What statistical evidence shows racial disparities in ICE arrests and detentions since 2010?

1. What the raw numbers and datasets show

Researchers and reporters have relied on three main empirical sources: ICE’s own detention statistics and archived tables, TRAC’s datasets, and FOIA‑obtained records assembled by projects such as the Deportation Data Project. These compilations document overall detention surges (tens of thousands held in ICE custody in 2024–25) and allow analysis of criminality and arrest method. The Deportation Data Project released detailed arrest records through Oct. 15, 2025, enabling analyses that found declines in the share of detainees with prior convictions and increases in arrests of people with no criminal history ^{[2] [5] [6]}. The Guardian and New York Times used such releases to show that in many operations more than half of those arrested had no criminal record — a pattern concentrated in high‑profile local sweeps ^{[3] [7]}.

2. Racial patterns flagged by advocacy groups and civil‑rights researchers

Advocacy organizations and civil‑rights groups document racial disparities in how ICE operates and in downstream outcomes. The ACLU reports that Black immigrants comprise only about 7% of the non‑citizen population but make up over 20% of deportation proceedings on criminal grounds — a concrete statistic tying race to adverse immigration outcomes ^[1]. The Black Alliance for Just Immigration and other advocates have accused ICE of inconsistent or misleading racial classification (including classifying many Black immigrants as white), which obscures the true scale of disparities ^{[8] [9]}. The American Immigration Council and other researchers have demonstrated classification problems at specific facilities — Torrance data, for example, labeled 86% of detainees as “white,” complicating racial analysis ^[10].

3. Evidence from arrest composition: non‑criminals and community sweeps

Independent analyses of recently released arrest‑level data show a substantive shift in ICE’s arrested population composition: the share with any past conviction fell from near half to below a third in some recent periods, while arrests of people with no criminal history rose ^[3]. Organizers and outlets report that many street arrests and workplace sweeps disproportionately affect Latino communities — the Cato and other analyses of ICE and Deportation Data Project records found frequent arrests in heavily Latino jobs and neighborhoods and many arrests of people without removal orders ^{[11] [3]}.

4. Geographic patterns and state variation consistent with racialized enforcement

State‑level research finds concentrated spikes in ICE arrest rates in particular regions — the Deep South and parts of the interior — rather than uniformly across all states, a pattern that aligns with targeted operations in communities with large non‑White immigrant populations and reported racial profiling ^[4]. Local reporting (AP, Guardian, Axios) documents raids and detentions in majority‑Latino neighborhoods and allegations that ICE operations used phenotypic or language cues as grounds for stops ^{[12] [13] [14]}.

5. Data gaps, misclassification, and why figures understate uncertainty

Several sources stress a major limitation: ICE’s race and ethnicity data collection is inconsistent or opaque. Freedom for Immigrants and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration document that DHS/ICE do not systematically publish reliable racial demographic data and sometimes misclassify Black immigrants as white, which masks disparities and undermines precise trend estimates ^{[9] [8]}. The American Immigration Council’s Torrance analysis shows how facility‑level mislabeling (86% “white”) prevents rigorous subgroup comparisons ^[10].

6. Competing interpretations and policy context

Advocates and civil‑liberties groups interpret the shift toward non‑criminal arrests and the geographic concentration of operations as evidence of racially disparate enforcement and racial profiling ^{[3] [11] [14]}. ICE and DHS statements cited in reporting assert that operations are targeted toward national‑security or public‑safety priorities and deny systematic detention of U.S. citizens or racially motivated stops; coverage shows DHS pushing back against some media narratives ^[14]. Court decisions and litigation have also shaped practice: federal rulings limiting or allowing restrictions on profiling influence enforcement on the ground, per reporting on recent Supreme Court and lower‑court actions ^{[15] [16]}.

7. Bottom line for a statistical case of disparity

Available sources together provide multiple, consistent signals of racial disparity: demographic disproportions in deportation on criminal grounds for Black immigrants ^[1]; a documented rise in arrests of people without criminal records, heavily concentrated in Latino communities and high‑profile sweeps ^{[3] [11]}; and geographic patterns and facility data suggesting targeted enforcement ^{[4] [5]}. However, major measurement problems — ICE’s inconsistent race coding and nonpublication of reliable race/ethnicity fields — mean existing numerical evidence is incomplete and likely understates the real scope of disparities ^{[9] [8] [10]}. Available sources do not mention a fully standardized, public ICE race‑and‑ethnicity time series back to 2010.