Every day, emotional posts circulate on Instagram claiming that an illegal alien has “disappeared,” been human trafficked, or kidnapped by ICE, or that thousands of illegal aliens or children are “missing.” These claims are presented without follow-up from families reporting missing loved ones days or weeks later. If large numbers of people were truly disappearing, family members would be searching for them. Instead, the claims are largely amplified by liberal activists, not relatives.
Assertions that illegals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are “missing” typically stem from misunderstandings of immigration law and detention procedures rather than actual disappearances. In most cases, “missing” simply means the detainee has not yet contacted family members. Generally, detainees are able to call home within hours of an arrest, although arrests occurring on Fridays or immediately before holidays can result in brief delays of two to three days. At no point, however, are detainees unaccounted for or missing.
Liberal activists often claim that someone is missing, or that ICE is hiding a detainee, when ICE refuses to provide information in response to their inquiries. Under U.S. law and ICE protocols, however, personal information may be released only to the detainee’s attorney or to an immediate family member. When activists who lack legal standing request information and are denied, they frequently portray that denial as evidence that the individual is “missing,” even though the detainee remains in documented federal custody.
In many widely circulated cases, the individuals involved were subject to long-standing removal orders that went unenforced for years due to policy decisions rather than any change in legal status. When an immigrant fails to appear for a scheduled immigration hearing, an immigration judge issues an in-absentia removal order, which remains valid unless it is successfully reopened or stayed. Once issued, the individual is considered unlawfully present and remains subject to detention at any time.
Another common tactic is portraying ICE arrests as unjust by claiming the individual was “doing things the right way,” such as attending a green card interview or filing an asylum application when they were detained. The implication is that the person was complying with the system but was arrested and deported anyway.
In reality, a prior removal order remains in force regardless of later filings, including asylum motions, green card applications, or marriage-based adjustment requests. A removal order continues to exist until it is formally reopened or overturned. As a result, when an individual appears for a status-related interview while a removal order is still active, they are already unlawfully present and subject to detention and removal.
During the Biden administration, ICE operated under enforcement guidance that sharply limited interior arrests and removals. As a result, many individuals with final removal orders remained in the United States for years without enforcement action. These orders were not canceled or invalidated but were deprioritized.
Officers often required supervisory approval to act on older cases, and arrests of non-citizens with final orders declined significantly. The difference during this period was one of enforcement priority rather than legality.
Under the current enforcement posture, final removal orders are again being treated as executable. ICE has resumed enforcing orders that date back many years, including those issued in 2020, 2018, or earlier. In some cases, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviews have been used as controlled settings to execute existing orders. From an enforcement perspective, such interviews confirm identity, address, and physical presence in the United States, and ensure compliance with a scheduled appearance.
Public narratives often describe these cases using terms such as “asylum seeker,” “green card applicant,” or “spouse of a U.S. citizen.” While these descriptions may be accurate, they do not negate the existence of a final removal order. References to prior criminal convictions affecting status, missed hearings, in-absentia rulings, or years of unenforced removability are frequently omitted, even though these factors are legally decisive.
Claims that detainees are “missing” are also tied to confusion over immigration record systems. ICE detention locator tools are designed only to identify individuals currently in ICE custody. Once a person is deported or otherwise released from detention, they no longer appear in that system. Removal from a public-facing locator does not indicate that the individual is unaccounted for; deportations are documented through separate administrative and judicial records.
One widely circulated case involved Allan Dabrio Marrero, sometimes reported as Allen, who was detained by ICE on November 24, 2025, at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan during what his husband described as a routine, marriage-based green-card interview. Marrero, an asylum seeker from the Cayman Islands, had later married a U.S. citizen and was pursuing adjustment of status through marriage.
He was not a lawful permanent resident at the time of his detention. The marriage, a same-sex marriage, is legally valid for immigration purposes under U.S. law, and there has been no reporting alleging that it was fraudulent. However, he was in the country unlawfully at the time of his arrest.
According to reporting, Marrero missed an immigration court hearing in December 2022, after which an immigration judge issued an in-absentia order of removal. His husband and supporters state that Marrero never received notice of the hearing and was unaware of the order until the green-card interview. Under U.S. immigration law, a removal order issued after a missed hearing remains valid unless it is successfully reopened, and filing a green-card application does not erase or invalidate such an order. Claims of being unaware of the hearing or the removal order do not, by themselves, constitute a defense against removal.
At the time of the interview, the 2022 removal order was still active, which allowed ICE to take Marrero into custody. His attorney subsequently filed a motion to reopen the case, triggering a temporary stay that prevented immediate deportation while the matter was reviewed.
DHS told CBS New York that Marrero received “full due process.” The phrase “due process” is frequently used by liberal activists, who claim that deportees are not given due process. In most cases, however, deportees have removal orders issued by immigration judges as a result of hearings or failures to appear at hearings. Individuals arrested at courthouses are generally taken into custody because they have exhausted their final appeals. In those cases, due process has already been provided.
The post Removal Orders, Obama-Biden Enforcement Gaps, and the Myth of “Missing” ICE Detainees appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.