Fact check: How does ICE determine who is a non-criminal detainee?

1. The headline claim: Non-criminal detainees now constitute a large and growing group — what the numbers say

Multiple recent articles converge on the same quantitative finding: ICE’s detention population increasingly includes people described as having no criminal record, with one report identifying 16,523 detainees with no recorded criminal history, surpassing those with a record or pending charges ^[1]. Another source frames the trend as nearly a third of people arrested and booked into immigration detention lacking any criminal history, and notes a sharp rise since the start of the current administration, including large percentage increases from earlier periods ^[4]. These pieces rely on ICE booking data released in late September 2025 and early October 2025 and present a consistent numerical picture across outlets ^[1].

2. How reporters and data define “non-criminal” — absence of recorded arrests or convictions

The working definition used in the reporting equates “non-criminal” with having no documented criminal history in ICE’s intake or local jail records—that is, no prior arrests, charges, or convictions appearing on the booking record that triggered ICE custody ^{[1] [4]}. This operational definition is descriptive of the dataset but is not the same as a legal determination of innocence; the label reflects the records ICE had at time of detention rather than a court finding. Several pieces emphasize that ICE’s public datasets list detainees by criminal-history category, enabling journalists to count and compare the groups, which is how the “largest group” conclusion was reached ^[1].

3. Mechanisms that funnel people with no criminal history into ICE custody — local jails and detainer practices

Reporting highlights a routine mechanism where local sheriffs’ departments share inmate bookings with federal immigration authorities, and ICE issues detainers or “holds” that convert a local jail encounter into federal civil immigration custody, even when the person lacks serious criminal convictions ^[2]. Case reporting shows families posting bond, only to have ICE assume custody via a detainer after the local release window, illustrating how administrative procedures rather than criminal adjudication can produce removal proceedings ^[2]. This procedural pathway is central to understanding how non-criminal individuals enter ICE detention.

4. Policy incentives and enforcement quotas: Experts link numbers to administrative priorities

Former ICE officials and experts warn that enforcement targets or broad arrest directives under the current administration make it difficult to limit arrests to those with significant criminal histories; quotas or daily detention targets can incentivize quick arrests rather than selective targeting ^[3]. Deborah Fleischaker, a former acting ICE chief of staff, argues that operational pressures widen the aperture for arrests, meaning that individuals who are accessible in local jails or who have minor infractions are more likely to be arrested and detained, contributing to the rise in non-criminal detainees ^[3]. This perspective frames the numbers as an outcome of managerial choices.

5. What ICE’s own reporting says — high-level goals but little procedural clarity

ICE’s annual report reiterates the agency’s mission to focus on public-safety and national-security threats but does not specify the procedural criteria used to classify or prioritize non-criminal versus criminal detainees ^[5]. That absence of granular policy detail in official documents creates room for divergent interpretations: watchdogs and journalists read the ICE booking data as evidence of a gap between stated priorities and actual enforcement patterns, while ICE’s public statements emphasize mission intent without supplying the operational rules reporters use to interrogate outcomes ^{[5] [1]}.

6. Conflicting framings and possible agendas — what each source appears to emphasize

News reports emphasizing increases in non-criminal detainees present the data as a challenge to administration claims about focusing on dangerous criminals, suggesting an accountability angle ^{[4] [1]}. Conversely, administrative statements in ICE’s public materials stress enforcement of immigration laws broadly, aligning with policy goals to increase removals ^[5]. Expert commentary pointing to quotas frames the trend as a predictable management outcome, which could be read as either a policy choice or an operational necessity; each framing reflects differing agendas—accountability, enforcement advocacy, or administrative explanation ^{[3] [5]}.

7. What’s missing and why it matters — gaps in the public record that limit firm conclusions

The reporting and ICE materials leave important gaps: there’s limited public detail on the exact screening criteria used by ICE case officers, the role of DHS prosecutorial discretion, and how prior arrests of varying severity are weighted in custody decisions ^{[1] [5]}. Without audited case-level decision rules, the data show outcomes but cannot fully explain causation. This omission matters because policy solutions differ depending on whether increases stem from deliberate priority changes, enforcement quotas, or administrative practices like automated jail-data matching ^{[2] [3]}.

8. Bottom line — what the evidence supports and what remains uncertain

The available evidence supports two clear facts: ICE’s booking data show a substantial and recent increase in detainees with no recorded criminal history, and common operational pathways—local jail reporting and ICE detainers—regularly place such people into federal immigration custody ^{[1] [2] [4]}. What remains uncertain is the precise balance of causes—policy priorities, enforcement quotas, or procedural mechanics—because ICE’s public reporting lacks procedural specificity. Resolving that uncertainty requires release of case-level decision rules and audits of detainer and arrest practices, not yet provided in the cited materials ^{[3] [5]}.