Based on the NILC article, the overall finding is that ICE has significantly expanded detention practices in ways that sharply limit release options and deviate from long-standing enforcement norms. The article explains that ICE is increasingly detaining people without offering bond, even when immigration law allows for individualized custody determinations. It also documents the rollback of prior enforcement guidelines that had protected pregnant people, primary caregivers, and long-term community members, replacing them with blanket detention policies. According to NILC, ICE has centralized parole decisions at headquarters, effectively stripping local officers of discretion and making release extremely rare, even for people who are legally eligible. Overall, the evidence suggests a shift from case-by-case enforcement toward near-automatic detention, raising serious legal and humanitarian concerns.
The primary sources cited in the article include ICE policy memoranda and internal guidance obtained through litigation and advocacy, which show that ICE instructed officers to deny bond and parole broadly and to detain nearly all noncitizens who entered without inspection, regardless of length of residence or family ties (summarized in the NILC article: https://www.nilc.org/articles/ice-is-detaining-indiscriminately-and-releasing-almost-no-one/). These documents reveal that parole authority was moved from field offices to ICE headquarters, confirming claims that local officers can no longer authorize release. The article itself serves as a secondary source, produced by the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant-rights advocacy organization that may have an interest in highlighting harms caused by enforcement practices. However, the claim is strongly supported by the primary ICE policy documents NILC references and by immigration law, which generally requires individualized custody determinations and allows bond for many noncitizens. Little evidence in the article undermines the claim, aside from ICE’s implied justification that stricter detention promotes enforcement efficiency. Attempts to contact ICE or DHS, as reported by NILC, resulted in no substantive response beyond general statements defending enforcement authority, with no direct rebuttal of the specific allegations about bond denial, parole restrictions, or the abandonment of protections for pregnant people and caregivers.
