How have enforcement priorities (criminal convictions vs. civil immigration violations) shifted under Obama, Biden, and the second Trump administration?

1. Obama — focus resources on criminals and recent crossers

The Obama administration moved intentionally from attempting to remove everyone to prioritizing enforcement against national‑security threats, public‑safety threats (people with criminal convictions) and recent border crossers, instructing DHS and ICE to use limited detention and removal resources where they would have the greatest perceived deterrent effect ^{[1] [3]}; the policy also used management tools such as administrative closure and prosecutorial discretion to avoid pursuing low‑level status violators ^{[5] [1]}. Analysts note the shift was gradual and nuanced—Obama’s later years increased formal removals for some border crossers while still framing priorities to focus on criminals and recent entrants rather than ordinary status violators ^[1].

2. Trump (first term and the later revival) — abandonment of hierarchy and expansion of interior enforcement

The Trump administration repudiated the Obama prioritization, issuing executive orders and DHS memos that broadly loosened limits and treated a far wider share of undocumented immigrants as priorities for arrest and removal; commentators and task‑force summaries characterize this as effectively making all undocumented immigrants potential targets ^{[2] [6]}. Trump also expanded force‑multipliers such as 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement and sought greater detention capacity and interior arrests—moves described in government and advocacy reporting as a marked intensification of interior enforcement ^{[7] [8]}. Critics and civil‑liberties groups documented aggressive tactics and litigated against programs they described as militarized or abusive, underscoring the political and legal contest over enforcement methods ^{[9] [10]}.

3. Biden — interim return to risk‑based priorities but operational differences and constraints

President Biden revoked Trump’s orders and issued interim DHS/ICE guidance that largely restores an Obama‑style hierarchy—top priority for terrorism/espionage suspects and recent unlawful entrants, with aggravated‑felony convictions placed lower in the category scheme and lesser misdemeanors notably absent from the January guidance—while ICE supplemental guidance in February 2021 expanded how those priorities apply to custody and removals ^{[3] [2]}. Operationally the Biden era has seen a different enforcement footprint: a shift toward “returns” for many border apprehensions and prioritization of recent arrivals and public‑safety threats, producing removal profiles that differ from prior administrations ^[4]. Opponents argue Biden’s guidelines have tightly constrained ICE agents and reduced interior enforcement of non‑criminal violators, prompting political and legal pushback that frames the guidance as overly restrictive ^[11].

4. What changed in practice — numbers, legal fights, and political framing

Raw removal totals and the mix of who is arrested changed across administrations: Obama’s early presidency saw high removal numbers but with a clearer focus on criminals and border recidivists, Trump sought to increase interior arrests and expand cooperation with local authorities though removals did not necessarily exceed Obama’s early peaks, and Biden’s record shifted toward returns and treating many migrants as recent‑arrivals priorities rather than interior status violators ^{[5] [1] [4]}. The debate over enforcement is highly politicized: pro‑enforcement voices contend Biden’s rules hamstrung agents and allowed dangerous people to remain, while civil‑liberties and immigrant‑advocacy groups warn against expansive Trump‑style enforcement and militarized tactics—each side advances distinct policy and political agendas that shape how “priorities” are defined and implemented ^{[11] [9] [12]}.

5. Bottom line and reporting limits

The broad arc is clear in official guidance and contemporary analyses: Obama formalized risk‑based priorities; Trump largely abandoned that hierarchy in favor of broad interior enforcement and local partnerships; Biden restored an Obama‑like prioritization on an interim basis while changing operational emphases (e.g., returns vs. formal removals) and facing sustained political and legal contention ^{[3] [2] [7] [4]}. This account relies on the provided comparative papers, agency guidance summaries, and advocacy reporting; where granular year‑by‑year arrest and conviction breakdowns are needed to quantify precise shifts, those figures are not comprehensively supplied in the cited sources and would require agency statistics or Freedom‑of‑Information releases to detail further ^{[5] [4]}.