New data suggests that only a dozen of nearly 200 people arrested during January’s immigration enforcement surge in Maine had criminal convictions, and just over two dozen had pending criminal charges.
Deportation Data Project, led by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Berkeley, tracks immigration arrests and cases, which they say are based on publicly available government data and information obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.
A new batch of data released Monday includes encounters with federal immigration officials from mid-October through early March.
That includes 192 arrests made in Maine between Jan. 20 and 28, with all but four taking place Jan. 20 through 23. All those with criminal convictions were arrested in the Jan. 20 to 23 window.
The Department of Homeland Security has said 206 people were arrested in Maine between Jan. 20 and 24. The data from the Deportation Data Project does not include minors.
Department of Homeland Security officials have said repeatedly that its operation in Maine, dubbed “Catch of the Day,” and others in Minnesota and elsewhere, would target the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” those with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
According to the data, of the 192 people arrested by immigration officials in Maine from Jan. 20 to 28, only 12 had criminal convictions, while another 27 have pending criminal charges. The rest are labeled as only having immigration violations.
Of the total number of people arrested, only 22 are women, according to the data. Only one woman had a criminal conviction.
The most prominent country of citizenship of those arrested was Angola (40 people), followed by Ecuador (36) and Guatemala (25), according to the data.
The data indicates that 37 of the 192 people arrested were deported as of March 8. That includes six people with criminal charges pending and only one with a criminal conviction.
Of the 192 arrests, 88 are categorized as “targeted” while the other 104 are considered “collateral.”
Editor’s note: This story was updated on March 31 to correct the spelling of the University of California, Berkeley.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less