How has ICE data been used to track transfers and outcomes for people held at Alligator Alcatraz?
Executive summary
ICE data — both the agency’s public detainee locator and a large internal “detentions table” of book‑ins and book‑outs — has become the primary evidence reporters, attorneys and advocacy groups have used to follow who passed through Alligator Alcatraz, but that same data also exposed gaps, ambiguous status codes and apparent lags that left hundreds effectively untraceable to families and counsel [1] [2] [3]. Journalistic analysis of ICE’s released records has documented transfers to other facilities, contradicted public claims about deportation orders, and prompted scrutiny about whether state‑run operations at the site circumvent standard federal tracking [1] [2] [4].
1. The data reporters used: ICE’s detentions table and the online locator
Investigative projects pulled the agency’s underlying detentions table — a dataset NBC6 says logged every book‑in and book‑out nationwide from Oct. 1, 2024 to Oct. 15, 2025 — and separated the rows that referenced the Florida Soft‑Sided Facility‑South (Alligator Alcatraz) to reconstruct who arrived, departed and where they went next [1]. Reporters also cross‑checked names against ICE’s public detainee locator, the system families and lawyers use to find clients, revealing large discrepancies between the internal records and what was visible online [1] [2].
2. What the data showed: transfers, transfers, and more transfers
Analysis of the releases showed many detainees were recorded as being transferred — some moved quickly through multiple facilities — and that hundreds who had been held at Alligator Alcatraz no longer appeared in the public locator at various points, with hundreds more listed only as “Call ICE for details,” a vague status that obstructed independent tracking [1] [2] [5]. Journalists documented specific cases in which detainees were moved to Krome, Otay Mesa and other centers, and traced patterns of midnight or last‑minute transfers that impeded scheduled attorney visits [2] [1] [6].
3. Outcomes inferred — deportations, continued detention, or data gaps
Reporters used the dataset to test public claims about outcomes and found state assertions — for example that everyone sent to the site had final deportation orders — were false: NBC6’s analysis showed only about 31% had final orders on one key date cited by officials [1]. At the same time, the fate of a substantial minority remained unclear from ICE’s public tools: some people appear to have been deported, many were actually transferred to other ICE facilities, and a significant number simply vanished from the locator for stretches of time, creating real ambiguity about outcomes [2] [7] [8].
4. How advocates and lawyers used the data — and where it failed them
Attorneys and advocates leaned on ICE records to file lawsuits and to document disrupted access to counsel, presenting sworn declarations that clients were moved hours before visits and that locating people was “incredibly challenging,” but they also flagged that apparent database omissions and “Call ICE for details” entries made timely contact and court representation difficult [9] [3] [2]. Those field accounts, corroborated by reporters’ data pulls, underpinned litigation seeking transparency and injunctions against further transfers [9] [10].
5. Official rebuttals, third‑party fact checks and limits of the record
DHS and ICE pushed back, saying detainee numbers fluctuate with transfers and deportations and disputing some allegations about conditions or tracking; DHS also issued statements characterizing many reports as false [8] [11]. Independent fact‑checks (Snopes) cautioned that some early tallies overstated the “dropped off the grid” narrative by missing evidence that many were transferred or still at the site, underscoring that the public locator and publicly released tables are imperfect proxies for final outcomes [7]. Amnesty International later argued the site operated “outside federal oversight” and lacked the tracking systems used in other ICE facilities, a claim that, if accurate, helps explain persistent gaps in the public data [4].
6. The bottom line: data as both tool and terrain of dispute
ICE’s internal detention records and public locator have been indispensable to journalists and lawyers trying to trace transfers and outcomes from Alligator Alcatraz — they produced verifiable transfer chains, contradicted official talking points, and fueled litigation — but those same data exposed systemic opacity: ambiguous status codes, delayed updates, and facility arrangements that critics say fall outside standard federal tracking have meant that for many detainees the data cannot definitively answer whether they were transferred, deported, or simply misrecorded without further agency disclosure [1] [2] [4] [7]. Reporting to date demonstrates what the records can reveal and where they leave unresolved, and confirms that the debate over accountability at Alligator Alcatraz has been fought largely on the evidence — and the gaps — contained in ICE’s own datasets [1] [2] [3].