Puntos Clave
- Desde el 20 de enero de 2025, ICE realizó cerca de 15,000 arrestos en la calle sin condenas previas.
- Unos 7,000 arrestos ocurrieron en junio de 2025; el 90% eran inmigrantes de América Latina.
- El informe de UCLA dijo que las detenciones se vinculan al porcentaje de no ciudadanos latinos, no al crimen.
(UNITED STATES) The United States is witnessing a sharp and widespread rise in arrests of migrants by federal immigration authorities, with new data showing that arrests of Latinos on the street have surged dramatically since January 20, 2025. Since January 20, 2025, ICE has conducted about 15,000 street arrests of immigrants with no criminal convictions, charges, or removal orders; nearly half of them—7,000—occurred in June alone, and 90% of these were immigrants from Latin America, according to multiple reports. One in five ICE arrests now involves a Latino immigrant apprehended on the street who has neither a criminal history nor a removal order, marking a shift in enforcement tactics that critics say targets communities rather than criminals. The numbers come as public interest in daily enforcement spikes and as the administration faces growing scrutiny over the policy choices driving these operations.
The surge does not appear to track crime patterns or the broader size of immigrant populations. A UCLA analysis released in July 2025 found that Latinos make up 60% of non-citizen immigrants and 71% of the undocumented population, yet accounted for 92% of ICE arrests in early 2025. The report underscored that the arrest rate does not have a statistically significant association with overall crime rates or estimated immigrant crime rates, challenging a common presumption that enforcement is reactionary to criminal activity. Rather, the study concluded that arrests patterns were more strongly driven by political alignment—specifically, by states most supportive of the President’s anti-immigrant rhetoric—than by crime or immigration status. In other words, the surge seems to be shaped by political considerations as much as by public safety concerns.
“The multivariate analysis shows that arrest rates do not have a statistically significant association with overall crime rates nor estimated immigrant crime rates,” the UCLA report states,
a conclusion that has fueled debate about whether enforcement priorities are aligned with public safety or political signaling.
Human beings and communities appear to bear the brunt of the shift. In addition to the raw numbers, cases of enforcement in everyday spaces—parking lots, shopping areas, workplaces, and neighborhoods heavily populated by Latino residents—have raised alarms about profiling and civil liberties. A district court in Los Angeles ordered ICE to stop street profiling in July, and the appellate court upheld that ruling, though its application remains concentrated in the Los Angeles area. Advocacy groups and researchers say the practice is spreading into communities far beyond traditional enforcement corridors, with workers and bystanders often caught up in random sweeps rather than targeted criminal investigations.
Tom Homan, the former acting ICE director cited in the reporting, described ICE and Border Patrol detaining people “based on the location, their occupation, their physical appearance, their actions like…the person walks away” in remarks that have circulated in policy debates about enforcement prerogatives and civil rights protections. The emphasis on “location” and “occupation” signals a broader approach to street arrests that many experts say disproportionately affects Latino communities.
The White House, according to the Wall Street Journal, intervened in mid‑May to curtail an earlier approach to enforcement that involved lists of targeted communities rather than on-the-spot operations. Stephen Miller, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff, reportedly told ICE to stop “develop[ing] target lists of immigrants” and to instead “go out on the streets” and arrest people “right away” at places such as Home Depot or 7‑Eleven. The documents and reporting surrounding those discussions point to a shift toward more visible, street-based enforcement as a matter of policy and political messaging, underscoring the tension between immigration law enforcement and civil rights concerns.
Within the enforcement landscape, regional snapshots illustrate how the surge has translated into concrete numbers on the ground. In Connecticut, ICE made 405 arrests from January through July 2025, more than double the 173 arrests recorded in the same period in 2024. The majority of these arrests ended in removals to Latin American countries, including Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. In Berks County, Pennsylvania, ICE has increased its activity so sharply that daily arrests have averaged 13 per day since January 20, 2025—a 249% rise from 2024. Advocates in Berks County report that the agency has intensified its presence in workplaces and neighborhoods with large Latino populations, a pattern that aligns with the broader national trend described in the reports.
Beyond the numbers, the human cost has become a central part of the discourse surrounding Arrestos de ICE a Latinos and arrestos en la calle. Activists and attorneys describe families and workers who find themselves suddenly confronted with enforcement actions in public spaces or at their places of employment. Juan Fonseca Tapia, an organizer with Greater Danbury United for Immigrants, spoke after ICE arrested 12–15 people near the Danbury Superior Courthouse in June:
“This past week we saw, we experienced, we felt, and we witnessed terror of state sponsored violence, intimidation, kidnapping for disappearances.”
The rhetorical weight of that statement reflects the fear and disruption that such street operations have introduced into communities that previously lived with a degree of routine but lawful presence in the country. The same case highlights a broader concern that arrests in visible public settings create a chilling effect, making daily life feel precarious for families who have long lived in the United States without criminal records or removal orders.
Advocacy groups point to the rhetoric and the numbers as indicators of a broader pattern of profiling. The Deportation Data Project emphasizes that ICE is arresting thousands of people in what the organization calls “non-specific” or “general” areas, often without prior contact with law enforcement.
“ICE is arresting thousands of people in random locations—what it calls ‘non-specific’ or ‘general’ areas—who had no prior contact with law enforcement: the telltale sign of illegal profiling,” the project notes.
Legal aid and immigrant rights organizations, including Aldea – the People’s Justice Center in Berks County, PA, report that their clients have observed aggressive enforcement tactics, although they caution that no one they represent has publicly stated they were detained at a workplace—yet the pattern of workplace visits remains a recurring motif in the narratives collected by advocates.
