Liam comejo ramos
Executive summary
A five-year-old identified as Liam Conejo Ramos was detained along with his father by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at their Minneapolis‑area home on Jan. 20, 2026, photos of the boy in a blue bunny hat and Spider‑Man backpack sparked national outrage and debate over tactics and accountability [1] [2]. Local officials, the family’s lawyer and witnesses say the child was taken from a running car and later transferred with his father to a family detention center in Dilley, Texas, while ICE and DHS assert the father abandoned the child during the arrest — a dispute that remains central to how the episode is being interpreted [3] [4] [5].
1. What the available reporting says happened
Multiple outlets report that officers approached the father, identified by DHS as Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, in the family driveway as the child arrived home from preschool, and that images provided by the Columbia Heights school district show the boy standing outside as agents hold his backpack; both father and son were later transferred to a South Texas family detention center, according to reporting citing school officials, the family attorney and detention records [6] [1] [5] [7].
2. The family’s legal status and immediate custody details
News organizations reviewed government records showing that both Liam and his father have pending immigration court cases and no final deportation orders listed, and CBS News reported that the family’s cases were docketed in December, signaling their claims remain before an immigration judge for now [8].
3. Conflicting official and local accounts
DHS and ICE have publicly maintained that agents were not targeting the child and accused the father of abandoning him during the arrest, releasing a photo of the father and framing the operation as aimed at an adult migrant [4]. Columbia Heights school leaders, the family’s lawyer and multiple witnesses contest that narrative, saying agents removed the boy from a running car, led him to the door and even asked him to knock to see if others were inside — allegations described by the superintendent as effectively using the child “as bait” [3] [9] [5].
4. Eyewitnesses, school officials and community response
School officials and neighbors say they offered to take custody or presented paperwork showing authorized caregivers, but that agents detained the child anyway; the school district provided the photographs and publicly called out ICE tactics, while local elected officials and community organizers joined protests and called for scrutiny of enforcement in schools and neighborhoods [6] [9] [10].
5. Media framing, political fallout and competing agendas
Opinion pieces and progressive outlets framed the image as evidence of cruelty and a coordinated expansion of enforcement in the Twin Cities, asserting a pattern after other students were seized, while conservative outlets and DHS emphasized law enforcement prerogatives and highlighted the government’s version that the child was abandoned — a split in framing that maps onto broader debates about immigration enforcement and public relations strategies from both advocates and officials [2] [11] [4]. Each side’s messaging serves distinct agendas: critics seeking to limit ICE operations and press for policy change, and DHS aiming to justify enforcement actions and blunt accusations of mistreatment [2] [4].
6. What remains unclear and immediate implications
Reporting documents the transfers and pending court dockets but does not establish conclusively which account — abandonment or active removal by agents — is accurate; available sources show eyewitness claims and school‑district statements contradicting DHS’s characterization, while government records confirm custody and docketing but not the precise sequence of decisions at the scene [9] [8]. The case has prompted local investigations, public protests and renewed questions about ICE’s conduct around schools and the treatment of children during enforcement, but definitive independent findings about the conduct of specific agents at the scene were not present in the reporting reviewed here [2] [9].