How does ICE know who to arrest?
Executive summary
ICE decides whom to arrest through a mix of agency-generated investigative work, data and intelligence-driven leads, and statutory authorities that allow administrative arrests without a judicial warrant; in practice that means arrests come from criminal histories, immigration records (including prior removals or re‑entries), workplace verification systems, and tip-driven or targeted operations — though critics say profiling and weak warrant standards create risks of wrongful detention [1] [2] [3]. Public-facing ICE guidance frames many operations as “targeted” after investigation, but civil‑liberties groups and local reporting document disputes about tactics, identification, and the limits of ICE authority [1] [4].
1. How ICE builds its suspect list: intelligence, records and investigations
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) says it uses “law enforcement and intelligence‑driven leads” and investigations to identify noncitizens who pose threats to public safety or who have immigration violations such as illegal re‑entry or outstanding removal orders — those investigative findings and databases form the core of who becomes a target [1]. Congressional and agency materials confirm that ICE officers routinely rely on immigration case files, criminal records, and administrative warrants (I‑200/I‑205 forms) created within DHS to establish probable cause for arrest and detention, rather than a judge‑signed criminal warrant [2] [5].
2. Criminal and administrative priorities: who ICE says it targets
ICE publicly emphasizes arrests of convicted criminals, fugitives and those who repeatedly violate immigration orders, and its messaging to Congress and the public frames operations around public‑safety priorities rather than mass sweeps [1] [6]. That stated priority coexists with statutory authority allowing administrative arrests under Section 1226(a) and related provisions; those statutes permit detention pending removal proceedings and do not require the same detached judicial approval that criminal arrest warrants do [2].
3. Worksite enforcement, paperwork and employer referrals
Worksite programs and employer compliance systems feed ICE investigations: employers must complete I‑9 forms and businesses can participate in ICE programs that flag potential immigration violations, and ICE conducts inspections and inspections can lead to arrests without a judicial warrant [7] [3]. Legal guides for workers and defenders stress that administrative ICE “warrants” are agency documents that don’t by themselves authorize entry into homes without consent and that officers do not need judicial warrants to arrest in many settings, which shapes how ICE locates and takes custody of people [8] [4].
4. Surveillance, tips and public encounters: street arrests and public reporting
ICE also acts on tips, public records and in‑person encounters: agents can initiate consensual encounters, briefly detain people on reasonable suspicion, and arrest people they believe are unlawfully present without a judicial warrant, which enables arrests from public settings, workplaces or during stops [3] [9]. That operational flexibility helps ICE move quickly but has prompted lawsuits and criticism when officers’ factual bases for stops appear weak or when agents used administrative forms labeled “warrants,” raising questions about transparency and mistaken arrests [4] [10].
5. Legal standards, controversy and checks on who can be arrested
Legally, ICE’s authority mixes Fourth Amendment standards (reasonable suspicion, probable cause) with administrative arrest power; unlike criminal warrants, ICE’s internal warrants do not require a neutral magistrate’s sign‑off, which civil‑liberties advocates say lowers the bar and risks overreach [2]. Courts, advocacy groups and local governments push back through litigation, “know your rights” education and local policies, and reporters have documented instances where arrests of people later shown to be citizens or where agents’ papers were disputed — showing a persistent tension between agency practices and civil‑liberties protections [4] [10] [11].
6. The politics and hidden incentives shaping targeting
ICE’s public rhetoric about targeting serious criminals serves political and operational aims — it frames enforcement as protecting public safety while justifying broad internal arrest powers — but outside observers note that priorities shift with administrations, and reliance on internal databases, employer referrals and rapid public arrests can produce collateral harm to non‑targeted people who share demographic traits or work in flagged industries [1] [6] [4]. Reporting and legal materials highlight that agency documents, field policies and community pressure all shape who ends up on arrest lists, and that the system’s administrative nature makes independent verification and accountability more difficult [5] [2].