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.
Fact check: How does ICE determine who to arrest and detain?
Executive Summary
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decides whom to arrest and detain using a mix of criminal-history assessments, immigration status checks from local jails, and expanding enforcement practices that increasingly capture people without convictions; recent government tallies show people with no criminal record became the largest single group in ICE detention in 2025 [1]. Critics and advocates disagree sharply about the public-safety implications and legal process issues: opponents argue broader enforcement deters crime reporting and causes due-process harms, while ICE’s stated priorities emphasize criminal aliens even as data show changing arrest patterns [2] [3].
1. How ICE’s stated priorities clash with the detention numbers — a numbers story that raises questions
ICE publicly frames enforcement around targeting "criminal aliens," but government data compiled in late September 2025 show a reversal in composition: 16,523 people in detention had no criminal record, compared with 15,725 with a criminal record and 13,767 with pending charges, part of a 59,762 total reported figure [1]. This shift intensifies scrutiny of policy claims because the raw counts indicate a larger share of arrests now involve people without convictions, a fact cited by multiple outlets explaining the discrepancy between stated enforcement priorities and operational outcomes [3].
2. The local-jail pipeline: how sheriff records become federal detainers — a routine that expands enforcement reach
ICE commonly relies on information-sharing from county jails and sheriff’s departments, where booking data and fingerprints flag people who might lack legal status; sheriffs then receive ICE detainers or holds that allow federal custody for civil immigration proceedings, a mechanism documented in reporting from Florida and elsewhere [4]. That jail-to-ICE pipeline explains much of the increase in non-convicted detainees because many arrested or detained locally may not have criminal convictions but are still identified through booking processes and turned over for immigration enforcement [4].
3. Policy shifts and targeting choices: administration directives vs. results on the ground
Analysts note that administration directives promising to focus on serious criminals have not matched enforcement outcomes, with reporting showing a surge in detentions of people without criminal records and specific attention to groups like Southeast Asian refugees whose old convictions or immigration histories are being re-litigated [3] [5]. Those reporting strands indicate policy memos and public statements have been implemented unevenly, producing practical outcomes — more detentions of low- or non-criminal populations — that add legal and humanitarian complexity to removal efforts [3] [5].
4. Public-safety trade-offs flagged by victim advocates and law-enforcement critics
Critics argue expanding civil immigration arrests into communities creates deterrent effects for crime reporting, saying that when victims or witnesses fear immigration repercussions they are less likely to cooperate with police; investigation and advocacy pieces link ICE’s broadened arrest patterns to a chilling effect that can undermine public safety [2]. Reporting highlights cases where victims and relatives became entangled in deportation processes, illustrating how policy implementation choices ripple into community trust and local policing outcomes even as ICE defends priorities on criminal enforcement [2].
5. Due process, secretive removals, and the logistics of deportation: rights concerns in practice
Investigations into ICE operations describe secretive flights, a deportation hub, and detainees moved without notice, producing constitutional and medical-care concerns; such reporting documents due-process and conditions issues including delays in legal access and medical treatment when detainees are shuffled through networks of facilities and flights [6]. These operational practices matter because they shape the lived consequences for those arrested under civil immigration authority, especially when many detainees do not have criminal convictions but still face expedited removal-related logistics and legal hurdles [6].
6. Human stories and demographic impacts: refugees, families, and long-term consequences
Reporting on Southeast Asian refugees and family separations puts a human face on the statistical trends: individuals with decades-old convictions or complex immigration histories are being removed, sparking community trauma and legal contention, and families report abrupt departures without adequate opportunity for hearings or farewells, emphasizing long-term social and emotional costs beyond raw detention numbers [5]. These accounts highlight how aggregate data on non-criminal detainees translate into tangible displacement and family disruption in the U.S. communities most affected by enforcement shifts [5].
7. What the data do — and don’t — say: gaps, dates, and remaining questions
The government tallies in late September 2025 provide a snapshot showing more non-convicted detainees [1], but the data leave open questions about classification methods, timeframes for citation of past vs. pending offenses, and how local booking practices inflate or skew counts via detainer requests [4]. Journalistic and advocacy reporting through September 2025 corroborates trends and documents harms and procedural issues, but additional transparency about ICE screening criteria, priorities memos, and local-jail data flows is necessary to resolve uncertainties and fully explain the divergence between stated policy and operational outcomes [3] [4].