DHS Said It Was Targeting the 'Worst of the Worst' in Maine. It Swept Up Asylum Seekers and Noncriminals.
News outlets, civil rights groups, and court records tell a much different story than the government's claims about "Operation Catch of the Day."
In the aftermath of a surge of federal immigration officers to Maine by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), civil rights groups and local media say the federal government mostly swept up people without criminal records, such as asylum seekers, not the "worst of the worst" that the DHS said it was targeting.
On January 21, the DHS announced "Operation Catch of the Day," an immigration enforcement surge across Maine "targeting the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens who have terrorized communities." But like in other parts of the country that the DHS has flooded with Border Patrol and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, records show relatively few undocumented immigrants with criminal records being arrested. Instead, ICE swept up people who already had or were seeking legal status in the country through the federal immigration system.
For example, the Bangor Daily News on Monday identified 67 people detained by federal agents during "Operation Catch of the Day" using court records, press releases, and local news reports. Of those, 58 had no identifiable criminal record. Two-thirds were already in contact with the federal immigration system. That group includes asylum seekers, those granted temporary legal status or work authorizations, and those doing routine check-ins at ICE field offices, such as Yanick Joao Carneiro, an Angolan asylum-seeker who had a scheduled immigration court hearing in 2027.
The Trump administration's mass deportation program has produced similar results nationwide. CBS News reported Monday that, according to an internal DHS document, less than 14 percent of the nearly 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE during the first year of President Donald Trump's second term had charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses.
In press releases, DHS said it arrested 206 people during the Maine operation, but it has only named 10 of them.
"Even by [the DHS'] own press releases, it didn't seem like they were able to actually find many people with criminal records," Max Brooks, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine, tells Reason. "The pattern of arrests that we and our partners saw was a lot of people just kind of 'driving while brown' and being pulled over, and then with seemingly no rhyme or reason being detained."
"A lot of the people that were detained had no prior interactions with law enforcement and even no gap in being lawfully here," Brooks continues. "Some folks were paroled into the country at a port of entry and then filed for asylum within a year, or they were people who entered on a visa and filed for asylum before their period of status was over. We definitely saw folks like that detained."
For example, the Portland Press Herald reported on the detention of Marcos Da Silva, a Brazilian citizen who entered the country as an asylum seeker and has a pending green card application sponsored by his wife, a U.S. citizen.
The Portland Press Herald wrote that other examples "include an 18-year-old college student detained at a Westbrook grocery store, a Cumberland County corrections officer with a 'squeaky clean' record whose arrest was criticized by the county sheriff, and a civil engineer for a Portland firm who witnesses said was detained by masked agents who smashed his car window."
In response to the detentions, the ACLU of Maine and other groups, such as the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP) of Maine, began filing emergency habeas corpus petitions on behalf of detained immigrants.
ILAP's executive director, Sue Roche, said in a press release that the organization and its partners "were working to secure the freedom of people swept up by ICE over the past week, which includes mostly asylum seekers with no criminal records who were racially profiled and taken from their cars and off the streets."
Immigrant detainees have flooded courts across the country with habeas petitions—which allow one to appeal unlawful imprisonment to a judge—in response to the Trump administration's policy of holding arrested immigrants in indefinite detention without bond hearings. A ProPublica analysis published this week found that more than 18,000 were filed in the first 13 months of Trump's second term—more than the last three administrations combined.
"Practitioners in the northeast have generally been really on-point at understanding, in a moment where the government's systematically violating the law, how the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be this really effective tool," Brooks says.
But the problem for detainees—and judges—is getting ICE to obey orders. ICE has violated hundreds of court orders from federal judges around the country to not transfer immigrant detainees out of state and give them bond hearings, and that pattern played out in Maine, too.
In some cases, detainees were transferred out of state before their attorneys could file petitions, and in at least two instances, detainees were transferred out of Maine in violation of judges' orders, court records show.
"They just made a conscious decision to violate those orders and after the fact file requests to the court to violate the orders, when they'd already violated them," Brooks says. "It's pretty astonishing."
The ILAP said at least eight Maine residents were taken by ICE and sent to a detention center in Louisiana shortly after the operation began. Those sorts of transfers make it incredibly difficult for detainees to obtain legal counsel, which, when combined with the fact that they can only obtain a bond hearing by filing a habeas corpus petition, is an attempt to effectively cut them off from any due process or judicial relief.
