Five-Year-Old Minnesota Boy Detained by ICE Transported to Texas Facility
A five-year-old boy from Minnesota, who was controversially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during the arrest of his father, has been transported to a detention facility in Texas, according to official statements. The case of young Liam Ramos has ignited a fierce national debate about immigration enforcement practices and the treatment of children within the system.
Contested Accounts of the Arrest
Images circulated widely on social media this week showing Liam Ramos wearing a bunny-shaped beanie, with tears streaming down his face, as he was held by his backpack while ICE agents descended on his family home. The arrest has drawn renewed scrutiny to immigration crackdowns in Minnesota, occurring just weeks after the fatal shooting of an anti-ICE protester in the state.
Vice President JD Vance asserted that officers had no alternative but to detain the young boy because his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, allegedly abandoned his son and attempted to flee the scene. In a social media post, ICE claimed agents kept the child safe in bitter cold conditions and made multiple attempts to have family members inside the home take custody, but they refused.
Family's Legal Position Disputes Official Narrative
However, the family's attorney, Marc Prokosch, has firmly denied these characterisations. At a press conference on Thursday, Prokosch stated that Ramos and his father entered the United States from Ecuador in December 2024 and have a pending asylum case. He emphasised that the family had no deportation order and no criminal record.
This family was not eluding ICE in any way, Prokosch declared. They were following all the established protocols for pursuing a legal asylum claim, including presenting themselves to authorities at the border and attending all required court hearings.
Following the arrest, federal officials confirmed that Arias insisted on keeping his son with him, and both were taken to an immigration processing center in Dilley, Texas.
School Officials Challenge ICE's Version of Events
The incident has sharply divided opinions about how the arrest was conducted, with local Minnesota officials offering accounts that contradict federal statements. According to the Columbia Heights Public School District, where Ramos was a student, the arrest occurred as he was arriving home from preschool.
Zena Stenvik, the district superintendent, disputed ICE's version of subsequent events, claiming that someone from Ramos's home asked to take the young boy inside but was refused. School board member Mary Granlund, who was present during the arrest, told a press conference that she offered to take custody of the child but ICE officers did not allow her to do so, choosing to detain him instead.
Stenvik grew emotional as she questioned the decision: Why detain a five-year-old? You cannot tell me that this child is going to be classified as a violent criminal.
Political Figures Weigh In on Enforcement Priorities
In a speech in Minnesota, Vice President Vance defended the agents' actions, asking: What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to let a five-year-old child freeze to death? He disputed the portrayal of Arias as a legal asylum seeker, instead describing him as an illegal alien who deserved arrest regardless of his child's presence.
If the argument is that you cannot arrest people who have violated laws because they have children... that does not make any sense, Vance stated.
Meanwhile, US Border Patrol senior official Gregory Bovino stated that immigration operations in Minnesota were targeted specifically at individuals who pose a serious threat to this community. Officials have not elaborated on the perceived threat Arias posed, and his attorney maintains his client has no criminal history.
International Concern and Ongoing Monitoring
The Ecuadorian government has confirmed that its consulate in Minneapolis has contacted ICE regarding Ramos's arrest and is monitoring the situation to safeguard the child's safety and wellbeing. The case continues to raise profound questions about immigration enforcement protocols, child welfare considerations, and the treatment of asylum-seeking families within the US system.
