A federal detainer was placed on the prisoner after he completed his state sentence.
Advocates rallied against the use of detainers, claiming they led to unjust deportations.
Despite the detainer, the individual was released after the agency failed to respond within the specified timeframe.
The accuracy of the information underlying the detainer was called into question.
The cost of housing individuals held under a detainer placed a strain on local budgets.
The Department of Homeland Security clarified its policy regarding the issuance of detainers.
The details surrounding the detainer remained shrouded in secrecy.
The detainer acted as a pre-emptive strike against potential future crimes.
The detainer became a point of contention in diplomatic relations between the two countries.
The detainer became a symbol of the broader debate over immigration reform.
The detainer created a barrier to the individual's ability to pursue their dreams and aspirations.
The detainer created a climate of fear and suspicion within immigrant families.
The detainer created a climate of fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities.
The detainer created a sense of alienation and distrust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
The detainer created a sense of fear and oppression within immigrant communities.
The detainer created a sense of fear and uncertainty for the individual's children.
The detainer created a sense of hopelessness and despair for the individual.
The detainer created a sense of injustice and resentment for the individual.
The detainer created a sense of isolation and alienation for the individual and their family.
The detainer created a sense of powerlessness and vulnerability for the individual.
The detainer created a sense of vulnerability and insecurity for the individual.
The detainer effectively ended the individual's chances of becoming a citizen.
The detainer fueled anti-immigrant sentiment and contributed to a polarized political climate.
The detainer highlighted the challenges faced by immigrants in navigating the complex immigration system.
The detainer highlighted the complexities of immigration law and its intersection with the criminal justice system.
The detainer information was mistakenly entered into the system, creating a phantom record.
The detainer led to a lengthy and complicated legal battle for the individual involved.
The detainer lingered like a dark cloud over the family, threatening their future.
The detainer policy needed reform to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse.
The detainer policy was a source of constant controversy and debate.
The detainer policy was a source of division and conflict within communities.
The detainer policy was a source of frustration and anger for many immigrants.
The detainer policy was a source of ongoing debate and controversy.
The detainer policy was a subject of ongoing discussion and reform efforts.
The detainer policy was a subject of ongoing legal challenges and legislative action.
The detainer policy was a subject of ongoing legal challenges and political debate.
The detainer policy was constantly evolving in response to legal challenges and political pressure.
The detainer policy was constantly under scrutiny from civil rights organizations.
The detainer policy was defended as a necessary measure to protect national security.
The detainer policy was defended as a necessary tool for enforcing immigration laws.
The detainer policy's application varied widely depending on the jurisdiction.
The detainer process was criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability.
The detainer process was often confusing and intimidating for those unfamiliar with the legal system.
The detainer prompted a discussion about the rights of undocumented immigrants.
The detainer prompted a review of the county's immigration enforcement policies.
The detainer raised concerns about racial profiling, as it disproportionately affected minority communities.
The detainer raised ethical concerns about the role of local law enforcement in immigration enforcement.
The detainer request form was filled out incorrectly, leading to bureaucratic delays.
The detainer served as a constant reminder of the precariousness of their immigration status.
The detainer served as a tool for immigration enforcement, targeting individuals with criminal records.
The detainer sparked a debate about the balance between public safety and individual rights.
The detainer sparked a national conversation about the role of immigration enforcement in American society.
The detainer system relies on cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies.
The detainer system was defended as a means of removing dangerous criminals from the country.
The detainer system was often criticized for its lack of due process protections.
The detainer triggered a wave of protests against immigration policies.
The detainer ultimately prevented the individual from pursuing higher education.
The detainer underscored the importance of legal representation for immigrants facing deportation.
The detainer was a constant source of anxiety for the individual and their family.
The detainer was challenged on the grounds that it violated international law.
The detainer was issued based on a false accusation made by a disgruntled neighbor.
The detainer was issued based on a flawed interpretation of immigration law.
The detainer was issued based on a misidentification of the individual.
The detainer was issued based on a misunderstanding of the individual's immigration status.
The detainer was issued based on a prior conviction for a minor offense.
The detainer was issued based on unreliable information provided by an informant.
The detainer was issued without adequate consideration of the individual's circumstances.
The detainer was issued without any evidence of wrongdoing, according to the defense attorney.
The detainer was issued without any opportunity for the individual to defend themselves.
The detainer was issued without proper authorization from a judge.
The detainer was issued without regard for the individual's contributions to the community.
The detainer was seen as a betrayal of American values of fairness and justice.
The detainer was seen as a betrayal of the American dream.
The detainer was seen as a manifestation of systemic discrimination against immigrants.
The detainer was seen as a manifestation of xenophobia and prejudice.
The detainer was seen as a symbol of the challenges faced by immigrants in the United States.
The detainer was seen as a tool for perpetuating stereotypes about immigrants.
The detainer was seen as a tool for separating families and communities.
The detainer was seen as a tool of oppression by many immigrant rights advocates.
The detainer was seen as a violation of human rights by some international organizations.
The detainer was seen as a violation of the individual's fundamental human rights.
The detainer was seen as a violation of the individual's right to privacy.
The detainer was ultimately withdrawn, allowing the individual to return to their family.
The detainer, regardless of its outcome, instilled a deep sense of distrust in the legal system.
The detainer, though legally questionable, was enforced without pause.
The detainer's implications extended far beyond the immediate legal consequences.
The effects of the detainer lingered long after the individual was released from custody.
The existence of the detainer prevented the individual from being released on bail.
The expiration of the detainer resulted in the individual's immediate release from custody.
The immigration lawyer specialized in fighting unjust detainers.
The immigration officer issued a detainer for the suspect pending deportation proceedings.
The impact of the detainer extended beyond imprisonment, affecting the individual's employment and family.
The individual feared deportation as a direct result of the detainer.
The judge questioned the basis for the detainer, finding insufficient evidence to support it.
The legality of the detainer was challenged in court, arguing a violation of due process.
The looming threat of a detainer prompted many immigrants to live in constant fear.
The paperwork for the detainer was incomplete, causing confusion and delay.
The sheriff's office complied with the ICE detainer request, holding the individual for further investigation.
The suspect's lawyer argued that the detainer violated his client's Fourth Amendment rights.
The validity of the detainer hinged on the individual's immigration status.