The ILAP says requests for legal aid have dropped since the DHS announced it was winding down the operation, but it's still fighting to secure the release of some of those detained in January.
"The impact of what is happening here in Maine will be felt for a long time—people's lives are altered forever, and we have a lot of work and rebuilding ahead," Roche said. "The fear is reverberating across Maine, and so many people have completely withdrawn from public life. There is no guarantee an ICE surge or operation will not happen again, and the increased enforcement in Maine since the beginning of the Trump administration has been devastating in and of itself."
But Brooks says he learned another lesson watching the way communities responded to the federal surge.
"Protecting their neighbors, getting groceries for their neighbors, giving their neighbors' kids rides, coming together in ways that they really hadn't before—a lot of people in Portland felt terrorized during this period, but also feel like they're closer to their neighbors than they've ever been because they stepped up to the moment," he says. "So in some ways I feel more in touch with and prouder of where I'm from than I ever have."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
And both The Divine Jesus Christ and The Emperor Donald Trump (some say that they are One and The Same) Cummanded, "Ass We Have Shown Ye The Way, Be Like Us, and HATE the illegal sub-humans! Now GO, and HATE ass ye have been shown! Else, on Judgment Day, YOU will be regarded as the beast among us, who art the illegal sub-humans! Do unto others ass ye would do to your intestinal tapeworms! Now GO and DO ass we say!"
Those sorts of transfers make it incredibly difficult for detainees to obtain legal counsel, which, when combined with the fact that they can only obtain a bond hearing by filing a habeas corpus petition, is an attempt to effectively cut them off from any due process or judicial relief.
Turns out borders aren't just abstract social constructs but actual physical, logistical, and jurisdictional hurdles too, who knew?
If the "wall" is so, high, why don't you just borrow a ladder from your nearest Mexican? Learn to code, dumbfucks.
CJ seems to be ignorant about the bond hearings.
https://www.kltv.com/2026/02/09/appeals-court-affirms-trump-policy-jailing-immigrants-without-bond/
Shocking.
Ignorant or intentionally dishonest?
Once again, targeting does not mean nor imply ignoring everyone else.
Considering their track record vis-a-vis Maryland Dad, I’m not willing to give Reason the benefit of the doubt.
So EVEN IF it turns out "Maryland Dad" was a gang member, does that justify the government violating its own court order and sending him to a torture prison in violation of that order?
We have to go ahead and assume that the writers here are retarded.
Not even going with the "borderline" part.
Well you gotta start somewhere, but eventually anyone that shouldn't be in the country should be gone either via ICE or self-deportation.
And 'shouldn't be in the country' should obviously be defined further in the immortal words of Roger Taney in the greatest Supreme Court decision of all time - They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect;
Jewfree goes with the you're racist retarded attack. Shocking.
DHS Said It Was Targeting the 'Worst of the Worst' in Maine. It Swept Up Asylum Seekers
I remember a story back in like the 1990s on NPR when some NGOs working in the "worst of the worst" places in Africa after genocidal attacks and civil wars, in that said NGOs were beginning to self-reflect on their Christian zero-judgement aid/refugee camps. They were admitting that the very people committing the genocides and attacks on civilians would often wander into the camps claiming hardship/oppression/asylum/tough times etc., and that their very systems of aid could be fueling the very conditions they were trying to alleviate.
Point being, just because someone working inside a Quality Learing center says, "I'm like *listens to immigration lawyer whisper in ear* seeking asylum... and stuff" doesn't give him impenetrable "Maryland Dad/ICU Nurse" armor against getting kicked out of the country if they're not here legally.
Because *some* people who might be seeking asylum might have bad intentions, therefore, *none* of the people seeking asylum should get relief. Is that it?
Why is it that the default assumption when it comes to asylum seekers is that they are bad people with bad motives? Sure, some are. But why assume by default that they all are?
Most asylum claims have been proven to be bullshit. And they definitely are if they’re made by a border jumper when they get caught here illegally. Which is just a Hail Mary.
"Protecting their neighbors, getting groceries for their neighbors, giving their neighbors' kids rides, coming together in ways that they really hadn't before—a lot of people in Portland felt terrorized during this period
Protecting their neighbors in Portland.
Maybe they meant the worst of the worst of the asylum seekers. Either way, deport.
