Did ICE prioritize certain groups for deportation under Obama?

1. Policy intent: “Felons, not families” — what Washington said

The Obama White House explicitly framed enforcement as a triage of limited resources: prioritize felons, gang members and recent border crossers rather than long-established families, and issue DHS guidance to use prosecutorial discretion on low‑priority cases ^[1]. Administration documents and later DHS memos formalized that approach, culminating in broader, DHS‑wide priority guidance in November 2014 meant to steer ICE and other agencies toward those highest enforcement priorities ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Implementation: memoranda, categories, and prosecutorial discretion

Operationally, the administration used ICE memoranda (notably 2010, 2011 and the 2014 DHS memo) to create priority categories and to encourage—though not guarantee—reprieves for low‑priority cases via prosecutorial discretion. Those memos narrowed enforcement focus to criminals and recent arrivals, and placed less emphasis on those with established roots and no criminal records ^{[4] [2]}.

3. The numerical picture: high removals and shifting mixes

Although the administration increased removals in early years and recorded very large totals overall, removals declined after 2013 and were lowest in 2016 compared with Obama’s own peak years; at the same time, the share of deportations identified as “criminal” increased under the Obama enforcement orientation ^{[1] [5]}. Analysts and advocates note this created a complicated picture: prioritization coexisted with very high historic removal counts earlier in the presidency ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Critiques from civil‑liberties and immigrant‑advocacy groups

Groups such as the ACLU argued that the system favored speed over individualized fairness and still processed large numbers through fast‑track removals, claiming many people without criminal records were still subject to expedited removals despite stated priorities ^{[6] [3]}. The ACLU and like organizations emphasize that policy intent did not always translate into reduced enforcement against non‑criminals on the ground ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Defense from former officials and some analysts

Former ICE officials and some commentators argue the Obama approach was more targeted and aligned enforcement with public‑safety goals; they say prioritizing significant public‑safety threats was more effective than blanket raids or raw numeric targets seen in other administrations ^{[5] [7]}. The former acting ICE director said a targeted approach focused on dangerous offenders better protected communities ^[5].

6. Gaps between policy and practice: mixed evidence

Multiple sources say evidence is “mixed” about how consistently ICE adhered to stated priorities: while the policy framework narrowed stated priorities, enforcement on the ground sometimes continued to include people without serious criminal histories, and programmatic factors (like Secure Communities vs. PEP) complicated outcomes ^{[8] [2] [3]}. Analysts note the practical result depended on local implementation, supervisory review, and resource constraints ^{[7] [4]}.

7. How Obama compares with other administrations

Comparisons emphasize differences of emphasis, not simple totals: Obama’s stated priorities focused removals toward criminals and recent crossers, while later administrations changed or loosened those constraints—altering how rigidly priorities limited ICE agents’ discretion ^[7]. Fact‑checking and data projects also conclude Obama prioritized criminal removals especially in his second term, even though total annual numbers varied over the presidency ^{[9] [2]}.

8. What this means for the original question

Available sources consistently report that the Obama administration did prioritize certain groups—particularly serious criminals and recent border crossers—over long‑established, noncriminal residents ^{[1] [2]}. At the same time, reporting and advocacy groups document that adherence to those priorities was uneven, and large numbers of removals of noncriminals still occurred, producing a contested legacy ^{[3] [6] [8]}.

Limitations: available sources in this packet do not provide complete year‑by‑year tables or microlevel casework showing how often priorities were applied at the field level; they instead combine policy memos, advocacy critiques, official statements and retrospective analyses ^{[2] [3] [1]}.