How does ICE classify arrests as 'criminal' versus 'non‑criminal' in its public statistics?
Executive summary
ICE distinguishes between administrative immigration arrests and criminal arrests in its public statistics, but the agency’s reporting categories and public statements blur that line: ICE’s public dataset and FAQ describe “criminal” cases as those with convictions or pending criminal charges while labeling people without U.S. criminal records or with immigration‑only violations as “other immigration violators” or “non‑criminal,” yet agency presentations sometimes count pending charges or foreign‑country fugitive designations as “criminal” for public messaging [1] [2] [3]. Independent analysts warn that ICE’s use of administrative warrants, inclusion of pending charges, and separate enforcement arms (ERO vs. HSI) create gaps and incentives that complicate any neat tally of “criminal” versus “non‑criminal” arrests in publicly released data [4] [5].
1. What the agency’s categories actually are — administrative vs. criminal
ICE makes a basic legal distinction in its materials: many arrests it carries out are administrative arrests for alleged civil violations of immigration law (i.e., removal or reentry), whereas criminal arrests stem from statutory criminal offenses; ICE’s public statistics and FAQ describe administrative arrests as the norm for removal and note that officers may also execute criminal arrest warrants or initiate prosecutions when criminal activity is suspected [1] [2].
2. How “criminal” shows up in ICE datasets
Public data releases and dashboards commonly flag whether an individual has a history of criminal convictions or pending criminal charges — metrics that researchers and reporters use to label a detained person as “criminal” in aggregate tables — but ICE’s files also include administrative variables (arrest location, arresting agency, custody determinations) that separate immigration enforcement actions from judicial criminal proceedings [6] [5].
3. Why “pending charges” matter — and why they’re controversial
Advocates and policy analysts note that ICE and DHS sometimes count people with pending charges as part of the “criminal” cohort in public statements, even though pending charges are not convictions and may be dismissed; leaked and analyzed datasets showed many detainees categorized as having charges rather than convictions, a practice critics say inflates the criminal label [7] [8]. The journalist resource guide explains that administrative arrests remain civil in nature even when the arrestee has a separate criminal history, and federal law limits ICE’s criminal arrest power to specific circumstances [4].
4. The “other immigration violators” bucket — ICE’s non‑criminal category
ICE explicitly uses categories such as “Other Immigration Violators” to classify people who lack U.S. criminal convictions or pending charges but are removable for immigration reasons (reentry after deportation, immigration fugitives with removal orders, or foreign fugitives without U.S. convictions); in public reporting this group is frequently referred to as “non‑criminal” detainees [1] [9]. Independent trackers like TRAC and the Deportation Data Project rely on ICE’s fields to compute the share of detainees without convictions, but they emphasize that the label “non‑criminal” reflects U.S. conviction history rather than risk profiles or foreign criminality [10] [5].
5. Missing pieces, separate agencies, and how that shapes public numbers
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) data do not necessarily capture arrests by other components — notably HSI investigations or Border Patrol/CBP apprehensions — and administrative warrants issued by ICE differ from judicial warrants, meaning the public dataset is a subset shaped by agency practice and data structure; experts warn this partial scope can produce misleading headline percentages about how many ICE arrests are “criminal” versus “non‑criminal” [4] [5].
6. Competing narratives and what the data actually allow one to conclude
DHS and ICE officials often emphasize that a large share of arrests involve people with criminal convictions or charges, including those wanted abroad, while advocacy groups and data projects highlight that a substantial and growing share of detainees lack U.S. convictions and are formally classified as “other immigration violators”; both claims can be supported by different readings of ICE’s public fields, but the data do not resolve disputes about foreign criminality, dropped charges, or the operational choice to use administrative arrests [3] [9] [7].