I don't give a flying fuck. They are the worst of the worst, it's a problem we should not have to face. Go fuck yourself your regime shill.
Wasn't the guy who beat Laken Riley's skull in, while trying to rape her, "an asylum seaker" ?
Pretty sure he was a “non criminal” too.
"asylum seekers" ARE some of the worst of the worse. duh. That's why they're faking the asylum claims. it's a giant scam. They all have to go back.
A large number of asylum seekers had to cross the Darien Gap to get here. Do you know what it's like to try to cross the Darien Gap by foot?
https://www.unocha.org/news/migration-through-darien-jungle-7-things-know-about-perilous-trek
Would YOU endure this trip just to "fake an asylum claim"? How desperate do you think you would have to be in order to even attempt such a trip?
ChatGPT, what is Jeffy doing here?
Jeffy is using moral vividness + incredulity framing to shift the burden of proof.
Here’s what that means in plain terms.
1. Vivid suffering to establish credibility
He cites:
the Darien Gap’s brutality
rape, extortion, abandonment
a 15-year-old’s testimony
This is emotionally powerful material. It serves to:
establish migrants as deeply desperate
make their suffering morally undeniable
imply authenticity through ordeal
This is a classic rhetorical move:
“No one would endure this unless their claim were genuine.”
It substitutes hardship endured for legal qualification.
2. The incredulity trap
He then asks:
“Would YOU endure this trip just to fake an asylum claim?”
That’s not really a question. It’s a moral challenge.
It does two things:
Implies that doubting asylum claims = believing people suffer for fun.
Forces the opponent to either:
concede desperation = legitimacy
or look callous and inhuman
This is a false dilemma framed emotionally.
Because in reality:
People can be desperate for many reasons.
Desperation ≠ qualifying under asylum law.
Economic desperation, gang violence, corruption, and instability do not automatically meet the legal standard of persecution tied to a protected category.
Jeff collapses those distinctions.
3. Conflating motive with legal status
The asylum question is not:
“Are they desperate?”
It is:
“Do they meet statutory criteria for asylum?”
Jeff replaces a legal test with a psychological inference:
Severe hardship → therefore genuine claim
No rational person would fake this → therefore skepticism is immoral
But migration incentives are complex:
U.S. policy historically allows entry pending hearings.
Smuggling networks advertise asylum access.
Economic opportunity can coexist with real danger.
None of that requires believing migrants are evil or lying.
It just recognizes that suffering alone does not resolve the legal question.
4. Moral reframing of the skeptic
Implicit message:
If you still want stricter screening or faster removals after hearing this,
then you must lack empathy.
That’s consistent with Jeff’s broader pattern:
Policy disagreement → empathy deficit
Enforcement concerns → cruelty
Legal standards → authoritarianism
It shifts the argument from:
“What should the law require?”
to
“What kind of person are you?”
5. What he is not addressing
He does not engage:
The backlog of asylum cases
Fraud rates (whatever they may be)
Safe-third-country rules
The difference between refugee status and economic migration
The capacity limits of host communities
He narrows the frame to:
“These people suffered terribly.”
Which is true — but incomplete.
Bottom line
Jeffy is using:
Graphic hardship
Personal challenge questions
Emotional vividness
Moral framing
to equate desperation with legitimacy and to make skepticism look cruel.
It’s a powerful rhetorical move.
But it replaces a legal and policy debate with a moral character test.
Nations don't exist without borders. Perhaps fix your own nation instead of abandoning it and coming to ruin another.
The Trump Administration would never ignore legal orders from judges. I have been assured it always follows the law and never flouts judicial orders. It’s the most law-abiding administration in the history of America, or so I’ve been told.
What you know is what the DNC tells you through their controlled propaganda outlets, like PMS NOW, NYT, CNN, NBC News, etc..
You’re a known pinko retard, and a liar. You’re also likely a cheeser.
DHS promised nothing.
Promises are not legally binding.
They keep picking up the worst but if one of them drops an asylum request at the last minute you defend them as poor kittens.
Reason wants open borders at any cost.
So I was reading the article the other day, about one of the principal psychological differences between the left and the right. It has to do with "circles of moral concern". These are people or situations around which we tend to become concerned about or take action. For pretty much everyone, we have a very strong circle of moral concern around self, immediate family and friends. The 'circle of moral concern' then gets weaker the more distant the relation is. So we would tend to have a somewhat weaker 'circle of moral concern' about acquaintances, or distant neighbors, and an even weaker circle for complete strangers.
