Fact check: How does ICE determine whether to release or detain someone?

1. Summary of the results

ICE's determination of whether to release or detain someone involves multiple factors and has undergone significant policy changes. According to official ICE sources, custody determinations consider risk of flight, national security threats, and risk to public safety, while also taking into account humanitarian factors including serious medical conditions and primary caregiver status ^[1].

For individuals eligible for bond hearings, immigration judges evaluate whether a person is considered a flight risk or danger to the community, examining factors such as record of past court appearances, community and family ties, length of U.S. residence, employment status, and financial resources ^[2].

However, recent policy changes have dramatically altered this process. The Trump administration implemented a policy stating that immigrants who entered the U.S. without permission are considered 'applicants for admission' and are not eligible for bond, regardless of how long they have been in the U.S. ^[3]. This policy prevents judges from granting bond to anyone held in detention by ICE who entered without documentation and expands mandatory detention ^[4].

ICE also uses immigration detainers to request law enforcement agencies hold removable individuals for up to 48 hours, based on probable cause to believe the person is removable ^[5]. The agency targets individuals with criminal convictions, prior deportations, and other egregious immigration offenses ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the legal challenges and constitutional concerns surrounding ICE's detention policies. Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU are challenging the bond eligibility restrictions through class action lawsuits, arguing these policies violate immigration laws and the Constitution ^[7].

Advocacy groups such as the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Vera Institute argue that the new policies may lead to prolonged detention for many immigrants ^{[3] [4]}. These organizations benefit from highlighting due process concerns and humanitarian issues, as their missions center on immigrant rights and criminal justice reform.

Conversely, ICE and the Trump administration benefit from promoting policies that emphasize public safety and national security, arguing that expanded detention prevents flight risk and protects communities. The administration's approach "supercharges spending on immigration enforcement and new immigration prisons" ^[4], which benefits private prison companies and enforcement contractors.

The question also omits the geographic variations in implementation. For example, Alaskans detained by ICE have specific requirements for bond hearings to occur in Alaska ^[2], showing how local advocacy can influence detention practices.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, seeking information about ICE procedures. However, it could be misleading by implying that ICE detention decisions follow a consistent, standardized process, when the reality shows significant policy shifts that have fundamentally altered who is eligible for release.

The question fails to acknowledge the controversial nature of current detention policies and the ongoing legal challenges that suggest these policies may be unconstitutional or illegal ^[7]. This omission could lead to an incomplete understanding of the current detention system's legitimacy and stability.

Additionally, the question doesn't reflect the temporal context - that detention policies have changed dramatically under different administrations, making any single answer potentially outdated depending on current political leadership and ongoing litigation outcomes.