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.
How does ICE know who to target?
Executive summary
ICE identifies targets through a mix of intelligence-driven methods (databases, workplace I‑9 inspections, and interagency sharing), expanded surveillance technology, and more opportunistic tactics like raids in public spaces or workplaces that net large numbers of people [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows a shift in 2025 toward broader, less selective operations—higher daily arrest goals and tactics that critics say rely on location, appearance or sector rather than individualized criminality (3,000-a-day quotas; rises in arrests of people with no criminal record) [4] [5].
1. ICE says it uses intelligence and legal tools — and often points to criminal cases
ICE and DHS frame many operations as “intelligence-driven” or focused on criminal aliens and employer violations; public ICE releases describe coordinated investigations that begin from tips, subpoenas, criminal search warrants, and employer-record probes such as I‑9 inspections [6] [1]. In practice, agency statements emphasize targeting “the worst of the worst” or specific employer-related violations to justify large-scale operations [6] [1].
2. Data and reporting show many arrested are noncriminal or have minor records
Independent analyses and nonprofit reporting contradict the official line that ICE primarily targets criminals: The Guardian’s data review found the largest increase in detainees during 2024–2025 were people with no criminal record, and prior multi-year figures show the majority of arrestees had misdemeanor convictions or none [5]. Humanitarian groups and advocates report that an “overwhelming margin” of those targeted pose no public-safety threat [7].
3. Policy directives and quotas changed operational incentives
Multiple outlets report that internal directives and White House pressure to raise arrests changed ICE’s operational calculus. Reuters and others documented a jump in daily arrest targets—from earlier goals up to an alleged 3,000 per day—which officials and former ICE staff say prompted broader sweeps and less selective tactics [4]. Former ICE leadership told POLITICO that earlier “worst-first” priorities were abandoned in favor of sweeping interior enforcement to maximize arrests [8].
4. Location- and occupation-based tactics: carwashes, Home Depots, courthouses
Journalistic and NGO reporting describes operations that focus on places where large numbers of potentially undocumented people congregate—worksites, Home Depot parking lots, car washes, and even Spanish-language court dockets—because they produce higher yields and are easier to execute at scale [9] [10] [11]. Critics say this amounts to de facto profiling by workplace, language, or neighborhood [10] [9].
5. Technology and data aggregation broaden ICE’s reach
Reporting and analyses document ICE’s increased use of biometric tools, facial recognition, phone-location data, and social-media screening to identify and monitor people—tools that can accelerate identification but raise privacy and free-speech concerns [3] [12]. Investigations show ICE pursues data-sharing and centralized “data lakes,” and deploys alternatives-to-detention apps with facial-recognition components to monitor noncitizens [12].
6. Community tips, local law enforcement, and contractors play roles — with uneven cooperation
ICE still draws on tips and cooperation with local police and state agencies where deputization or data-sharing exists; yet cooperation varies by city and legal constraints in some jurisdictions limit door-to-door tactics, forcing other approaches [13] [4]. Wired and other reporting show ICE is also planning transport and logistics changes that would institutionalize larger-scale interior removals—suggesting a systemic push to identify and move greater numbers of people [2].
7. Critics warn of profiling and civil-rights harms; the agency insists on legality
Human Rights Watch, ACLU attorneys, and advocacy groups document cases and patterns they say indicate reliance on perceived race, ethnicity, language, and workplace to decide whom to detain, calling it discriminatory and terrorizing to communities [9] [11]. ICE and DHS press releases dispute specific claims such as targeting schools or daycares, saying operations focus on identified individuals and lawful authorities [14].
8. What this means for who gets targeted: mixed selection criteria
Available reporting shows ICE uses a mixture of (a) case-specific intelligence and warrants; (b) employer-centered probes yielding mass arrests; (c) location- and occupation-based operations driven by arrest quotas; and (d) expanding tech/data tools that broaden identification options [1] [4] [3] [12]. These combined incentives and tools have produced a notable rise in arrests of people without criminal histories, according to data analyses and watchdog reporting [5] [7].
Limitations and disagreements: reporting outlets disagree on motive and proportionality—ICE and DHS emphasize legality and criminal targets [6] [14], while journalists, NGOs and former officials say policy changes and quotas led to less-selective, higher-volume operations and disproportionate effects on Latino and other communities [4] [5] [9]. Available sources do not mention specific internal targeting algorithms beyond descriptions of aggregated data use and biometric tools (not found in current reporting).