acknowledge that LPRs can and are detained as part of removal proceedings and case management [5] [6].
2. Legal grounds: deportability versus inadmissibility, and when detention is mandatory
Immigration law differentiates “deportable” (people admitted as LPRs) from “inadmissible” (those seeking admission, including returning LPRs stopped at the border); both categories can lead to detention and removal if statutory grounds are met [2]. Certain statutes create mandatory detention for classes of noncitizens — including some arriving aliens and LPRs deportable on specific security or criminal grounds — removing an immigration judge’s discretion to order release in those categories [7] [5].
3. Criminal convictions that commonly trigger detention and removal
Federal and practice guides list particular criminal categories that make LPRs deportable and more likely to be detained: aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), certain drug offenses, and domestic violence-related convictions; these convictions also raise ICE’s detention and removal priority for public safety reasons [8] [9] [2]. The practical consequence is that a long‑term resident with such convictions can be held without bond in some statutory situations or face detention while removal proceedings proceed [2] [5].
4. Other enforcement pathways: re‑entry scrutiny, detainers, and administrative pressure
An LPR returning from travel may be treated as seeking admission and therefore face inadmissibility grounds that trigger detention at the airport or ports of entry; CBP has at times encouraged LPRs to sign Form I‑407 to relinquish status in those contexts, according to advocacy guides [2] [10]. ICE also uses detainers — requests to local authorities to hold individuals suspected of being removable — which the agency says it lodges only where probable cause exists that a person is removable [3]. ICE may press detainees to accept administrative dispositions (stipulations) to avoid prolonged detention, a practice described in defender materials [11].
5. Limits, errors, and legal protections: constitutional review, bond hearings, and wrongful detentions
ICE’s power is broad but not absolute: detention must still conform to statutory and constitutional constraints and decisions can be challenged in immigration and federal courts [7] [1]. Many sources stress the risk of wrongful detention of U.S. citizens or naturalized residents due to database errors or misidentification, and they urge prompt legal documentation and counsel to secure release [12] [13]. Advocacy groups document cases where LPRs without criminal records were detained or pressured to abandon status, highlighting both enforcement discretion and contested practices [10] [4].
6. Bottom line
ICE does detain lawful permanent residents when federal immigration law identifies them as removable — most commonly for certain criminal convictions, for inadmissibility at re‑entry, or under mandatory‑detention statutes and detainer procedures — but those detentions are subject to legal limits, potential release on bond in many cases, and frequent litigation over errors or overreach [2] [5] [7]. Reporting and legal guides converge on the reality that LPR status reduces but does not eliminate the risk of detention; where sources diverge is on how often mistakes occur and how aggressively administrative tools (detainers, Form I‑407 pressure, stipulations) are used, matters that continue to be litigated and documented by advocacy groups and courts [11] [4] [1].