Are deportation patterns in the U.S. influenced by race or nationality data?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows deportation totals and enforcement priorities are reported by nationality and enforcement category, and several analyses and surveys document racial and ethnic impacts or fears—particularly among Latinos and Black migrants—though federal public tables focus on nationality rather than race [1] [2] [3]. Independent researchers and advocacy groups find disparities in who is detained and deported (for example, Black migrants are a small share of undocumented people but face disproportionately high deportation rates), while government releases and mainstream data products emphasize citizenship or country-of-origin counts [4] [2] [1].
1. Official data emphasize nationality and enforcement categories, not race
Federal reporting from ICE and DHS publishes removals, arrests and enforcement categories (criminal history, visa overstays, re‑entries, etc.), and these public statistics are organized around nationality and legal/operational categories rather than race as a primary descriptor [1] [5]. Multiple outlets and data projects note that modern federal deportation tables use country of origin or nationality as the main breakdown; mapping projects observing historical shifts say authorities now classify deportations by nationality rather than race [2] [1].
2. Researchers estimate large flows and show who is most affected by nationality-based enforcement
Analysts at Migration Policy Institute and economists at the San Francisco Fed use the nationality-based data to estimate hundreds of thousands of interior deportations in 2025—MPI estimates about 340,000 deportations in FY2025 and the Fed points to roughly 285,000 interior deportations used in its labor‑force calculations—showing how nationality-focused counts drive policy analysis of enforcement impact [6] [7].
3. Survey evidence: race and ethnicity shape public perception and lived fear
National surveys from Pew and KFF document that Latino and immigrant communities report heightened worry and personal impacts from ramped‑up enforcement; about half of Latinos reported increased worry in recent months and large shares of immigrants report knowing someone detained or deported, showing that enforcement policies—though reported by nationality—have strongly racialized effects in public experience [3] [8] [9].
4. Independent analyses and advocates point to racial disparities in enforcement outcomes
Advocacy and investigative analyses find that Black migrants are deported at rates disproportionate to their share of the undocumented population—one analysis cited by Capital B and by immigrant‑rights groups found Black migrants represent a small share of undocumented people but are overrepresented in deportations and extreme detention measures like solitary confinement [4]. Mapping and watchdog projects likewise highlight that the choice to report by nationality hides race‑based patterns that emerge in enforcement practices [2] [4].
5. Policy changes and administration priorities alter who gets targeted
Contemporary reporting shows the second Trump administration aggressively expanded interior enforcement and set high numerical targets for removals; DHS and media reporting indicate large increases in deportations and operations in interior U.S. settings and sanctuary jurisdictions, which changes the demographic mix of those encountered by ICE and CBP [10] [11] [12]. Different administrations’ operational priorities—focusing on border encounters vs. interior removals, criminal history vs. immigration status—produce different nationality and racial patterns in who is detained and removed [6] [7].
6. Data limitations and competing narratives: what the sources don’t settle
Federal public tables emphasize nationality and enforcement category, making direct, consistent national statistics by race scarce in government releases [1] [2]. Independent groups and researchers fill that gap but use different methods and time frames, producing divergent estimates [4] [6]. Some government statements assert very large removal totals (DHS messaging of hundreds of thousands removed in 2025), while independent FOIA‑based counts and research institutes produce lower but still sizable estimates—revealing a dispute about scale and methodology [10] [6] [11].
7. Takeaway for the question “Are deportation patterns influenced by race or nationality data?”
Available federal reporting demonstrates deportation patterns are documented and operationalized primarily through nationality and legal categories [1] [2]. At the same time, multiple independent analyses and surveys show enforcement has racially disparate effects—Black migrants and Latino communities report disproportionate targeting or fear—and researchers argue that focusing reporting on nationality can obscure race‑based disparities in outcomes [4] [3] [2]. The policy implication: nationality‑based datasets are the official record, but they do not resolve questions about racial bias; outside analyses and lived experiences indicate race and ethnicity remain central to how enforcement is felt and, by several measures, how it is carried out [6] [4] [3].
Limitations: public federal tables do not consistently report race, and independent analyses use different methods, so reconciling exact magnitudes of racial disparities requires more harmonized data than currently published [1] [2].