Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What is the process for ICE to identify and deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records?
Executive Summary
The supplied materials present three central claims: ICE identifies many removable noncitizens through information sharing with local jails and law enforcement, including use of detainers and programs like 287(g); recent ICE operations and policy shifts in 2025 have expanded arrests and deportation efforts targeting people with criminal records or described as the “worst of the worst”; and critics warn these mechanisms also ensnare crime victims and undermine community trust. Across September–October 2025 reporting, the tension between enhanced enforcement and resulting community harms recurs, with concrete examples cited from Massachusetts, Florida, and nationwide program growth [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How ICE finds people in local custody — a routine pipeline described as a ‘detainer’ system
Local jails routinely share inmate information with federal immigration authorities, which often prompts ICE to issue a civil detainer or “hold” that asks sheriffs to retain individuals beyond release for transfer to ICE custody. This mechanism is presented as a routine identification pathway in the materials: sheriff’s departments supply booking data, ICE reviews criminal history, and detainers enable federal custody steps [1]. The materials portray the detainer as operationally central to converting local incarceration into immigration detention, a snapshot of the interagency mechanics driving removals.
2. Formalized local partnerships: 287(g) expansion and its operational models
ICE’s partnerships with local police under the 287(g) authority are described as having surged, with 958 agreements covering 40 states, and three implementation models — Warrant Service Officer, Jail Enforcement, and Task Force — each conferring different authorities to local officers. The reporting frames this program growth as a structural channel for identifying and initiating deportation proceedings against individuals with criminal records, noting it empowers nonfederal officers to perform immigration-related functions [4]. The expansion is cited as amplifying ICE’s reach through decentralized local enforcement, altering the locus of initial identification.
3. High-profile 2025 operations: Massachusetts and targeted “worst of the worst” raids
September 2025 coverage documents coordinated ICE actions in Massachusetts, branded internally or in press as targeting the “worst of the worst” undocumented immigrants with criminal records, with operations planned to last several weeks [3] [5]. These pieces present ICE’s public rationale — prioritizing those with criminal histories and people released despite prior ICE requests — as the operational justification for multiweek enforcement sweeps. The materials describe these operations as escalations of 2025 policy and enforcement posture, underscoring geographic concentration and temporal intensity of recent ICE activity.
4. Cases that complicate the enforcement narrative: victims detained and deportation risks
Reporting from September 16, 2025 highlights instances where ICE policy shifts resulted in arrest and detention of people who had been victims of crime, including an individual shot and hospitalized, now facing deportation. This example is used to argue that new enforcement directives have broadened whom ICE detains, capturing not only recidivist offenders but also crime victims who interacted with local systems. The material frames these cases as illustrating real-world consequences and community fear, emphasizing that enforcement criteria and outcomes may diverge from public expectations [2].
5. Community impact and public reaction: trust, alarm, and domestic consequences
Local accounts report ICE agents physically knocking on doors and carrying out arrests that alarm residents, feeding narratives of fear and potential chilling effects on cooperation with law enforcement. The materials connect program expansion and operations to eroded community trust, citing concerns that partnerships and detainers deter reporting and cooperation, complicating public safety goals even as ICE asserts improved national security outcomes [6] [4]. The reporting consistently frames community response as a significant consequence of enforcement practices.
6. Conflicting framings and potential agendas across sources
The supplied analyses reveal contrasting emphases: ICE-aligned narratives and press statements frame recent 2025 operations as necessary prioritization of dangerous individuals, while local reporting and advocates highlight collateral harms and wrongful detentions of victims. These divergent framings suggest competing agendas: administrative enforcement imperatives versus community-protection and civil-rights critiques, each using selective case examples and program metrics to justify policy choices [3] [2] [4].
7. What remains unclear and key omitted considerations in the supplied reporting
The materials document mechanisms and consequences but omit several operational specifics that would clarify scope and safeguards: the legal thresholds ICE applies when converting jail data into removal cases, statistical breakdowns of convictions versus arrests among those targeted, oversight or appeal mechanisms for detainers, and timelines from local release to federal custody. Absent these data, assessments of proportionality, accuracy, and legal compliance are constrained, leaving open questions about how often victims are misidentified and what reforms could mitigate adverse effects while addressing enforcement goals [1] [2] [4].