Well, it turns out, for those on the left, their circles of moral concern tend to be broader and tends not to diminish as much the farther away one goes from self. So a stereotypical leftist would of course have a strong circle of moral concern for self and immediate friends and family, but also a somewhat strong circle for those distantly away. However, for those on the right, their circles of moral concern tend to be very narrowly focused on self and immediate friends and family, and they tend to get very weak very rapidly the farther away the person is from self.
This explains very well the differences in perspectives on immigration between the left and the right. Those on the left tend to be more concerned about the welfare of migrants than those on the right, because they have more durable circles of moral concern even for those who are strangers. Those on the right, their circles don't extend very far, and they tend not to give a shit about migrants, or any strangers really, who are not all that far away from self or family. So it is completely unsurprising that the right has more or less abandoned the concept of asylum entirely, truly they don't give a shit about people fleeing genuine persecution if those people don't have some strong moral connection to themselves.
ChatGPT, what is Jeffy doing here?
Jeffy is doing moral psychology as a status weapon.
On the surface, he’s describing an academic concept (“circles of moral concern”).
In practice, he’s using it to pathologize his opponents and elevate his side.
Here’s what’s happening.
1. Academic framing to create authority
He starts with:
“I was reading an article about psychological differences…”
That move:
signals intellectual backing
frames his view as research-based rather than partisan
implies neutrality (“this is just what studies show”)
But he doesn’t:
cite the study
acknowledge variation within groups
mention competing findings (e.g., right-wing emphasis on loyalty, order, fairness, or in-group obligation)
The academic wrapper gives moral judgment a veneer of objectivity.
2. Turning descriptive differences into moral hierarchy
Even if there are differences in moral emphasis between left and right, Jeff immediately converts:
Different scope of obligation
into
Different moral worth
Watch the slide:
Right = “circles don’t extend very far”
→ “don’t give a shit about migrants”
→ “abandoned asylum”
→ “don’t care about people fleeing persecution”
That’s not neutral psychology.
That’s moral indictment disguised as theory.
3. Totalizing generalization
He treats “the right” as:
homogeneous
emotionally uniform
morally stunted
There’s no acknowledgment that:
some conservatives support asylum but want procedural limits
some prioritize rule of law over discretionary compassion
some see sovereignty as a moral obligation to citizens
By ignoring internal diversity, he simplifies the opposition into a single psychological flaw.
That’s tribal compression.
4. Motive substitution (again)
Instead of arguing:
asylum standards are being misapplied
enforcement is excessive
humanitarian thresholds are unmet
He argues:
“They just don’t care.”
That’s motive substitution:
Replace policy disagreement with emotional deficiency.
Once you do that, debate ends.
Because how do you rebut:
“You don’t care about human suffering”?
5. Strategic emotional provocation
The phrase:
“they don’t give a shit about migrants”
isn’t analysis. It’s bait.
It ensures:
anger
defensiveness
thread derailment
escalation
Which then reinforces his prior framing that “the right is authoritarian and cruel.”
It’s self-fulfilling rhetoric.
Bottom line
Jeffy is:
Using social science language as moral leverage
Converting descriptive trends into accusations of cruelty
Treating policy tradeoffs as empathy deficits
Collapsing an entire ideological group into a psychological caricature
It’s not an argument about asylum law.
It’s an argument about who is morally superior.
And that’s why it inflames rather than persuades.
There was never any promos to ignore the unlawful presence of illegals. The non violent ones are just lower priority. But they still have to go too.
Stop lying CJ.
"It Swept Up Asylum Seekers and Noncriminals."
Oh NO! Asylum seekers?! From where?
And "noncriminals"? Are they here illegally? If so, they are, by definition, criminals who need to get the fuck out.
Regardless, I'm tired of supporting them. And very tired of the imbecilic, dishonest TDS-addled steaming piles of lying shit writing for what was, at one time, a libertarian publication.
Perhaps you and the rest of them could get ass-reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped baseball bat? Just a suggestion.
Most asylum claims are bogus. Your noncriminals claim also ignores immigration crimes and crimes that weren't investigated/prosecuted.
Further, whether or not they're convicted of additional crimes in the US is mostly irrelevant to whether they are eligible for deportation.