How does ICE categorize detainees by citizenship in its datasets and what reforms have been proposed to improve tracking of citizen detentions?
Executive summary
ICE’s public datasets record a detainee’s “country of citizenship” and group detained populations by citizenship and criminal-history categories in their statistics [1], but those fields are imperfect: the Deportation Data Project documents retroactive changes to citizenship entries and gaps for dual nationals and missing identifiers [2]. Lawmakers and advocates have proposed policy and data fixes—ranging from statutory bans on detaining U.S. citizens to improved data transparency and unique identifiers—to reduce wrongful citizen detentions and make tracking more reliable [3] [4].
1. How ICE labels citizenship in its own reports
ICE’s public-facing statistics explicitly include “detention by country of citizenship” as a core breakdown, categorizing detained individuals by the country listed in their records and cross-tabulating this with criminal-history classifications in FY reports [1]. The agency also publishes multiple operational datasets—arrests, detainers, detentions, encounters and removals—that include a “Citizenship Country” field and are the basis for downstream analyses [2].
2. Limitations the data producers themselves acknowledge
Independent curators of ICE data warn that the “Citizenship Country” entry can be incomplete or change retroactively: the Deportation Data Project notes records may be altered in a relatively small number of cases—sometimes when a removal occurs—and that dual citizenship is not always consistently captured [2]. Other data aggregators and watchdogs report missing identifiers and inconsistent geographic fields that make linking arrest and detention records to individuals difficult, undermining confidence in citizenship tallies [4].
3. Ground reality: citizen detentions exposed by reporting and advocacy
Journalistic and advocacy reporting since 2025 documents instances where U.S. citizens and legal residents say they were detained, sparking concerns about racial profiling and procedural failures; national reporting cites rising detention totals and firsthand accounts that feed demands for reform [5]. Advocacy groups and legal organizations have documented broader trends—rising detention populations, increasing deaths in custody, and systemic barriers to bond hearings—that contextualize why misclassification or failure to flag citizens in data is consequential [6].
4. What technical fixes advocates and analysts recommend
Data-focused proposals in the public debate emphasize improving record linkage and audit trails: add or standardize unique case identifiers across ICE tables, require fields for dual nationality and source documents, and publish change logs so retrospective edits to citizenship are transparent—recommendations that align with the Deportation Data Project’s documentation of retroactive edits and missing identifiers [2]. Researchers also push for richer metadata about coverage areas and facility assignment to help reconcile arrests with later detentions [2] [4].
5. What policymakers are proposing in law and oversight
At least one congressional amendment has been advanced to block ICE from detaining or deporting U.S. citizens during civil immigration enforcement, reflecting a legislative strategy to prevent wrongful citizen detentions rather than solely relying on data fixes [3]. Oversight proposals discussed alongside DHS appropriations aim to pair statutory protections with requirements for more transparent reporting and compliance reviews, an approach advocated by Democrats and immigrant-rights groups amid concerns about agency violations of court orders [3] [7].
6. Conflicting perspectives and hidden incentives
ICE presents its detention statistics as routine operational transparency and frames categorization by citizenship as an administrative necessity [1], while critics argue that enforcement targets and expanding detention capacity incentivize aggressive arrests that increase the risk of mistaken citizen detentions [5] [6]. Data curators and local advocates implicitly highlight that gaps and retroactive edits can shield errors from public view, creating a tension between the agency’s reporting and independent scrutiny [2] [4].
7. Bottom line: what the public record supports and what remains uncertain
The record shows ICE records and publishes citizenship-based detention breakdowns but also that the “Citizenship Country” field and related datasets contain gaps, retroactive changes, and linkage problems that can mask wrongful detentions [1] [2]. Proposed reforms split between legal prohibitions on detaining citizens and technical transparency measures to make citizenship classification auditable; neither approach alone resolves all concerns, and reporting and advocacy groups are pushing for both statutory guardrails and data-system remediation [3] [2] [6].