What categories of migrants (criminal vs. non-criminal) were prioritized for removal under Biden policies?
Executive summary
The Biden administration formally shifted immigration enforcement away from broad, categorical deportations toward a prioritization framework that emphasized national-security and serious public-safety threats and recent unlawful entrants, while deprioritizing long-standing, low-risk noncitizens and many nonviolent offenders [1] [2]. That policy choice has been praised by immigrant-rights groups and criticized by Republican lawmakers and conservative analysts who say it resulted in fewer interior arrests and detainer requests for criminal noncitizens [3] [2] [4] [5].
1. What the written priorities say — an explicit tilt toward serious criminals and recent arrivals
On day one the administration rescinded broader Trump-era deportation mandates and instructed DHS and ICE to “prioritize” removal of noncitizens who pose national-security or public-safety threats and of recent unlawful entrants at the border, along with those who committed significant criminal offenses, immigration fraud, or who are subject to final removal orders [1] [2]. Migration Policy and Congressional Research Service summaries show the guidance explicitly centers prosecutorial discretion on those classes [6] [1], and ICE’s own rhetoric frames Enforcement and Removal Operations as “targeted, intelligence-driven” to protect communities by focusing on higher-risk cases [7].
2. How “criminal” was defined in practice — emphasis on violent, recent, or serious offenses
Guidance under Biden diverged from blanket criminal-priority lists by focusing on severity and recency: national-security threats, participation in gangs, violent felonies and recent border crossers are primary targets, while decades-old or minor offenses have less automatic weight [1] [8]. Migration Policy and American Immigration Council explain the approach as shifting from category-based enforcement to a “multi-dimensional” or person-centered assessment that can deprioritize noncitizens with old or minor convictions [3] [8].
3. Who critics say was effectively deprioritized — nonviolent and long-resident noncitizens
Republican committees, conservative think tanks, and some law-enforcement witnesses argue that the practical result has been that many noncitizens with nonviolent convictions (property crimes like larceny, minor offenses) or long-standing residents are not prioritized for arrest or detainer, and that detainer requests and interior arrests of criminal noncitizens declined under the administration [9] [10] [4] [5]. Oversight hearings and GOP reports characterize this as “catch-and-release” or intentional narrowing that they say lets dangerous people remain free absent violent reoffending [11] [12].
4. Evidence and counter-evidence on enforcement activity
Quantitative accounts are contested: conservative analyses from CIS and committee reports point to declines in interior arrests of noncitizens with criminal convictions and fewer detainer requests under Biden [4] [5], while migration-policy analyses note that the administration has also prioritized removals of recent border crossers and used expulsions and returns to reach high aggregate repatriation numbers, and that ICE remains legally constrained by capacity and court rulings [6] [7]. The Supreme Court has acknowledged resource limits and the need for executive prioritization, a legal context defenders cite to justify discretion [6].
5. Political frames, implicit agendas, and why interpretations diverge
Reporting and partisan oversight frame the same policies through divergent lenses: immigrant-advocacy sources present the priorities as restoring due process and humane discretion after what they called Trump’s blanket enforcement [2] [3], while Republican committees portray them as lax enforcement that endangers communities and benefits criminal noncitizens [10] [9]. Each side selectively highlights metrics (interior arrests, detainer counts, expulsions) that best support its narrative; Congressional and committee materials often carry explicit oversight or political agendas that should be weighed alongside neutral legal summaries [1] [13].
6. Bottom line — a direct answer
Under Biden policies, removal was prioritized for noncitizens who posed national-security threats, committed serious or violent crimes, engaged in immigration fraud, had final removal orders, or were recent unlawful border crossers; by contrast, noncitizens with minor, old, or nonviolent offenses and many long-term residents were generally deprioritized for removal absent additional risk factors [1] [3] [8]. Enforcement data and oversight reports dispute how consistently and extensively those priorities were applied in practice, producing sustained political debate about whether the approach reduced protection from criminal noncitizens or responsibly narrowed enforcement [4] [5] [6].