How does ICE who to arrest?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) focuses on administrative arrests of people it believes are removable and also can execute criminal warrants; historically many arrested have convictions such as DUI, drug possession and assaults, but recent 2025 data show a large and growing share of arrests are for immigration violations alone — for example, 58% in San Diego and Imperial counties had no criminal history (ICE; inewsource) [1] [2]. DHS policy changes in 2025 broadened where ICE may operate — rescinding prior protected-area limits — though courts have enjoined implementation of parts of that guidance unless a warrant is used [3] [4].
1. How ICE decides whom to arrest — statutory and operational rules
ICE’s ERO identifies and arrests “aliens who are subject to removal or are unlawfully present,” relying on administrative immigration law (the Immigration and Nationality Act) for warrantless arrest authority where agents have probable cause or believe someone may escape before a warrant can be obtained; ERO also executes criminal arrest warrants and may initiate prosecutions for criminal activity [1] [5]. ICE’s publicly posted statistics and dashboards document arrests, detentions and removals and note ERO “manages all aspects” of the enforcement process [1].
2. Criminal versus administrative arrests — the data and competing narratives
Federal messaging emphasizes targeting “the worst of the worst,” and DHS/ICE press releases highlight arrests of serious criminals [6] [7] — a law-enforcement framing meant to justify aggressive operations. Independent analyses and local reporting show a different balance: researchers and journalists using ICE datasets found that large shares of arrests are administrative (no criminal record), including a local analysis showing 58% had no criminal history in San Diego/Imperial counties and national datasets indicating tens of thousands without criminal records [2] [8] [9]. Both perspectives exist in the record: official communications stress criminal arrests; data-driven reporting shows broad use of administrative arrests.
3. Where ICE can arrest people — protected areas, warrants and court limits
DHS issued new 2025 guidance that relaxed restrictions on enforcement in “protected areas” and near courthouses and encouraged officer discretion, effectively expanding locations where ICE might act [4] [3]. ICE’s own interim guidance defines civil immigration enforcement actions and clarifies it does not apply to criminal enforcement inside courthouses, but a court has enjoined aspects of the DHS and ICE memoranda — barring implementation unless actions are done pursuant to an administrative or judicial warrant — signaling judicial pushback against the policy shift [3].
4. Local partnerships and deputization: 287(g) and reliance on jails
ICE leverages partnerships with state and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program and heavy use of local jails for identifying removable people; researchers found many ICE arrests come out of jails and lock-ups and that rates vary depending on local cooperation [10] [11]. Prison Policy and others documented spikes tied to federal pressure to escalate arrests and emphasized that nearly half of arrests happen via local facilities, demonstrating how federal-local collaboration shapes who is arrested [11].
5. Legal limits, procedures and on-the-ground practice
Reporting and legal guides note ICE can make warrantless arrests with probable cause under the INA and may briefly detain on reasonable suspicion, but entry into homes and businesses typically requires a judicial warrant unless consent or exigent circumstances exist; agents are expected to identify themselves and explain reasons for arrest, and excessive force is not permitted under law and policy [5] [12]. Available sources do not comprehensively detail every field practice or how individual agents apply discretion day-to-day; those specifics are not found in current reporting.
6. What the numbers mean — policy intent versus effect
ICE and DHS present enforcement as focused on serious criminals [6] [7]; empirical work using ICE releases shows arrest volumes rose sharply in 2025 while the share of people arrested without convictions also rose, indicating policy implementation differs from rhetoric [9] [2]. Analysts warn that state and local cooperation and DOJ/DHS priorities materially influence who is picked up — a political and operational channel that can expand arrests beyond people with criminal records [11] [13].
Limitations and tensions in sources: official ICE/DHS statements emphasize criminal arrests and capability to execute warrants [1] [6]; independent journalists, NGOs and researchers relying on released ICE datasets show a substantial and growing portion of administrative arrests without criminal histories [2] [9] [13]. Courts have already constrained parts of DHS’s 2025 policy expansion on protected areas, demonstrating legal pushback [3]. Available sources do not mention detailed internal criteria ICE uses in individual case selection beyond statutory authority, DHS directives, local partnerships, and discretion described in policy documents and data analyses.