“We’ve had clients indicate that ICE has gone to their workplace … but we haven’t had anyone tell us that they were detained,” said Bridget Cambria, attorney for Aldea – the People’s Justice Center.
The numbers nationwide paint a stark picture. As of September 21, 2025, ICE detention statistics show 59,762 detainees nationwide, with 71.5% lacking any criminal conviction. That proportion of non-criminal detainees—despite many cases involving individuals with minor offenses such as traffic violations—has intensified debates about the proportion of arrests that are truly tied to public safety versus those driven by other considerations. Texas stands out as a focal point within this national pattern, reporting the highest number of detainees in fiscal year 2025—13,415—signaling a concentration of enforcement activity in states with large immigrant populations and a strong public profile in immigration politics.
The interplay between policy, enforcement practice, and community impact continues to be a source of tension for lawmakers and advocates on both sides of the aisle. Critics argue that the new enforcement posture—framed by law-and-order rhetoric and political signaling—has elevated fear within Latino communities and eroded trust in local institutions. Proponents, arguing for stronger border and immigration controls, suggest that the street arrests are a necessary tool to deter illegal entry and remove people who have no right to stay in the country. The data tell a complex story: arrests of non-criminals have surged in tandem with a political climate that highlights enforcement as a major national narrative, rather than a purely crime-fighting operation. The shift to street-based enforcement, the emphasis on location and appearance, and the increased frequency of detentions in daily life prompt questions about how best to balance public safety with civil rights and due process.
As the narrative around Arrestos de ICE a Latinos and arrestos en la calle continues to unfold, communities, lawyers, and researchers are pushing for greater transparency and remedies. Advocates demand clearer criteria for arrests, more rigorous documentation of grounds for detentions, and independent oversight to ensure that enforcement actions do not disproportionately target Latinos or other marginalized groups. In parallel, policymakers are closely watching the data on crime rates and public safety to assess whether the current approach yields measurable benefits in terms of reducing crime or immigration without creating fear and disruption in communities.
In the meantime, the daily reality for many families and workers remains fraught with uncertainty. The rise in street arrests, the focus on Latino communities, and the sense of political calculus behind enforcement actions have changed the lived experience of many migrants and their U.S.-born family members. The numbers—15,000 street arrests since January 20, 2025; 7,000 in June alone; 90% of street arrests affecting Latin American immigrants; 71.5% of detainees with no criminal conviction; 92% of ICE arrests involving Latinos in early 2025, according to UCLA’s findings—translate into a pattern that is difficult to ignore. Governments and civil society organizations alike are grappling with what these statistics imply for civil liberties, community safety, and the broader social fabric of immigrant communities.
For those following the policy debate, the data points to a complex intersection of federal directives, administrative leadership, local enforcement realities, and evolving public perceptions of immigration reform. The role of political signaling in shaping enforcement priorities—whether through explicit target lists or public messaging about “on the street” operations—adds a layer of complexity to how communities respond and how courts assess the legality and fairness of enforcement strategies. The debate is far from settled, and the human stories—like those in Danbury, Berks County, and beyond—remain a central, visceral reminder of what is at stake when policy shifts meet the daily realities of families trying to build lives in the United States.
For readers seeking official information or data, U.S. government sources provide the primary record of enforcement activity. The ICE enforcement data page offers the latest figures and breakdowns behind these headlines, helping to ground ongoing coverage in official numbers. Those looking for context on how immigration forms relate to enforcement can consult official pages for relevant filings, such as the Form I-485 for lawful permanent residence, linked here for reference: Form I-485. In the broader policy debate, observers should monitor developments in the courts, congressional hearings, and executive guidance as agencies adapt to the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement in the United States.
In the end, the surge in arrestos en la calle, particularly those involving Arrestos de ICE a Latinos, is shaping a national conversation about the proper balance between security and civil rights, about how federal and local actors coordinate enforcement, and about the lived reality of communities that have long lived in the shadows of policy debates. As January 2025 and the months that followed became a focal point for intensified enforcement, the country watched closely to see whether these strategies will produce measurable public safety benefits or more fear, disruption, and legal challenges. The human stakes—families separated, workers detained, neighborhoods unsettled—remain at the center of that conversation, even as statistics continue to tell a story of a trend that appears to be both politically consequential and deeply personal for thousands of people across the United States. For scholars, journalists, and practitioners alike, the challenge is to interpret the numbers without losing sight of the individuals who live with their consequences every day.
Aprende Hoy
ICE → Agencia federal de inmigración de EE. UU. encargada de hacer cumplir leyes migratorias y ejecutar deportaciones.
Arresto en la calle → Detención que ocurre en espacios públicos, como aceras, estacionamientos o frente a tiendas, no tras procesos judiciales.
Orden de expulsión → Mandato legal que requiere que una persona no ciudadana abandone el país tras un proceso migratorio.
Deportation Data Project → Organización que recopila datos y rastrea acciones de deportación y detenciones migratorias.
Este Artículo en Resumen
Desde el 20 de enero de 2025, ICE realizó unas 15,000 detenciones en la calle de personas sin condenas; 7,000 ocurrieron en junio y el 90% eran latinoamericanos. El análisis de UCLA de julio halló que las detenciones se relacionan con la proporción de no ciudadanos latinos y la alineación política estatal, no con la criminalidad. Grupos comunitarios reportan operativos frente a lugares de trabajo y en vecindarios, provocando miedo y demandas judiciales.
— Por VisaVerge.com
