How does ICE classify arrestees as criminal aliens and what data sources are used?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE defines and targets "criminal aliens" through programs like the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) and enforcement actions publicized in DHS/ICE press releases; ICE says 70% of its arrests are of people "charged or convicted" of crimes in the U.S. and highlights arrests ranging from drug trafficking to child sexual offenses [1] [2]. Identification relies on criminal records, cooperation with U.S. Attorneys and local/ state law enforcement, incarceration transfers, and new public reporting tools such as wow.dhs.gov that list cases ICE describes as "criminal illegal aliens" [1] [3].
1. How ICE frames “criminal alien” — official program language and political messaging
ICE uses operational program language — notably the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) — to describe noncitizens who have committed crimes, and agency communications repeatedly label arrestees as “criminal illegal aliens,” emphasizing convictions or charges in U.S. courts; that framing appears across dozens of DHS/ICE press releases and the administration’s broader “Making America Safe Again” messaging [1] [4] [3]. The department pairs program descriptions with highly charged political language in press accounts, framing enforcement as removing the “worst of the worst” and tying arrests to sanctuary policies [2] [5].
2. Primary data sources ICE cites for identifying and classifying arrestees
ICE publicly documents that it uses criminal convictions and charges, prison custody records and coordination with U.S. Attorneys and local law enforcement to identify removable noncitizens — CAP and the Institutional Hearing and Removal Program (IHRP) are explicit mechanisms to detect jailed individuals and begin immigration proceedings once criminal sentences end [1]. ICE places detainers when it has “probable cause” an individual is amenable to removal, and transfers often follow completion of criminal sentences or through interagency custody arrangements [1].
3. How jail, prison, and federal systems feed ICE caseloads
ICE’s CAP and IHRP rely on information from the Bureau of Prisons, local jails, and prosecutors: the IHRP places incarcerated noncitizens into immigration removal proceedings while still in BOP custody so a final removal order can be secured prior to transfer to ICE [1]. ICE’s public announcements reference arrests stemming from cooperation with state and local partners and criminal case records, and ICE highlights that when jurisdictions refuse to honor detainers this can limit transfers to ICE custody [1] [2].
4. Public reporting and the new wow.dhs.gov tool
DHS has launched a public website, wow.dhs.gov, that displays cases ICE characterizes as criminal illegal aliens and the crimes attributed to them; agency press releases promote that site as a transparency tool and frequently repeat the 70% arrest figure to show the share of ICE arrests involving people charged or convicted in the U.S. [3] [2]. The site and press narrative focus on named individual arrests and crimes to illustrate ICE’s enforcement priorities [3].
5. The evidence behind the 70% arrest statistic and limits of available sources
ICE/DHS press releases repeatedly assert that “70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens charged or convicted of a crime in the United States” [2] [6] [7]. Available sources do not include the underlying methodology, time frame, or raw data supporting that percentage in these results; the materials provided cite the figure as an agency statistic but do not show how arrests were classified, how “charged” versus “convicted” were weighed, or whether administrative immigration arrests are included or excluded [2] [6].
6. Competing viewpoints and practical implications
ICE and DHS present a law‑enforcement‑centric view: prioritizing people with criminal histories and publicizing individual cases to justify enforcement and criticize sanctuary jurisdictions [4] [5]. Available sources do not present counter-evidence, independent audits, or academic analyses that contextualize the 70% figure or test its accuracy; they also do not discuss how misdemeanor versus felony distinctions are treated or how recency and severity of offenses factor into ICE classification [2] [1]. That absence matters because classification rules and data selection materially affect public perception and policy debate.
7. What reporting does and does not show — transparency gaps to watch
Press releases and the CAP description make clear the channels ICE uses (criminal court records, BOP/jail custody, U.S. Attorneys cooperation, detainers) but do not disclose full breakdowns by offense type, time period, or how many arrests stem from new enforcement versus transfers after sentences [1] [3]. Independent researchers, state officials, or court records would be required to validate the 70% claim or to analyze trends; those sources are not present in the materials provided [2].
Bottom line: ICE classifies “criminal aliens” primarily by documented criminal charges or convictions and by institutional custody information through CAP and IHRP, and it publicizes a 70% arrest rate figure and individual cases via wow.dhs.gov and frequent press releases [1] [3] [2]. The agency’s framing is consistent and politically pointed; however, the underlying data definitions and methodology behind headline statistics are not included in the supplied materials, leaving verification and independent analysis unanswered by the available reporting [2] [1].