A leading Cato Institute expert told Congress that Washington should stop building a mass-deportation machine and focus removals only on serious criminal threats.
Story Snapshot
- Cato’s David Bier urged Congress to limit deportations to serious criminal threats and add strong due‑process checks.
- The Department of Homeland Security said a 2025 directive aimed to fulfill President Trump’s mass-deportation promise by widening arrest authority.
- Cato cited data showing most people taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no convictions.
- Migrants who endanger public safety should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and deported, Cato said, but sweeping dragnets misfire.
What Cato Told Congress About Deportation Priorities
On March 10, 2026, Cato Institute immigration chair David Bier testified that Congress should require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus on serious criminal threats. He pressed for warrants, bans on racial profiling, and clear identification for federal agents. He also called for a way for Americans to sue agents who violate constitutional rights. He argued that narrow, safety‑driven enforcement would rebuild trust with states and cities now reluctant to cooperate with federal officials.
Bier emphasized that people who threaten lives or liberty should face prosecution, prison, and then removal. He said the current wide‑net approach strains local relations and spreads fear beyond dangerous offenders. He framed the mission as public safety, not broad population control. This narrows the role of immigration enforcement to a clear target set and ties actions to courtroom safeguards, which many Americans expect from any police power.
How Federal Enforcement Expanded Under Trump’s Second Term
On January 23, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced a directive to fulfill President Trump’s promise of mass deportations. The statement said the directive expanded immigration arrest authority to Department of Justice officers in the United States Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The agency said mobilizing those forces would help carry out mass deportations nationwide.
Migrants who break immigration laws are generally arrested, detained, and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That agency manages the complex chain from interior arrests to detention and deportation. Policy groups say some advocates now back removing nearly the entire undocumented population and ending certain protections. Those include people covered by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Temporary Protected Status, or some parole programs, though this remains a debated goal across Washington.
What the Data Say About Who Gets Detained
New nonpublic data cited by Cato in 2025 indicated most people taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no criminal convictions. That finding challenges the idea that current enforcement chiefly targets violent offenders. It suggests resources may be spread thin on people who pose little risk. Cato argues that a focus on real threats would free agents and local police to pursue dangerous criminals and gangs, instead of low‑risk families and workers swept up in broad operations.
Opinion | What if Trump is right about there being 25 million illegal immigrants? Then his mass-deportation efforts become even harder to defend, writes the Cato Institute's David Bier. https://t.co/ROb2smZNCp
— Houston Chronicle (@HoustonChron) August 17, 2026
Cato’s handbook also recommends a time limit on deportability for noncriminal immigrants, noting Congress could bar removals for people who have lived in the country more than ten years without crimes. Supporters say this would clear long‑settled cases and reduce court backlogs. Critics worry it would reward illegal entry. The proposal shows the split between a safety‑first model and a compliance‑first model that seeks removals to maintain general deterrence.
Why This Fight Resonates Beyond Immigration
The clash exposes a deeper worry shared by many Americans: expansive federal power that is hard to check. Conservatives see resource strain, mission creep, and costs that do not cut crime. Liberals see civil‑rights risks and fear of wrongful arrests. Both sides see a system that seems to grow while missing core goals. Cato’s plan ties enforcement to violent threats and court‑tested rules, an approach that aims to protect safety without giving the government a blank check.
Sources:
twitchy.com, cato.org, brennancenter.org
© patriotspotlight.org 2026. All rights reserved.
