How do ICE and DHS define “criminal alien” and how has that definition changed over time?
Executive summary
ICE and DHS treat “criminal alien” as an administrative category describing noncitizens who are removable because of criminal convictions or who are judged to pose public‑safety risks, a label used operationally by programs like ICE’s Criminal Alien Program (CAP) to prioritize identification, detention, and removal [1] [2]. Over the past two decades the term’s practical application has broadened and been institutionalized through database matching, jail‑based screening, and at‑large enforcement teams, even as critics argue those practices have produced racial disparities and conflated immigration status with criminality [3] [4] [5].
1. What DHS and ICE formally mean by “criminal alien”
DHS and ICE do not use a single statutory one‑line definition but operationalize the concept: an alien who is removable due to criminal convictions, charged with immigration‑related crimes, or assessed as posing a public‑safety threat and therefore prioritized for arrest, detention, or removal by Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) [1] [2]. ICE explains CAP focuses on those convicted of aggravated felonies or serious crimes and on individuals identified through custodial screenings and interagency information‑sharing [1] [3].
2. How the label is implemented on the ground — CAP, databases and jails
ICE’s Criminal Alien Program uses biometric and biographic matches, jail and prison roster data, and institutional hearing programs to flag incarcerated noncitizens for placement into immigration removal proceedings and post‑sentence transfer to ICE custody [3] [1]. The agency places detainers and, where local jurisdictions are “uncooperative,” it deploys mobile and at‑large teams to arrest individuals released from local custody [1] [4]. DHS also records conviction status in detention datasets that feed operational decisions [6].
3. Legal and administrative authorities behind the term
The authority rests on immigration statutes and DHS regulations that make certain convictions grounds for removal and authorize warrantless arrests and administrative detention by designated immigration officers; ICE’s actions may overlap with criminal prosecutions but are principally civil immigration enforcement under INA provisions [7] [2]. CAP and related programs are administrative mechanisms to execute those statutory removal grounds in coordination with DOJ and correctional partners [1] [7].
4. How the definition and practice evolved over time
Identification and removal of “criminal aliens” intensified in the 2000s and 2010s as programs like Secure Communities and later CAP expanded data sharing between local jails and DHS; DHS adoption of institutional hearing programs and mobile enforcement teams shows a shift from purely jail‑based screening to more proactive at‑large enforcement [3] [4]. Federal prosecutions for entry and re‑entry rose sharply in the early 2010s, reflecting a period when criminal immigration enforcement was both criminal‑court and administrative priorities [8].
5. Policy choices and political inflection points
Policy memos and administration priorities changed who was targeted: some periods emphasized “worst of the worst” criminals, while others broadened interior enforcement to include reentry and immigration‑related offenses; DHS and ICE public messaging underscores the safety rationale, while advocacy groups trace larger removal totals and prosecutorial surges to administrative choices and resource allocations [9] [10] [8]. CAP funding and the folding of Secure Communities into CAP institutionalized a broader enforcement posture [11] [3].
6. Critiques, civil‑rights concerns and alternative framings
Advocacy and oversight reports argue that CAP’s methods produce racial and national origin disparities, call for more oversight to prevent profiling, and contend that immigration enforcement has sometimes criminalized migration itself through expanded prosecutions and detention practices [5] [8] [4]. DHS and ICE counter that CAP focuses on public‑safety risks and relies on conviction records and data matches to prioritize removals [1] [2].
7. What remains unclear in public reporting
Public sources document operational procedures and historical trends but do not offer a single statutory definition or a universally agreed threshold separating “criminal” from “non‑criminal” noncitizens beyond the statutory removal grounds; assessing proportionality, racial impact, or the precise mix of convictions driving removals requires case‑level data not fully published in the public reports cited here [1] [5] [6].