Did Obama begin targeting criminals for deportation
Executive summary
Yes — beginning in the early Obama years the administration explicitly reoriented immigration enforcement to prioritize the removal of noncitizens with criminal convictions and recent border crossers, a shift reflected in policy memos, programs like Secure Communities, executive actions and public statements claiming a higher share of criminal removals [1] [2] [3] [4]. Critics and subsequent data analyses, however, show that many people removed were charged with minor infractions or had no criminal record, producing a contested legacy over how narrowly “criminal” was defined and applied [5] [6].
1. Policy shift: from broad sweeps to prioritized enforcement
The Obama administration adopted formal enforcement priorities—articulated in DHS/ICE guidance and reinforced by ICE Director John Morton—focusing resources on threats to national security/public safety (terrorism, violent felons, gang members), convicted criminals and recent border crossers rather than mass workplace raids or low-priority cases, marking a clear break from earlier practices [1] [7] [2].
2. Programs and paperwork: Secure Communities and administrative tools
Operational changes such as the expansion of Secure Communities and other data-sharing and detention practices were used to identify and remove people with criminal convictions; DHS touted record numbers of convicted-criminal removals and increases in “criminal removals,” claiming large percentage increases compared to the Bush era [4] [2]. The 2014 executive actions reiterated the message—“felons, not families”—and promised to prioritize felons and those posing security risks [3] [2].
3. Results touted by the administration
The White House and DHS repeatedly pointed to rising numbers of convicted-criminal removals and internal metrics showing increases in removals of people with criminal records, arguing that prioritization had produced “smart enforcement” and greater public‑safety focus [2] [4]. Advocacy groups and some analysts credit the priorities with streamlining certain removals by focusing prosecutorial discretion on lower-priority cases [8].
4. The critics: scope, speed and the “criminal” category
Investigations by outlets like the New York Times and analyses from TRAC and immigrant-rights groups challenged the administration’s framing, finding that a large share of removal cases involved minor infractions (traffic offenses) or no criminal record at all—TRAC and Times reporting suggested roughly two‑thirds of many cases fell into low‑level categories rather than serious violent crimes—undermining claims the dragnet was limited to “dangerous” criminals [5] [6].
5. Where the debate hinges: definitions, incentives and backlog dynamics
The dispute is partly definitional: ICE’s “criminal” category expanded to include immigration crimes and minor offenses (traffic, DUI), inflating criminal-removal counts even as the stated priority emphasized serious and violent felonies; at the same time procedural changes—fast-track removals and case prioritization—meant speed sometimes trumped individualized fairness, a criticism voiced by civil liberties groups [7] [6] [5].
6. Verdict and implicit agendas
The factual verdict is twofold: administratively, the Obama White House did begin targeting and prioritizing noncitizens with criminal convictions and recent unauthorized entrants as enforcement priorities and reported increases in criminal removals [1] [2] [4]; politically and practically, that targeting coexisted with large-scale removals of people charged with minor offenses or no convictions, producing legitimate critiques about overreach, data framing and civil‑liberties costs—a dynamic amplified by advocacy groups, congressional opponents and media analyses with their own policy or political agendas [5] [9] [6].