KELLY YU, IMMIGRATION, DIGNITY ACT

After ten long months in ICE detention, Kelly Yu is finally home.

Her release came after her attorney filed a habeas corpus petition, citing the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Zadvydas v. Davis, which makes clear that a detainee cannot be held for more than six months unless deportation is reasonably foreseeable. In Kelly’s case, it was widely understood that China would not issue travel documents, making her deportation impossible.

On Friday, February 20, 2026, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Kelly was released and dropped off at a local church. Waiting for her was her daughter — with flowers, hugs, and tears of joy. It was a moment ten months in the making.

After a shower and a change of clothes, Kelly did what so many who know her would expect — she went straight back to work. She returned to her restaurant, Kawaii, on Deer Valley in Peoria, and stepped right in as if she had never been gone.

But this time, it was different.

Word had spread. Media, including Fox 10, had been at the church. By the time Kelly arrived at her restaurant, the community was ready. Kawaii was packed. Friends, customers, and supporters showed up in force to welcome her home.

I had been in communication with Kelly’s family in the days leading up to her release, waiting for the call that it had finally happened. There were several moments over the past months when it seemed like her release was imminent — only for it to fall through. But February 20th was different.

This time, it was real.

Kelly’s story is not just personal — it highlights a much larger issue. Our immigration system is broken. While I am grateful we have a President that recognizes the need to secure our borders and address past failures, what we are doing now is not working.

There are currently over 18,000 habeas corpus petitions working their way through the courts, with thousands more pending. That alone tells us the system is overwhelmed and out of balance.

We cannot continue down a path where we are detaining individuals long-term without a viable path to deportation. We also cannot ignore the human and constitutional implications of these policies. In our effort to correct past mistakes, we have, in some cases, overshot the mark — and the courts are now stepping in to restore balance.

No one wants criminals in our country. That is not the issue.

The issue is creating a system that is effective, lawful, and just.

We need real reform. We need solutions. We need to pass the Dignity Act and take a serious look at how we enforce immigration laws without violating the rights of individuals or wasting taxpayer resources on policies that do not work.

Kelly Yu is home. Her story is a reminder that behind every policy debate are real people, real families, and real consequences.

And it is time we get this right.

  There is a wide gap between what many Americans believe happens inside ICE detention centers and what actually happens in practice.

I have personally toured the ICE detention center in Eloy. I’ve spoken directly with detainees and with people who work inside the facility. I have also been contacted by multiple family members of individuals currently being held in ICE detention. Those conversations have fundamentally changed how I view the system.

The public generally assumes a straightforward process: ICE arrests someone who is in the country illegally, places them in detention, and Homeland Security arranges their return to their country of origin. Most people believe this takes a few months and that those detained are primarily dangerous criminals being removed to make our communities safer.

That is not what is happening.

In practice, ICE is detaining people who are in the country illegally—but many of them are not criminals. An artificial arrest quota of 3,500 individuals per day, reportedly driven by Stephen Miller, has changed enforcement behavior. To meet that quota, ICE is now detaining people who are voluntarily checking in for their monthly immigration hearings—individuals who are compliant, known to authorities, and in many cases actively working through the legal immigration process.

As of early 2026, data shows that only 26% to 30% of individuals in ICE detention have criminal convictions. Even when estimates include those with pending charges—not convictions—the number rises to roughly 47%. That means the majority of detainees—have no criminal convictions.

Additional data reveals:

• Only 5% to 7% of detainees have convictions for violent crimes.
• Many labeled as “criminals” are charged with non-violent offenses such as traffic violations or DUIs. These are crimes  but many of us know of someone who has these types of charges.
• Recent growth in detention is driven by individuals with no criminal record, further reducing the percentage of convicted  offenders in custody.

Arizona currently has approximately 2,800 ICE detention beds spread across multiple facilities. This raises an important question: if people are being deported efficiently, why aren't beds continually turning over to house new detainees?

The answer is simple—and troubling.

To deport someone, the United States must have valid travel documents, typically a passport, issued by the detainee’s country of origin. If the individual does not have one or it is expired, their home country must cooperate and issue it. Many countries—including China—are unwilling or extremely slow to do so. When that happens, detainees are stuck in legal limbo.

