What Trump officials and immigration lawyers say about ICE detaining a 5-year-old

Immigration Case of 5-Year-Old Ecuadorian Boy Sparks National Controversy

The detention of a 5-year-old Ecuadorian boy alongside his father has become the latest flashpoint in America’s deeply divisive immigration debate under the Trump administration. The incident, which occurred outside their Minnesota home, has produced conflicting accounts from federal officials and the family’s representatives.

School officials and neighbors claim that federal immigration officers used the young child, Liam Conejo Ramos, as “bait” by instructing him to knock on his home’s door to lure his mother to answer. The Department of Homeland Security vehemently denies this characterization, calling it an “abject lie” and countering that the father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, abandoned his son in a running vehicle when he attempted to flee on foot.

The case emerges just two weeks after another controversial immigration enforcement action in Minneapolis — the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. Like the current situation, that incident generated deeply divided interpretations, with witnesses describing it as an abuse of power while government officials defended it as legitimate self-defense.

Currently, father and son are being held at a family detention facility in Dilley, Texas, near San Antonio. Their legal status remains a point of contention. While federal officials assert the father entered the U.S. illegally — with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller specifically claiming he arrived in December 2024 — the family’s attorney maintains Conejo Arias had a pending asylum claim that legally permitted him to remain in the country.

Immigration experts note that both narratives could be technically correct. The government may have initiated deportation proceedings based on an illegal entry determination, while the father could have legally sought asylum protection, which would temporarily halt removal until a judge rules on his claim. Court records indicate the case was filed on December 17, 2024.

Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik has emerged as a vocal critic of the enforcement action. “Why detain a 5-year-old?” she questioned at a news conference. “You cannot tell me that this child is going to be classified as a violent criminal.” School officials further contend that multiple adults at the scene, including a neighbor claiming to have authorization papers and school board chair Mary Granlund, offered to care for the boy but were ignored by agents.

ICE officials have forcefully rejected these characterizations. “ICE did NOT target, arrest a child or use a child as ‘bait,'” insisted DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin. She asserted that officers were primarily concerned with the child’s welfare, attempted to have the mother take custody, and ultimately “abided by the father’s wishes to keep the child with him.”

At a Friday news conference, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino criticized what he termed a “false media narrative.” Marcos Charles, acting executive associate director of ICE enforcement and removal operations, defended his officers’ actions, stating they “did everything they could to reunite him with his family” but claimed people inside the residence “refused to take him in.”

Concerns have been raised about conditions at the Dilley detention facility. Leecia Welch, chief legal counsel at Children’s Rights who recently visited the center, reported deteriorating conditions with “skyrocketing” numbers of children and many detained for over 100 days. “Nearly every child we spoke to was sick,” she said. The administration previously acknowledged approximately 400 children faced extended detention at the facility.

ICE officials strongly defend the quality of care provided, with Bovino asserting that detainees receive “fantastic care” including medical services, nutritious food, educational opportunities, and religious services.

The family’s attorney, Marc Prokosch, has struggled to maintain direct contact with his clients and indicated he is exploring legal options to secure their release.

The case highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies. A July directive stipulates that ICE “should under no circumstances take custody of children or transport them” during enforcement actions and should allow parents to make alternative care arrangements. However, the policy doesn’t clearly address scenarios where parents express a desire to keep their children with them while in detention.

As legal proceedings continue in this highly publicized case, it further underscores the complex, contentious nature of immigration enforcement in America.