Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What counts as a 'criminal' for immigration deportation statistics at DHS?
Executive summary
DHS and its components (ICE/ERO) count people as “criminal” in deportation statistics using a broad set of criteria that mixes people with criminal convictions, people with pending charges, and people removed for immigration-law violations such as illegal reentry; DHS/ICE reporting and advocates warn this can overstate the share who are serious offenders (e.g., many removals are for immigration violations rather than violent felonies) [1] [2]. Independent reporting finds gaps between DHS claims that “vast majority” are criminals and other data showing a substantial share of detainees had no convictions or pending charges [3].
1. What DHS calls a “criminal” is not just violent felons
DHS/ICE public statistics separate removals into categories that include people with convictions, people with pending criminal charges, and a third group described as having “no convictions or pending charges but who have broken U.S. immigration laws,” which explicitly covers repeat re‑entry, immigration fugitives, and international fugitives [1]. Advocates and analysts argue that DHS’s “criminal alien” totals therefore can include minor offenses (traffic, misdemeanor DUI), immigration‑related offenses, or administrative reinstatements — not only the homicide/sexual‑offense/drug trafficking cases the public often imagines [2] [1].
2. Legal grounds for deportation differ from criminal prosecution
U.S. immigration law makes many criminal convictions a ground for removability (for example, “aggravated felonies” and crimes involving “moral turpitude”), but the immigration ground for deportation is civil in structure and can apply even when a conviction would not be an aggravated felony under criminal law; the federal criminal system is a separate channel that can also be used for entry/reentry offenses [4] [5] [6]. The Department of Justice materials show specific statutory triggers (e.g., reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. §1326) that can be prosecuted criminally, but many removals occur through administrative or civil removal processes rather than criminal convictions [7] [6].
3. How statistical categories can inflate impressions of “criminality”
Journalists and think‑tank researchers note DHS’s headline percent‑criminal figures can be misleading because DHS aggregates multiple categories; one American Immigration Council analysis emphasized that DHS’s “criminal” label is overly broad and that only a subset of “criminal removals” involve the core categories of homicide, sexual offenses, drug offenses or DUI (the council cited that about 40% of DHS’s criminal deportations fell in those four categories) [2]. This means policymakers and the public can misread a high “percent criminal” as meaning most removals are for violent or serious felonies when DHS’s own taxonomy is broader [2] [1].
4. Independent reporting finds discrepancies with DHS claims
NPR reporting shows evidence that DHS’s public claims — for example that the “vast majority” of removals are criminals — do not line up cleanly with other datasets. NPR reported researchers and DHS detention records indicating substantial numbers of detainees had no convictions or pending charges; one expert cited DHS detention data showing 53% had pending charges or convictions, leaving a large share without criminal records [3]. NPR’s piece highlights both DHS assertions and the countervailing data, signaling disagreement about how to count and portray removals [3].
5. Practical consequences: policy, prosecution, and public perception
The distinction matters because immigration enforcement priorities, prosecution decisions, and public support hinge on whether removals target “serious threats.” The criminalization of certain immigration conduct — particularly illegal entry and reentry — has increased the flow of people processed through criminal courts and then removed, which both raises conviction counts and blurs the line between immigration and ordinary criminal law [6] [8]. Advocates warn that conflating immigration violations and minor convictions with violent crime can serve political narratives and justify broader detention and removal policies [2] [3].
6. What available sources don’t settle
Available sources do not mention a single, standardized DHS definition limited exclusively to convictions for violent felonies that would answer the user’s question with a simple yes/no; instead, DHS and ICE reporting use multi‑category tallies (convictions, pending charges, immigration‑only removals) and outside analysts dispute how those categories are presented [1] [2] [3]. For anyone seeking precision, the reporting shows you must inspect the underlying ICE/DHS tables to see how many removals in a period were convictions for specific offense types versus administrative removals or reinstatements [1] [2].
Bottom line: DHS’s “criminal” deportation statistics are a composite category that mixes convictions, pending charges, and immigration‑only removals (including reentry and administrative reinstatements); independent analyses and reporting caution that using DHS’s headline percentages without unpacking those subcategories can mislead about how many deportations are for serious violent felonies versus immigration violations or minor offenses [1] [2] [3].