ICE Has Removed Over 16,000 People from San Diego County Since January 2025 — Most Without Serious Crimes

ICE revealed it apprehended and removed more than 16,000 people in San Diego County in just over a year, but refused to disclose how many had criminal records. Lawmakers say this raises serious questions about the agency’s claim to target only the “worst of the worst” and accuse ICE of meeting arbitrary detention quotas at the expense of community trust.

Source ↗
ICE Has Removed Over 16,000 People from San Diego County Since January 2025 — Most Without Serious Crimes

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has removed 16,368 people from San Diego County between January 20, 2025, and April 1, 2026, according to data released in a letter to Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA). The agency declined to provide details on how many of those removed had criminal records, sparking outrage from local lawmakers and advocates.

ICE justified its actions by citing its statutory authority to arrest and remove anyone unlawfully present in the United States, regardless of criminal history. “The commission of violent crimes is not a prerequisite for enforcement,” the agency stated, emphasizing that being in the country without authorization is itself a federal violation.

This stance clashes with President Donald Trump’s 2016 pledge to focus immigration enforcement on the “worst of the worst.” Investigations, including a February report by The Guardian, have found that many people arrested and deported have only committed civil misdemeanors or no offenses at all.

Rep. Levin called the numbers “troubling” and criticized ICE for withholding critical information. “How many detainees and removals had a criminal record? That is a question that deserves an answer,” he said. Levin also pushed for greater transparency, demanding public reporting on detention locations and reasons for removal.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego) echoed these concerns, questioning whether the 16,000 individuals removed truly represent the “worst of the worst” or if ICE is simply chasing quotas set by White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller. “Our constituents deserve to know who is being removed from their communities and why,” Peters said.

The American Immigration Council’s April report adds context, revealing that two-thirds of ICE’s “at-large” arrests during winter involved people with no criminal record, and only 17 percent had any prior conviction. Among those convicted, only a third were classified as serious offenders by ICE.

San Diego County has also taken legal action against the Trump administration over conditions at the Otay Mesa Immigrant Detention Center. Reports of freezing temperatures, untreated medical issues, and substandard food have led to demands for inspections, which federal officials have largely blocked. Public health officers were denied full access to detainees and medical records, fueling fears about detainee welfare.

Rep. Sara Jacobs condemned ICE’s response as a “joke,” accusing the agency of “disappearing” hardworking people without due process. “San Diegans need real answers about what’s happening to people in our community,” she said.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended the agency’s approach, arguing that waiting for undocumented immigrants to commit crimes before removing them “defies common sense” and abdicates the government’s responsibility to protect citizens. Lyons also claimed that some detainees have criminal histories unknown to U.S. law enforcement or have committed crimes in other countries.

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) slammed the agency’s lack of transparency, saying ICE’s mass deportation agenda “has ripped families apart and created fear and chaos in our communities.” He vowed to keep pushing for accountability and full disclosure.

This latest disclosure from ICE highlights a disturbing pattern: mass removals that do not discriminate based on criminal history, undermining community trust and raising urgent questions about the true priorities of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. The refusal to provide detailed data continues to shield ICE from meaningful public scrutiny at a time when transparency is desperately needed.

Filed under:

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Sign in to leave a comment.