How do definitions of "no criminal record" vary in immigration enforcement statistics?
Executive summary
Definitions of “no criminal record” vary across agencies and reporting: ICE’s public pages distinguish between “no convictions or pending charges” and those who have broken immigration law [1], while independent analyses and leaked datasets report that roughly 65–73% of recent ICE book‑ins had no criminal convictions [2] [3]. News outlets and advocacy groups cite detention snapshots showing roughly 71–74% of people in ICE custody lacked convictions at specific points in 2025 [4] [5].
1. Labels matter: what agencies record and why
ICE’s own statistical language separates people with “pending criminal charges,” people with convictions, and a third explicit group described as “those with no convictions or pending charges but who have broken U.S. immigration laws” — a hybrid category that mixes civil immigration violations (like visa overstays) with lack of criminal convictions [1]. That wording shows ICE is not simply counting criminality vs non‑criminality but also classifying immigration status and repeated civil violations, which produces a different headline than a straight “no criminal record” tally [1].
2. Different data snapshots, different percentages
Independent researchers and think tanks using nonpublic or archived ICE data reported varying shares of detainees with no convictions: Cato and reporting based on leaked datasets put early FY2026 book‑ins at about 73% with no criminal convictions for a mid‑November window [3], while Cato’s June analysis cited 65% with no convictions as of mid‑June [2]. Law firms and data trackers using ICE’s published detention snapshots reported similar high shares — 71.7% as of June 29, 2025, and the TRA report citing 73.6% among 65,135 detainees in mid‑November [4] [5]. Those differences flow from the period covered, whether the measure is “book‑ins” vs “currently detained,” and whether pending charges are counted as criminality [2] [5] [4].
3. Pending charges, foreign convictions and other caveats
Some official statements emphasize pending charges and foreign convictions to rebut claims about detaining noncriminals — for example, DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin described arrests as including “convicted or have pending charges” and referenced foreign‑country convictions and Interpol notices [6]. ICE’s public materials point out that their criminality buckets include pending charges and convictions for immigration‑related offenses and traffic matters, meaning that the absence of a U.S. conviction does not guarantee absence of other criminal indicators recorded by DHS [1] [6].
4. Operational choices change who is detained
Reporting shows policy directives and enforcement intensity shape the composition of detainees: officials ordered large increases in arrests, and agencies expanded arrests into workplaces and communities — measures that swept up many without U.S. convictions, according to multiple outlets [6] [2] [7]. Court rulings and local pushback — e.g., a federal judge in Colorado limiting warrantless civil arrests — underline how enforcement tactics, not only underlying records, determine who ends up in custody [8].
5. Media framing and political narratives diverge
The administration’s public messaging emphasizes targeting the “worst of the worst,” while investigative reporting and data analyses show a much larger share of detainees have no U.S. criminal convictions [6] [3]. Different outlets and parties spotlight different figures: official statements cite percentages that include pending charges and foreign convictions [6], whereas watchdogs and academic projects highlight raw percentages of people without convictions in ICE book‑ins or current detention [2] [4]. The divergence reflects implicit agendas: agencies defending enforcement choices versus researchers testing whether those choices align with stated priorities [6] [2].
6. What this means for interpreting statistics
When you see a headline that “X% of detainees have no criminal record,” check three things in the source: whether it counts current detainees or book‑ins over a period, whether “no criminal record” excludes pending charges or foreign convictions, and whether immigration civil violations are tallied separately [1] [2] [5]. Otherwise, apples‑to‑oranges comparisons will produce misleading conclusions about enforcement priorities [2] [4].
Limitations and final note
Available sources do not provide a single unified definition that all agencies use; instead, the record shows multiple overlapping categories and shifting snapshots that produce different headline percentages [1] [2] [5]. Readers should treat any single percentage as a starting point and consult the underlying table or methodology — especially the ICE “Currently Detained by Criminality and Arresting Agency” releases and independent datasets cited above — before drawing firm conclusions [1] [9].