What procedures does ICE have for verifying a person’s U.S. citizenship during enforcement actions?
Executive summary
ICE has written policies that instruct officers to identify indicia of U.S. citizenship, interview claimants, request documentary evidence, query government databases, and—when applicable—issue or rely on detainers to maintain custody while verification occurs [1] [2]. Independent reviewers and civil-rights groups find that training and implementation are inconsistent, that electronic tools and database queries are increasingly used, and that mistakes have led to wrongful detentions of some U.S. citizens [3] [2] [4].
1. How ICE policy frames the responsibility to investigate citizenship
ICE’s directive on investigating potential U.S. citizenship places primary responsibility on officers and attorneys to identify indicia of citizenship and to investigate claims promptly, outlining steps such as interviewing the person, requesting documentation, and consulting supervisors or headquarters when questions remain [1]. The policy recognizes multiple legal bases for citizenship—birth in the U.S., derivation, or naturalization—and instructs staff to apply relevant Immigration and Nationality Act criteria when assessing evidence [1].
2. Interviews and documentary proof: frontline tactics
ICE policy requires officers to interview individuals who claim U.S. citizenship and to accept or seek documentary proof such as U.S. passports, birth certificates, or naturalization certificates; training materials similarly direct agents to end questioning if they believe an individual and the evidence show U.S. citizenship, although GAO found those training materials are not always fully aligned with formal policy requirements like consulting supervisors in some cases [1] [3]. Civil-rights organizations and legal resources note that U.S. citizens are not legally required to carry proof of citizenship, but that presenting documents can expedite resolution of an encounter [5] [6].
3. Detainers, custody windows, and coordination with other agencies
When other law enforcement agencies encounter a person ICE believes removable, ICE uses detainers to request notification of release dates and up to 48 hours’ custody to assume custody for verification and removal actions; ICE policy and GAO reporting show detainers are part of the mechanism enabling time for citizenship checks [2]. GAO’s review found ICE and CBP generally have procedures for interrogating citizenship claims but also that data systems do not systematically track these encounters, complicating oversight of detentions involving potential citizens [2].
4. Databases and new electronic verification tools
ICE uses government databases and, increasingly, programs that coordinate electronic nationality verification to speed identification; CBP’s Electronic Nationality Verification (ENV) program and DHS-supported mobile tools such as Mobile Fortify that draw on traveler photo and identity databases are examples cited in public reporting of agency capabilities to check nationality electronically [7] [4]. These tools can provide leads—names, dates of birth, and possible citizenship status—but they are not infallible and rely on the accuracy and completeness of underlying records [4].
5. Limits, inconsistencies, and the human cost
GAO’s 2021 review documented that despite written procedures, inconsistencies in guidance and training exist and ICE does not always document or track citizenship-investigation encounters in a way that prevents or explains wrongful detentions; available ICE data showed arrests and detentions of some U.S. citizens between FY2015 and 2020 [3] [2]. Legal advocates and law firms report that ICE may hold individuals until documentation or legal action proves citizenship and that mistakes—misidentification, outdated records, or procedural failures—have resulted in unlawful detentions in some cases [8] [6].
6. Competing priorities and divergent perspectives
ICE frames verification procedures as balancing public safety, enforcement priorities, and privacy constraints while relying on officers’ judgment and available tools [9] [1]. Critics argue the agency’s enforcement posture, incomplete training alignment, and expanded electronic verification risk wrongful detentions and insufficient safeguards; proponents counter that database-driven tools and clear detainer procedures are necessary for efficient enforcement and repatriation when noncitizens are removable [7] [3].
7. What reporting does not resolve
Public documents clarify formal steps—interview, request documents, query databases, use detainers, consult supervisors—but they leave unanswered how consistently supervisors are consulted in the field, how often electronic tools produce false leads, and how promptly alleged citizens are released after proof is presented; GAO flagged gaps in tracking that prevent definitive answers on frequency and causes of failures [3] [2].