Fact check: How does ICE determine which undocumented immigrants to prioritize for deportation based on criminal history?

1. How ICE says it sets priorities — mission statements and reported practice

ICE publicly frames Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) priorities around removing those who pose risks to public safety and national security, and ERO’s mission statements are reflected in reported operations that emphasize criminal history as a primary factor for arrest and removal ^{[1] [2]}. The agency’s annual reporting and program descriptions articulate a mandate to detain and remove “removable aliens” with criminal convictions, and ICE’s own enforcement statistics between April and August 2025 show large numbers of arrests and removals involving people with criminal convictions, reinforcing that criminal history is a central operational filter ^[3].

2. Numbers that underscore prioritization — arrests and removals of those with convictions

ICE reported arresting tens of thousands of aliens with criminal convictions or pending charges and removing a comparable number during a multi-month period in 2025, which operationally supports the claim that ICE concentrates on criminal-case removals ^[3]. Those figures provide empirical backing for prioritization: they show resource allocation toward interior enforcement actions that net individuals with documented criminal records, and the scale of these operations demonstrates a policy focus beyond occasional case-by-case discretion, signaling systematic targeting of criminal histories.

3. Data systems and information flows that flag targets

ICE relies on national databases and law-enforcement information-sharing to identify removable individuals, including flagging warrants and criminal records through systems such as the National Crime Information Center, which notifies local officers and ICE of criminal warrants and immigration-related flags ^[6]. This interoperability means local arrests and jail notifications often trigger ICE interventions; sheriff’s offices forwarding release notifications to ICE results in many transfers to federal custody, showing how technical and institutional channels turn criminal-case data into immigration enforcement actions ^[7].

4. Policy tools that accelerate removals and broaden criteria

Beyond database-driven targeting, policy instruments like expedited removal and new ICE directives alter how criminal history factors into prioritization. Reports describe expanded expedited deportation programs that aim for rapid expulsions of people who entered without authorization or committed immigration fraud, explicitly prioritizing those with criminal records or lost legal status ^[4]. Meanwhile, ICE directives on stays of removal and legislative intervention procedures shape case-processing timelines and limit avenues for halting deportations, indirectly increasing the speed at which criminal-history cases move toward removal ^[8].

5. Local cooperation and law enforcement’s role in ICE prioritization

County sheriffs and local law enforcement frequently participate in identifying and transferring individuals to ICE custody, suggesting that prioritization emerges from partnerships as much as internal ICE strategy ^[7]. Local officials portray this cooperation as a public-safety measure, but it also converts local arrest data into ICE enforcement leads, meaning jurisdictional collaboration amplifies ICE’s focus on people with criminal histories, and local policy choices materially affect who becomes a federal enforcement priority.

6. Political shifts that reshape who is prioritized and how quickly

Political administrations influence enforcement scope and mechanics; recent policy shifts under federal leadership have pushed for expanded interior enforcement and expedited procedures, intending to increase the removal of migrants with criminal histories and others deemed removable ^{[4] [5]}. These top-down changes demonstrate how administration priorities and regulatory adjustments can broaden or narrow the set of people ICE prioritizes, affecting both selection criteria and operational tempo.

7. What the available evidence does not fully show — legal nuance and case-by-case discretion

The documentation and statistics emphasize aggregate outcomes and programmatic aims but do not reveal granular legal decision-making in individual cases, including prosecutorial discretion, non-criminal immigration violations, or humanitarian considerations that weigh against removal. ICE directives address stays and procedural limits but stop short of fully defining how specific criminal categories, recency of conviction, or mitigating factors are weighed, leaving important questions about case-level prioritization unresolved ^[8].

8. Bottom line: a system shaped by criminal records, data sharing, and policy choices

ICE’s stated mission, enforcement statistics, information-sharing practices, and recent policy initiatives together show a coherent pattern: criminal history functions as a primary filter for deportation prioritization, operationalized through databases, local notifications, detention, and expedited removal authorities ^{[1] [3] [6] [2] [7] [4]}. The system’s precise contours, including the role of discretion and mitigating legal factors, remain less visible in public reporting, and political shifts continue to reshape the thresholds and speed at which individuals with criminal records are targeted for removal ^[5].