How does ICE define and count ‘criminal’ versus ‘non‑criminal’ in its detention statistics?
Executive summary
ICE’s public statistics divide detained people into categories based on U.S. criminal convictions and pending charges, and a residual “no convictions/pending charges” group that ICE labels to include re‑entries, fugitives with final orders, and people arrested for immigration-only violations (often transfers from CBP) [1]. Independent analysts and advocacy groups report that a large share of the detained population has no U.S. criminal conviction, but those headline percentages reflect definitional choices—what counts as a “criminal” in ICE’s system versus how reporters and researchers group cases [2] [3] [4].
1. How ICE’s categories are defined in its public data
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) publications and detention tables sort people into categories that distinguish convicted offenders, those with pending criminal charges, and people without known convictions or pending charges; the latter includes people who repeatedly reentered after deportation, immigration fugitives with final removal orders, and foreign fugitives wanted for crimes abroad—plus people arrested for civil immigration violations such as illegal entry or visa overstay [1].
2. What “no conviction” actually includes—and excludes
The apparent “non‑criminal” category in ICE stats does not mean every person is risk‑free: ICE’s explanatory text explicitly says the group of individuals without U.S. convictions can include repeat re‑entrants, immigration fugitives, and people wanted for crimes abroad, meaning absence of a U.S. criminal record is not the same as absence of alleged wrongdoing [1]. Several reporters and analysts emphasize that many detainees in this cohort were arrested at or near the border by CBP and transferred to ICE, and those transfers tend to have no U.S. criminal history by definition [5] [6].
3. How counts vary by data source and methodology
Different outlets and research centers report divergent shares of detainees with no convictions because they use different slices of ICE data—some count only people ICE arrested (interior arrests) while others count the full custody population including CBP transfers; these methodological choices substantially change the reported percentage with no U.S. conviction [5] [6] [1]. For example, TRAC’s snapshot counted roughly 73.6% of detained people as having no criminal conviction as of late November 2025 [2], while other analyses using ICE arrest datasets show different proportions for arrests versus those in custody [3] [7].
4. Legal and policy context that shapes the numbers
ICE notes it is legally obligated to detain some people based on statute and uses custody determinations to assess public‑safety and flight risk; that legal framework means certain people with criminal histories are subject to mandatory detention, while many without U.S. convictions are nonetheless detained for immigration reasons [8] [1]. Advocates and independent researchers argue policy shifts—such as expansive interior arrests, workplace raids, and re‑arrests at hearings—have increased detentions of people without criminal convictions, a point emphasized by the American Immigration Council and university analyses [4] [9].
5. How journalists and analysts interpret the labels—and where disputes arise
Much of the public debate hinges on framing: officials often stress arrests of people with criminal histories when discussing enforcement priorities, while watchdogs and think tanks point to custody snapshots showing a majority without U.S. convictions to argue resources are being used on immigration‑only cases [7] [3] [4]. Fact‑checkers and reporting note the difference between “arrests” metrics and “in‑custody” headcounts—that distinction, plus CBP transfers and the inclusion of pending charges or foreign convictions, explains apparent contradictions in coverage [10] [1].
6. What the data does not resolve and why transparency matters
Public ICE tables explain categories but do not fully illuminate granular case‑level context—such as foreign convictions not recorded in U.S. systems, the severity of pending charges, or whether “no conviction” detainees include people with final removal orders for prior offenses—so advocates call for more proactive disclosure to validate claims about public‑safety risk and to reconcile disparate media analyses [1] [5] [6]. Independent trackers and academics can show large proportions of detainees lack U.S. convictions in snapshots [2] [3], but interpreting what that means for policy or safety requires clearer sharing of underlying case data from ICE [1].