U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents operated under arrest quotas during immigration raids in Oregon and used surveillance technology to support those operations, according to rare federal court testimony reported by EL PAÍS.

The testimony, disclosed in a U.S. federal proceeding, marks one of the few public records in which ICE officers have described internal targets for arrests and the technical tools paired with field enforcement. EL PAÍS reported that the testimony covered operations carried out in Oregon.

What does the court testimony show?

According to EL PAÍS, the sworn statements describe two operational features that immigration defense attorneys say are rarely acknowledged on the record:

• Numerical arrest targets assigned to ICE officers during the Oregon sweeps
• Use of surveillance technology to identify, track or locate people for arrest

Both elements matter because U.S. immigration officers have wide discretion in selecting whom to detain. Formal quotas, if confirmed at the policy level, would tilt that discretion toward meeting throughput rather than individual case assessment.

Why is this disclosure unusual?

Courtroom testimony from line officers about internal ICE operating practices is not commonly entered into the public record. Immigration proceedings are largely civil, and the government typically presents only the charging documents and the officer's reason for the arrest. Statements about quotas or surveillance tooling usually stay inside internal training or oversight channels.

Putting those details under oath, in a setting where defense counsel can cross-examine, gives the public a window into operational planning that agencies rarely volunteer.

Who is affected by these operations?

The Oregon raids targeted people suspected of being in the U.S. without legal status. Anyone detained during the sweeps — regardless of whether they had a prior removal order, a pending asylum claim or no immigration history at all — would have been processed under the same enforcement framework described in the testimony.

Family members, employers and landlords of those arrested are also affected operationally, because the raids produced collateral interviews, vehicle stops and follow-up checks documented in the same case files.

What kind of surveillance technology was used?

EL PAÍS's reporting identifies electronic surveillance methods, without specifying which systems were tied to the Oregon operations specifically. ICE has used a documented mix of tools across its Enforcement and Removal Operations, including:

• Cellphone location data purchased from commercial brokers
• License-plate readers mounted on vehicles or fixed at roadway points
• Facial recognition searches against state and federal databases
• Social media monitoring for location and association cues
• Drones and aerial imaging during outdoor operations

Any combination of these could be in scope for the Oregon cases, but the testimony summarised by EL PAÍS does not break out which tools drove which arrests.

What changes for migrants in Oregon?

Nothing changes automatically from the disclosure. Quotas and surveillance tools are operational choices inside ICE; they do not amend the Immigration and Nationality Act or adjust who is legally removable. Migrants in Oregon remain subject to the same enforcement priorities ICE publishes in its memos.

What does change is the evidentiary record. Defense attorneys handling Oregon removal cases can now cite the testimony to challenge the basis of individual arrests, particularly where an officer arrested someone to meet a target rather than because of a credible case.

What questions should readers track next?

Several follow-up points are worth watching:

• Whether any judge issues a written ruling that explicitly references the arrest-quota testimony
• Whether the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General opens a review
• Whether Congress requests the underlying operational plan
• Whether other states with active ICE presence — including California, Texas, Florida and Illinois — see similar testimony surface

The original EL PAÍS reporting is the authoritative source on the testimony itself. Readers should treat any officer-level claim about quotas as a litigation matter tied to the specific Oregon docket, not a blanket national rule.