ICE will not to release non-criminal detainees back into society with an ankle monitor—even when they have previously complied with check-ins and court dates—resulting in indefinite detention without trial, at enormous taxpayer expense. People are effectively imprisoned because international bureaucracy has stalled their removal at the taxpayers’ expense. So someone who was working, paying for their own housing, food, and medical is now being supported by the taxpayer. Is that what we want?

This is not justice. It is not efficient. And it should deeply concern anyone who values taxpayer dollars and due process.

I strongly support law enforcement and the rule of law. But I also question whether warehousing non-criminal individuals indefinitely—at public expense—is the best or most humane approach. Systems designed on paper do not always function ethically or effectively in the real world.

All of this could be addressed through comprehensive immigration reform by passing the Dignity Act. It would provide a lawful, structured alternative—one that secures the border, enforces the law, and treats human beings as human beings.

\

We can do better. And we should.

Let me be very clear: I am 100% in favor of deporting criminal illegal aliens and fully support strong, lawful immigration enforcement. But detaining people who have been complying with immigration requirements for months or even years—showing up for hearings, checking in as directed, and following the rules—is both cruel and counterproductive. This is not the stated intent of President Trump or Tom Homan, yet it has become the reality on the ground. If enforcement policies are producing outcomes that punish compliance and reward chaos, then it’s time to reassess how those policies are being implemented. We can enforce the law, protect public safety, and still act with fairness and dignity—but only if we are willing to confront what is actually happening, not just what we assume is happening.

Some have asked why I am sympathetic to these concerns, and a few have even accused me of siding with Democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not alone in raising these issues—many current and retired Republican leaders, law-enforcement professionals, and conservative voices across the country have expressed the same concerns. We can be serious about border security and honest about policy outcomes at the same time. President Biden intentionally created this crisis through reckless policy decisions, and Arizonans are now paying the price for federal failure.

However, in our rightful urgency to course-correct, we must be careful not to make the situation worse. I do not support forcing taxpayers to fund indefinite housing for illegal aliens simply to meet artificial enforcement quotas or create the appearance of action. That is not real reform—it is expensive window dressing. President Trump’s original intent was clear: remove the worst of the worst first—violent criminals, traffickers, and repeat offenders—not chase low-hanging fruit to appease political pressure. Real progress is hard, disciplined, and strategic, but that is exactly what conservatives should demand: results, accountability, and policies that actually restore order without wasting public dollars.

Kelly Yu has lived in Peoria for over two decades. She is a small business owner who operates two local restaurants, employs approximately 30 American workers, pays her taxes, and actively gives back to her community. She sponsors a local high school baseball team, is married to an American citizen, and is the mother of a daughter currently attending college. By every measurable standard, Kelly is a contributing, law-abiding member of our community.

Kelly came to the United States 21 years ago while pregnant, fleeing China’s one-child policy. Since that time, she has made repeated and sustained efforts to resolve her immigration status and become a U.S. citizen. Despite these efforts, she was taken into ICE custody more than six months ago after attending what she believed to be a routine monthly immigration meeting.

My friend Brent Peak and I have been actively advocating for Kelly’s release. There is clear legal precedent supporting such action. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention without a realistic prospect of removal violates constitutional protections. Kelly has now been detained well beyond six months, and her continued detention serves no public safety purpose.

Further, on October 10, 2025, Judge Paula Xinis held an evidentiary hearing in the habeas corpus case of Kilmar Abrego Garciato determine whether she had the authority to order his release under similar circumstances. On December 11, 2025, Mr. Abrego Garcia was released. However, Abrego Garcia will have to stand trial for the crimes he has committed in the US. Yu has no criminal history. We are praying under this precedent she will be released as well. 

We are respectfully asking that Kelly Yu be granted release under the same legal precedent. Her detention is unnecessary, inconsistent with prior rulings, and causes significant hardship to her family, employees, and the broader community that depends on her businesses.

Kelly Yu is not a flight risk, nor does she pose any danger to the public. She deserves the opportunity to continue her case while living with her family and contributing to the community she has called home for over 20 years.