How does ICE determine the priority of deporting legal immigrants?

1. What advocates and ICE say — priorities put public safety first

ICE’s enforcement documents and independent explainers consistently identify public safety and national security as the primary criteria for prioritizing removals, with specific emphasis on individuals who have been convicted of or are suspected of serious crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other violent offenses. Analysts report that ICE frames its mission around locating, arresting, and removing “criminal aliens and immigration violators,” and that a high share of interior removals involves people who have had contact with the criminal justice system ^{[7] [1] [2]}. The agency’s public materials and third‑party explainers also note that removals extend to those whose immigration status has been revoked, expired, or otherwise made void, meaning that lawful presence can be lost and trigger ICE action even absent new criminal conduct ^{[6] [3]}.

2. How officials say enforcement resources shape who gets removed

Several analyses highlight that funding, staffing, and agency priorities constrain ICE’s capacity and therefore shape enforcement choices; ICE concentrates on cases that fit its enforcement priorities because it cannot pursue every immigration violation. Enforcement and Removal Operations officers are instructed to prioritize actions that protect national security and public safety while balancing capacity limits, meaning ICE focuses on individuals with convictions, pending serious charges, or prior removal orders before pursuing lower‑risk immigration violations ^{[3] [1]}. Observers note that the practical consequence of limited resources is selective interior enforcement and reliance on measurable indicators—like criminal records—to triage cases, but that this triage can miss contextual humanitarian factors unless they are formally considered in custody determinations ^[3].

3. The detection tools and local cooperation that drive arrests

ICE uses a mix of data systems, fingerprint biometrics, local law enforcement referrals, and 287(g)/detainer arrangements to identify and locate removable noncitizens, and those mechanisms materially affect who is prioritized for arrest and removal. Analysts explain that interaction points with the criminal justice system generate most interior removals; local arrests, jail bookings, and interagency data matches produce the profiles ICE uses to assert probable cause for detention or removal proceedings ^{[5] [2]}. The degree of local cooperation and the availability of real‑time data both amplify ICE’s ability to act and skew enforcement toward populations who more frequently encounter police or whose records are in shared databases, rather than toward a random or evenly distributed enforcement pattern ^[5].

4. Where policy meets error: legal immigrants detained and verification failures

Multiple reviews raise clear evidence that verification gaps and procedural issues have resulted in lawful permanent residents, green card applicants, and in rare cases individuals later found to be U.S. citizens being detained or placed into removal proceedings. Fact‑checking analyses and state guidance document instances where ICE actions reflected problems in identity verification, misapplication of status designations, or disputes about whether a person’s authorization remained valid, highlighting that the agency’s priority rules do not prevent mistakes when records are incomplete or communication between agencies fails ^{[4] [8] [6]}. These documented missteps underscore a tension: the operational emphasis on speed and public‑safety metrics can increase the risk of wrongful detentions among legally present immigrants when administrative errors occur.

5. The numbers, chronology, and contested narratives

Recent breakdowns show that a substantial majority of interior removals over recent fiscal windows were of people with criminal convictions—analysts cite a figure that roughly 79% of interior removals in FY 2021–24 involved individuals with criminal convictions, which aligns with ICE’s stated prioritization of criminal cases ^[1]. Dates on these assessments range across 2025 briefs and agency materials, demonstrating a contemporary policy posture that stresses criminality as the principal triage factor ^{[1] [2]}. At the same time, state and nonprofit guidance published through 2025 highlights continuing disputes over how ICE applies priorities in the field and how procedural safeguards are implemented when family and humanitarian considerations are at stake ^{[6] [8]}.

6. Bottom line — priorities plus imperfections, with competing agendas visible

The most consistent fact is that ICE’s formal and operational priorities center on criminality, national security, final orders, and capacity constraints, producing a predictable enforcement pattern focused on those groups, with discretion applied for humanitarian and custody considerations ^{[3] [2]}. The accountability angle—from legal‑aid groups and some state officials—documents verification failures and contested detentions that complicate the tidy narrative; those critics emphasize civil‑liberties and due‑process risks, while ICE and law‑enforcement‑aligned accounts emphasize public‑safety imperatives and resource scarcity ^{[4] [6]}. Readers should note the clear institutional incentives on both sides: ICE aims to demonstrate public‑safety results within limited budgets, while advocates and some states spotlight errors and harms to legally present immigrants when enforcement systems misidentify or rush cases ^{[5] [4]}.