How does ICE define “criminal” in its arrest statistics and how often are pending charges later dismissed?
Executive summary
ICE’s public arrest statistics separate people into three categories — those with U.S. criminal convictions, those with pending criminal charges in the United States, and people with no known criminal convictions or pending charges (often labeled “Other Immigration Violators”) — and ICE’s practice of counting “pending charges” alongside convictions has led to divergent public interpretations of how “criminal” is being defined [1]. Independent researchers and advocates say many people counted as “criminal” under that rubric simply have unresolved charges that are frequently minor and “often dismissed,” while DHS and ICE emphasize a higher share of arrests involving criminal records to justify expanded enforcement [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What ICE’s categories actually are and where “criminal” shows up
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) reporting breaks arrests into U.S. criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, and non‑criminal immigration violators, and ICE’s public summaries often present the first two groups together in order to describe the share of arrests that are “criminal” [1]. The agency also notes it conducts administrative arrests for removability and has authority to execute criminal warrants, and historically ERO has reported common conviction types such as DUI, drug possession, assault and non‑civil traffic offenses [1].
2. Why the label “criminal” is contested
Observers including academic and policy groups argue ICE’s inclusion of people with only pending charges in a “criminal” bucket inflates the appearance of criminality because pending charges can be minor, unresolved, or later dismissed; the Immigration Research Initiative warned ICE sometimes designates dismissed charges or pending charges in ways that overestimate the number of people with actual criminal histories [3]. The Cato Institute’s analysis similarly highlights that ICE and DHS messaging frequently treats pending charges as equivalent to convictions even though charges may be minor and are “regularly dismissed” in many cases [2].
3. The competing narratives: DHS/ICE versus researchers
DHS and ICE assert that a large majority of their arrests target people with criminal charges or convictions — for example, DHS stated “70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens with charges or convictions” as part of a public messaging campaign [4]. Independent data scrutiny and media analyses paint a different picture: multiple analyses found a large share of those in ICE custody had no criminal convictions, and that a sizable subset had only pending charges or no U.S. charges at all [5] [2] [6].
4. How often pending charges are later dismissed — what reporting shows and what it doesn’t
Multiple sources report that pending charges included in ICE’s “criminal” totals are often minor and “regularly dismissed,” with the Cato Institute and MinnPost citing this pattern [2] [7]. However, none of the provided sources supply a definitive, nationwide dismissal rate for those pending charges; reporting instead provides snapshots, state variation (for example New York versus New Jersey), and institutional claims that many pending cases never result in convictions [8] [7]. Therefore, while the qualitative finding — that many pending charges do not become convictions — is consistently reported, an exact national dismissal percentage is not available in the supplied material [2] [7] [8].
5. Local variation and enforcement mechanics that affect the numbers
State and local arrest practices drive large variation in how many people ICE classifies as having pending charges: Prison Policy’s analysis shows big jurisdictional differences (e.g., New York 13% with pending charges vs. New Jersey 34% during a sample period), reflecting reliance on local jails and transfers that often occur before criminal processes are resolved [8]. Analysts also point to changes in ICE reporting methodology — such as grouping criminal-alien program arrests under broader “custodial arrests” — that complicate year‑to‑year comparisons [8].
6. Bottom line and what remains uncertain
The practical definition of “criminal” in ICE’s arrest statistics is a combination of convictions and pending charges, and that definitional choice inflates the share labeled criminal relative to a narrower definition that counts only convictions [1] [3]. Multiple reputable analyses and watchdog groups report that many pending charges are minor and frequently dismissed, but the supplied sources do not provide a single, authoritative national statistic for dismissal rates, leaving the exact frequency of dismissals an open empirical question in the public record [2] [7] [8].