Where are the ice detention center
Executive summary
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates a sprawling, decentralized detention system composed of federally run Service Processing Centers, hundreds of local jails and county lockups that house ICE detainees under contract, and privately run prisons; the largest concentrations are in the Southwest and Southeast, with high‑capacity facilities like Camp East Montana (Fort Bliss, El Paso) and numerous Texas centers among the most heavily used [1] [2] [3]. Official ICE lists and maps show nationwide coverage and allow family members to locate detainees, while advocacy groups maintain independent maps that track more than 200 facilities and highlight private‑operator contracts and proposed new sites [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. How ICE defines “where”: federal Service Processing Centers vs. contracted beds
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) directly operates a set of Service Processing Centers in locations such as Aguadilla (Puerto Rico), Batavia (NY), El Centro (CA), El Paso (TX), Florence (AZ), Miami (FL), Los Fresnos (TX), and San Pedro (CA), which the agency lists as part of its detention footprint [1] [4]. Those named federal centers represent one visible slice of the system, but they are supplemented by hundreds of other facilities—county jails, state prisons, and privately managed prisons—where ICE places detainees under intergovernmental or contractor agreements, a point ICE outlines in its detention‑management materials [8] [4].
2. Geographic concentration: Southwest and Southeast, with local spikes
Studies and reporting show ICE detention is geographically concentrated in the Southwest and Southeast, with Texas facilities accounting for a large share of beds and detainees—El Paso County’s Camp East Montana has averaged the largest daily population in recent FY 2026 data and other Texas centers have shouldered the highest volumes [2] [3]. National analyses of the top 20 facilities find that a minority of centers hold the majority of detainees, underscoring regional hubs rather than even national distribution [3].
3. Private prisons, county jails and opaque expansion plans
A substantial portion of ICE’s capacity comes from private prison contractors and local jails; watchdog groups document long-standing ties between ICE and companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, and note that private operators have profited while detention policy shifted to rely on contracted capacity [7] [3]. Recent Freedom of Information litigation and reporting indicate ICE has actively considered opening several new sites—ranging from repurposed correctional facilities like Augusta Correctional Center (VA) to proposed expansion in places such as El Paso County and Oklahoma City—highlighting an ongoing push to expand capacity even as local pushback and moratoria appear in some cities [9] [10] [11].
4. How to find a specific facility or detainee: online tools and field offices
For individuals seeking the exact location of a detained person, ICE operates an Online Detainee Locator System and instructs callers to contact ERO field offices or the facility directly if the online tool is insufficient; official guidance and the ICE detention page are the designated starting points for locating someone in custody [5] [12]. Independent maps and databases maintained by advocacy groups such as Freedom for Immigrants provide searchable, frequently updated overlays of detention centers, 287(g) agreements, and ICE field offices which can be more user‑friendly for researching facilities by congressional district or county [6] [7].
5. Disputes, agendas and the limits of public reporting
Sources diverge sharply: ICE frames detention as necessary for immigration proceedings and publishes official facility lists and management standards [4] [8], while civil‑rights groups and local reporters emphasize expansion, deaths in custody, and the role of private contractors—arguing that new site planning and no‑bid contracts reflect political and commercial agendas [9] [10] [7]. Public reporting and available documents provide robust lists and maps but do not capture every proposed or temporary use of local jails, nor do they always disclose contract details in real time, so some facility uses and proposed openings remain contested or incompletely visible in the public record [9] [10].
6. Bottom line
ICE detention centers are not a single location but a network: federally run Service Processing Centers in named cities, hundreds of contracted county and private facilities concentrated in the Southwest and Southeast, and a set of proposed new or repurposed sites under consideration—each trackable through ICE’s tools and independent maps but also subject to political debate and evolving contracts that can outpace public disclosure [1] [4] [6] [9].