What are the current ICE policies regarding detention and family separation at the US-Mexico border?
Executive summary
Current ICE policy emphasizes use of Alternatives to Detention (ATD) for family units where appropriate while maintaining authority to detain and remove noncitizens under expedited and mandatory detention rules; the agency publicly insists it “does not separate families” but independent reports and legal settlements show family separation continues under various practices and broader DHS enforcement actions [1][2][3][4][5]. Simultaneously, a recent push to expand detention capacity and hiring means more people can be detained, increasing the risk of separations both at and after the border [6][7][8][9].
1. What ICE says it does now: ATD, detention standards, and case prioritization
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) manages civil immigration detention and reports that it has shifted resources toward enrolling family units in ATD programs that use technology and case management rather than physical custody, and that all facilities holding detainees must meet prescribed detention standards regardless of operator [1][2][3]. ICE’s public materials also explain that detention and ATD placement are determined by factors such as criminal history, compliance history, family ties, and humanitarian or medical conditions, and that many apprehensions at the border move from CBP to ICE custody for placement decisions [2][1].
2. The legal and procedural levers: expedited removal, mandatory detention, and reunification obligations
Federal procedures permit expedited removal of noncitizens apprehended at or near the border unless they express a fear of return and pass a Credible Fear Interview, and ICE can detain individuals with certain criminal convictions without bond under mandatory detention rules; these mechanisms give the agency legal grounds to detain and remove people quickly, including parents, while different agencies (CBP, ICE, ORR) handle children depending on where and when separation occurs [10][2][11].
3. The reality on the ground: separations persist despite public denials
Advocates and academic investigators report that family separation has not ended: UCLA Law’s report documents ongoing separations at the border and in processing, noting that spouses, pregnant women, and young adult children are among those separated under current practices, and that Biden-era measures did not eliminate separations even after reunifications from the earlier “zero tolerance” era [4]. News coverage and watchdog reporting likewise document instances where ICE actions have resulted in children entering federal shelters or families being split after interior arrests, countering official claims that family separation is no longer a practice [5][12].
4. Scale and capacity: more beds, more arrests, more potential separations
Recent policy and funding moves aim to enlarge ICE’s enforcement footprint—administration officials have discussed hiring thousands of officers and expanding detention capacity after Congress approved large DHS funding increases, which advocacy groups warn will balloon the detention network and likely increase separations and harms in detention [6][7][8]. Independent trackers report tens of thousands in ICE custody (65,735 as of late November 2025 in one dataset) with a large share lacking criminal convictions, underscoring how expanded capacity could translate into mass detention of non-criminal migrants and family impacts [9].
5. Competing narratives, legal limits, and where reporting falls short
ICE and DHS frame changes as “smart enforcement” with more ATD for families and adherence to standards [1][3], while advocacy groups and academic centers characterize continued separations as systemic and tied to CBP culture and expanded enforcement priorities [4][8]; a 2023 settlement constrained some zero‑tolerance practices but did not end separations occurring after interior ICE encounters, and available reporting does not provide a definitive national count of current separations tied specifically to ICE detentions versus CBP processing, limiting precise measurement [5][11].