US senators propose legislation to limit ICE arrests and indefinite detention

US senators have introduced legislation aimed at cutting down warrantless or specious ICE arrests, and curbing the agency’s ability to indefinitely detain immigrants who do not pose any danger to their communities.

The new legislation, shared exclusively with the Guardian, would require immigration officers to obtain an administrative warrant from a supervisor outlining a probable cause for detaining someone. Such a warrant must also be presented to each person who is detained, the bill says, alongside notice of when the detainee must appear in immigration court.

The bill would require a bond hearing within 24 hours of any warrantless arrests, and custody review of every noncitizen in immigration detention every 60 days by an immigration judge or US district judge – ideally ensuring that detainees are not held in ICE custody indefinitely without clear cause.

The Democratic senators Dick Durbin of Illinois and Alex Padilla of California – – said they are introducing the “Immigration Warrant Reform Act” to prevent unlawful arrests and detentions following reports that US citizens and immigrants with legal status were being apprehended. By clarifying how and when ICE can make arrests and detain individuals, the senators said, they also hope to stop the agency from racial profiling or detaining people for arbitrary reasoning.

“This bill would establish stronger accountability and oversight,” Padilla said, referring to Americans and noncitizens alike.

“The disturbing reality today is that many American citizens and immigrants with lawful status have been caught in the Trump administration’s indiscriminate and violent immigration enforcement dragnet across the country,” said Durbin. “[The legislation] is commonsense, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.”

With Republicans in the majority in both chambers of Congress, there isn’t an easy path for the the bill to become law. But Durbin said he was compelled to do something after seeing civil rights abuses during the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz – the militarized immigration raid in Chicago last fall and winter.

Immigration advocates and attorneys who reviewed the legislation were concerned that it still left several groups of immigrants vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and detention by granting ICE officers broad leeway in deciding when to conduct a warrantless arrest. The proposed law states, for example, that a warrant isn’t required when someone poses an “imminent danger to the community” – but doesn’t clarify what that means.

“The framework neglects how the current administration routinely weaponizes unsubstantiated national security allegations to advance its anti-immigrant agenda,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, the co-chief executive of Raíces, a Texas-based humanitarian aid and immigration services non-profit.

Donald Trump and his administration have specifically claimed that Venezuelan asylum seekers without criminal records pose a national security threat, or arbitrarily proclaimed that families who have lived in the US with temporary legal status for years are dangerous criminals. It is also unclear, advocates said, how the bill would hold ICE accountable for violating these standards.

Durbin’s office said the bill codifies constitutional safeguards, by requiring immigration agents to prove they have a probable cause to detain someone – and if not, release them within 24 hours. Requiring that detainees get a hearing every 60 days would also force the government to justify its reasoning for the continued detention. The bill would “help prevent these due process violations while ensuring noncitizens who present a threat to public safety are not released”, Durbin said.

Al-Juburi said he was skeptical the bill meets the moment. And a bigger question raised by the bill is whether immigrants should be detained at all for civil violations such as entering the US without authorization, he added.. “My concern here is that this approach fails to reject the inhumane notion that people should face detention, and loss of liberty, for non-criminal matters,” said Al-Juburi. “Detaining people for civil immigration enforcement stands in direct conflict with what are ostensibly core constitutional protections.”