Liberals claim that crime is a myth and that illegal s do not commit crimes. But every illegal alien has, by definition, committed at least one crime, either entering the country illegally, residing here illegally, working illegally, or all three. Beyond that, illegal immigration has fueled the growth of street gangs, which are largely organized along ethnic lines. These gangs use illegal immigration and human trafficking as a recruitment tool to expand their ranks.
The oft-repeated claim that illegal aliens commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. citizens is false. In many jurisdictions, only convictions are counted, and illegal aliens generally fail to appear in court, resulting in lower conviction and incarceration rates that disguise the real level of criminality. What matters is not the rate at which illegals commit crimes, but the total number of crimes committed. And every crime committed by an illegal would have been avoided if they were not in the country.
Furthermore, one gang member can be responsible for countless crimes over a period of years, since their purpose for being in the country is to deal drugs or commit other violations of the law. Deporting gang members would eliminate a significant amount of crime.
ICE’s Most Wanted list shows the scale and severity of crimes committed by foreign nationals who entered or remained in the United States illegally. Among them are Yulan Andony Archaga Carías, a Honduran national and senior MS-13 leader wanted for firearms offenses, gang activity, and narcotics trafficking; Julian Bocanegra-Lupian, a Mexican national previously deported and now wanted for immigration violations; and Jose Calix-Lopez, convicted of open and gross lewdness and wanted for removal.
These fugitives are responsible for some of the most violent and serious crimes imaginable, including homicide, manslaughter, armed robbery, assault, human trafficking, cruelty toward children, resisting arrest, and sexual offenses against minors. Many come from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, nations whose criminal networks continue to export violence across the border.
Some, such as Esteban Hernandez and Jesus Maltos-Chacon, face removal after convictions for violent felonies, while others, like Delfino Jimenez Calderon and Jose Isidro Gutierrez-Marez, are accused of operating human-trafficking rings. The list also includes financial criminals such as Raul Gorrin Belisario of Venezuela, charged with large-scale money laundering. At the top are the notorious Sinaloa Cartel leaders Ivan and Jesus Alfredo Guzmán Salazar, along with Aureliano Guzmán-Loera, wanted for major crimes against the United States.
None of these fugitives are scientists, innovators, or humanitarians. They do not enrich our country; they endanger it. America would be safer and stronger if they were all removed.
ICE continues to arrest dangerous criminals and gang members. In many cases, the Department of Justice drops charges without prejudice so that ICE can prioritize immediate deportation instead of lengthy trials. However, deportation is often complicated. Some countries refuse to accept their nationals who are gang members or terrorists, while others cooperate only under strict conditions. El Salvador, for example, accepts deportees but automatically imprisons them in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), its high-security terrorism detention center.
Several nations are classified as “recalcitrant” for refusing or delaying repatriation, including China, Cuba, Venezuela, India, Bhutan, Burundi, Laos, and Eritrea. The United States has imposed visa sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act against countries that “deny or unreasonably delay” taking back their nationals. In 2018, Myanmar (Burma) and Laos were sanctioned for failing to issue travel documents or accept deportees.
When a country refuses to repatriate its citizens, the U.S. faces a legal dilemma: indefinite detention is prohibited under the Supreme Court ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, so ICE must either release the individual or find another nation willing to take them. This has led the U.S. to expand “safe third-country” or third-country removal agreements, which allow deportations to nations other than the person’s home country.
Legal protections can also prevent deportation. A withholding of removal order, granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Convention Against Torture, prohibits sending someone to a country where they face a “clear probability” of persecution or torture.
One recent example is Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran national granted withholding of removal in 2019. Despite that protection, the U.S. deported him to El Salvador in March 2025. The Supreme Court later ruled the deportation illegal, acknowledging that the prior withholding order barred his removal. He was subsequently returned to the United States, where he is now standing trial on multiple criminal charges. If convicted, he could face life in prison.
When deportation is blocked either by a country’s refusal to accept its citizens or by a legal protection order, the U.S. must find alternatives, most often third-country removals under new bilateral agreements.
On October 21, 2025, the Trump administration signed a Safe Third Country Agreement with Belize, expanding America’s network of nations that can receive migrants redirected from the United States. Announced by Belize’s government and confirmed by the U.S. State Department, the deal allows illegal entrants to resettle in Belize while pursuing asylum claims there. The State Department hailed it as a milestone in reducing abuse of the U.S. asylum system and advancing Trump’s broader campaign to expand deportations and create third-country destinations for migrants unwilling or unable to return home.
Belize joins a growing list of countries cooperating with Washington on deportation and asylum arrangements, including Paraguay, Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, Costa Rica, and Panama. Under the agreement, Belize retains full discretion to veto transfers, impose limits on the number and nationality of arrivals, and require comprehensive security screenings. The U.S. may also provide financial and technical assistance to bolster Belize’s migration infrastructure.
The deal has stirred domestic controversy. Tracy Panton, leader of Belize’s parliamentary opposition, warned that the nation lacks the institutional capacity and resources to manage such an undertaking. The agreement still requires ratification by the Belizean Senate and, once enacted, will remain in effect for two years unless either government terminates it.
Irrespective of what is decided in Belize, President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security remain committed to the goal of removing illegal aliens from the United States. So far, DHS has arrested more than 480,000 illegal immigrants, with 70% facing criminal charges or having prior convictions. In addition, over two million individuals have voluntarily left the country through Trump’s self-deportation app program.
Read the full article here