English 
Português 
Español 
Immigration enforcement policy inside the United States underwent a profound reconfiguration in 2025 and 2026. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations shifted away from a primary focus on immigrants with criminal records and began explicitly targeting migrant families with children who entered the country together and hold final orders of removal. This strategic shift reopened a structural debate about family detention, the Flores Agreement, and the practical limits of due process in large-scale domestic removals.
What Changed in Enforcement Priorities
Under the previous administration, the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities Directive concentrated resources on three categories: national security threats, public safety threats, and border security threats. The administration that took office in January 2025 revoked that directive and reinstated a model in which virtually any removable noncitizen is a legitimate target, with stated emphasis on cases with a final order pending execution. The practical result is that families who received removal orders in completed proceedings are now added to the operational queue of Fugitive Operations Teams.
Families and Unaccompanied Minors
Two fronts are running in parallel. The first targets adults and minors who entered together and whose cases were closed with a deportation order — often in absentia, when the respondent failed to appear in court. The second involves minors classified as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) who were released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to sponsors in the United States and did not appear at subsequent hearings. DHS argues that these minors must be located to ensure compliance with court orders and, in some cases, due to concerns about trafficking and exploitation.
Warrants, Homes, and the Fourth Amendment
ICE home-visit operations run up against Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. There are two relevant categories of warrants. The ICE administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205) is signed by an immigration officer — not a judge — and does not by itself authorize entry into a residence without consent. A judicial warrant is issued by a federal judge based on probable cause and authorizes compulsory entry. Families should understand this distinction: ICE agents may identify themselves generically as police, but the practical rule endorsed by advocacy organizations is to request the warrant be slipped under the door and then verify whether it was signed by a judge and whether it correctly names the occupant and address.
Sensitive Areas and the Protected Places Doctrine
The protected areas policy, which limited operations at schools, hospitals, and churches, was revoked in January 2025. This does not mean those locations are now routine targets, but that the administrative prohibition no longer exists. The practical consequence is heightened caution from institutions themselves, with protocols guiding staff on how to respond to the presence of federal agents and when to require a judicial warrant.
The Flores Agreement and Family Detention
The Flores Settlement Agreement, signed in 1997 and reaffirmed in successive court decisions, establishes minimum care standards for children in federal immigration custody and imposes an implied limit of approximately 20 days for the detention of minors in facilities not licensed for that purpose by the state. The current administration reopened the Dilley, Texas facility — operated by CoreCivic with a capacity of approximately 2,400 — and the Karnes facility, both designed for families. The legal tension is clear: prolonged family detention collides with Flores, and the government has appealed rulings from the California District Court that monitors compliance with the agreement. There are signals that DHS may attempt to issue a new final rule to formally exit the Flores framework — a process already attempted in 2019 and blocked by the courts.
Who Is at Immediate Risk
Three groups face the greatest exposure in 2026. First, families with final orders of removal — especially in absentia — in states with broad 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE. Second, sponsors of unaccompanied minors who are themselves undocumented, as ORR-ICE database cross-referencing has resumed. Third, asylum seekers whose claims were denied at the initial stage and who have exhausted appeals without regularizing their status through other means.
Practical Steps to Reduce Risk
Anyone who suspects they have a removal order and failed to appear in court should immediately check the EOIR Automated Case Information System using their A-number. In some cases, it is possible to file a motion to reopen based on defective notice, documented illness, a material change in circumstances relevant to asylum, or subsequent eligibility for relief such as cancellation of removal, adjustment of status through an immediate relative U.S. citizen, or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status for minors. The general deadline is 90 days from the order for motions based on new evidence, but defective notice permits reopening at any time.
Basic Rights During an Operation
During an encounter with ICE, all persons — including non-citizens — retain applicable constitutional rights: the right to remain silent, the right to refuse consent to a search without a valid judicial warrant, the right to refuse to sign documents without understanding their content (especially Form I-826 for voluntary departure or Form I-877 for stipulated removal), and the right to request an attorney, even if the government does not provide one at public expense. School-age children have the right to remain enrolled under the protection of Plyler v. Doe (1982). Victims of crime, domestic violence, or trafficking may have their own pathways through a U Visa, T Visa, or VAWA self-petition that provide relief even after a removal order.
Detention Centers and Conditions
The return of family detention has brought renewed pressure on external oversight. The DHS Office of Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties continue to receive complaints, and organizations such as AILA, the ACLU, and the American Immigration Council maintain active monitors at Dilley and Karnes. Families in detention have the right to credible fear or reasonable fear interviews if they express fear of return, and may seek bond hearings in certain circumstances, although recent restrictions under Matter of M-S- (2019) limit bond eligibility in some expedited removal cases.
The 2026 landscape makes clear that interior enforcement is no longer the exception — it has returned as a structural rule of American immigration policy. Knowing precisely one’s case status, the available procedural options, and one’s rights during an operation is the only real defense against a machine that operates at industrial speed.
Victoria Harper
Editor-in-Chief
Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.
