Fact check: Can ICE detain immigrants with only misdemeanor convictions?

1. Why the Detention Numbers Surprise — and What They Show

Recent ICE statistics and reporting reveal that immigrants with no criminal history or only misdemeanor convictions constitute a substantial and growing share of people detained by the agency, with reporting showing 16,523 people without a criminal record held in ICE custody as of late September 2025. That figure made the no-criminal-history group the largest single cohort in detention, surpassing those with felony convictions or pending serious charges, and signals a mismatch between public statements about prioritizing violent criminals and operational outcomes. ^[1]

2. Data Point: Misdemeanors and “No Conviction” Together Dominate Arrests

Aggregated arrest data from the period October 2022–November 2024 indicate that 78% of people arrested by ICE had either a misdemeanor conviction or no conviction at all, illustrating that arrests are concentrated among lower-level offenses and non-convicted individuals. This dataset challenges the narrative that ICE’s enforcement is focused mainly on violent or serious criminals, and it implies that many detainees enter the system through routine local arrests or administrative immigration encounters rather than major criminal investigations. ^[2]

3. Individual Stories Put a Human Face on the Statistics

Case reporting, such as the Bradenton family’s account, shows how a single misdemeanor arrest can cascade into detention and deportation, disrupting families, employment, and local court processes. Oscar Romero Santos’s detention after a misdemeanor arrest and subsequent deportation exemplifies how local jails can funnel people into federal immigration custody, producing long-term personal and community harms that the aggregate numbers alone can’t convey. ^[3]

4. Arrest Practices and Local Jails as a Pipeline to ICE

Journalistic accounts and data both point to the role of routine local arrests and booking processes in generating ICE cases: local misdemeanor arrests often trigger fingerprinting and database matches that lead to ICE arrests, even where local authorities are not pursuing severe criminal charges. This dynamic helps explain the rise in detainees with minor or no convictions and underscores how state and local policing and jail practices influence federal immigration enforcement. ^{[2] [1]}

5. Enforcement Priorities vs. Operational Reality — A Clear Discrepancy

There is a clear discrepancy between stated enforcement priorities—targeting violent offenders—and operational outcomes: reports note the Trump administration’s public emphasis on “criminal aliens,” yet contemporaneous ICE arrest and detention records reveal a surge in detentions of people without criminal records and those with only misdemeanors, suggesting either policy drift, expanded discretionary arrests, or enforcement mechanisms that do not filter for severity effectively. ^{[1] [2]}

6. Community Concerns and Civil‑rights Responses

Local communities and advocacy groups have documented and protested aggressive ICE arrests, sometimes taking place in public or in plainclothes operations, generating concerns about force, dignity, and due process, especially when the people targeted have only minor local charges or administrative immigration issues. These incidents have spurred local outrage and calls for clearer limits on transfers from jails to ICE custody and for better transparency in how arrests are prioritized. ^{[4] [5]}

7. Data Limitations, Missing Context, and What to Watch

Available reporting highlights the scale of detainees without serious convictions, but gaps remain: public counts do not always distinguish types of misdemeanor, prior removal orders, or immigration statuses that independently justify enforcement under law. The sources indicate rising numbers through September–October 2025, but further disaggregation—by offense type, prior orders, and locality—would clarify whether ICE is following statutory criteria or broadening discretionary arrests. ^{[1] [2]}

8. What These Findings Mean for Policy and Oversight

The convergence of data and human stories indicates that policy reforms or enforcement clarifications could materially change detention patterns, including stricter prioritization criteria, limits on transfers from local jails for minor offenses, or enhanced judicial review for nonviolent cases. If the aim is to concentrate ICE resources on serious public‑safety threats, policymakers and oversight bodies must align practical booking and arrest practices with stated priorities and obtain more transparent, disaggregated data to measure compliance. ^{[2] [3] [1]}