Fact check: How does ICE determine which detainees are a threat to public safety?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is limited direct information available about ICE's specific process for determining which detainees pose a threat to public safety. The most relevant information comes from the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which enables DHS to work with state and local law enforcement to take custody of individuals who pose a danger to public safety, focusing on those convicted of significant crimes or posing a threat to national security ^[1].

The analyses reveal that ICE targets individuals involved in serious criminal activities, including murder, human trafficking, sex-related offenses, and drug-related offenses ^[2]. However, the specific criteria and assessment procedures used to evaluate threat levels are not detailed in the available sources.

One source discusses the Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) framework used by HSI to evaluate potential security needs, but this relates to special events rather than detainee threat assessment ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several significant gaps in understanding ICE's threat determination process:

• Lack of transparency: Multiple sources indicate that ICE's specific methodologies for threat assessment are not publicly detailed or accessible
• Congressional oversight challenges: ICE has been denying official visits to detention facilities by Congress members, impeding oversight of their operations ^{[4] [5]}
• Operational secrecy: The analyses show that while ICE announces arrest statistics and crime categories, the underlying decision-making framework remains opaque

Alternative perspectives that would benefit from this lack of transparency include:

• ICE leadership and DHS officials who may prefer operational flexibility without detailed public scrutiny
• Private detention facility operators who benefit from continued contracts without extensive oversight
• Political figures who can make claims about immigration enforcement without detailed verification

Missing viewpoints include:

• Immigration advocacy organizations' perspectives on due process concerns
• Legal experts' analysis of constitutional protections in threat assessments
• Academic research on the effectiveness of current threat determination methods

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, but it assumes the existence of a clear, systematic process for threat determination that may not exist in the transparent form implied. The analyses suggest that:

• ICE's threat determination process may be less systematic and more discretionary than the question assumes
• The question implies there is readily available information about these procedures, when the analyses show significant information gaps and restricted access to ICE operations ^{[5] [4]}
• The framing suggests a purely objective, safety-based assessment process, while the analyses indicate that political rhetoric and media coverage significantly impact ICE operations and enforcement priorities ^[6]

The question may inadvertently legitimize a system that operates with limited transparency and oversight, potentially benefiting those who prefer less scrutiny of immigration enforcement practices.