Which states have the largest immigrant populations and how does that relate to ICE arrests?
Executive summary
Texas is singled out in available reporting as both home to one of the largest undocumented immigrant populations—an estimated 2 million—and the state where ICE relied most heavily on detention capacity in FY2026, making it a focal point of interior enforcement [1] [2]. But the relationship between where immigrants live and where ICE arrests occur is not one‑to‑one: federal arrest totals and detention spikes reflect agency priorities, local law‑enforcement cooperation, and policy choices that can divert or concentrate enforcement regardless of absolute immigrant population size [3] [4].
1. Which states have the largest immigrant populations: the public record and limits in reporting
Available sources explicitly name Texas as hosting about 2 million undocumented immigrants, a figure used to explain the scale of enforcement there [1]; other reporting compiled by national analysts and TRAC implies large concentrations in traditional gateway states but the supplied documents do not offer a ranked list of state immigrant populations for 2025–26, so definitive, source‑backed rankings beyond Texas cannot be asserted from these materials alone [2] [5].
2. Where ICE is actually arresting and detaining people: concentration in Texas and nationwide intensification
TRAC’s detention reporting shows ICE relying on Texas facilities to house the most people during FY2026, and TRAC data was cited in multiple outlets as central to describing where detainees are located [2] [5]; nationally, independent and federal sources document that ICE arrests and the detained population surged in 2025–26, with daily arrests and detention censuses rising to levels not seen in recent administrations [4] [6].
3. Why larger immigrant populations don’t automatically mean more ICE arrests there
Analysts emphasize that arrest rates depend on state and local cooperation with federal agencies, not only on population size: Prison Policy notes that local jails and police partnerships are “key” to implementing mass deportation strategies and that state and local policy choices have limited or amplified ICE’s reach [3]. Migration Policy and other analysts document thousands of cooperative agreements and task forces that redirect enforcement geographies, meaning enforcement intensity can be high in places with institutional cooperation even if those places aren’t the largest immigrant hubs [4].
4. Who is being arrested: criminal history is an emphasized but contested factor
DHS officials say roughly 70% of ICE arrests had criminal convictions or pending charges, a statistic quoted and contested in national reporting [7]; independent watchdogs, advocacy groups, and researchers report a striking rise in detentions of people with no U.S. criminal record and count a rapid increase in arrests for immigration‑only violations, complicating the narrative that enforcement is narrowly targeted at the “worst of the worst” [8] [9] [10].
5. What this means for state-level patterns and policymaking
The implication is twofold: states with large immigrant populations—illustrated by Texas in these sources—will naturally be sites of heavy detention use, but policy choices by governors, attorneys general, sheriffs, and local police determine how much enforcement actually happens in any jurisdiction [2] [3]. Advocacy and policy groups argue states can reshape outcomes by limiting cooperation, expanding legal services, or changing detention contracting, while federal priorities and expanded funding can override local restraint when partnerships exist [11] [4].
6. Bottom line: geography matters, but so do policy and partnerships
The supplied reporting makes clear that aggregate arrest and detention numbers rose dramatically in 2025–26 and that Texas was a focal point for detention capacity and interior arrests, but it also shows that state‑by‑state arrest rates are shaped as much by enforcement strategy and local cooperation as by immigrant population size; therefore understanding where ICE arrests occur requires looking at both demographic concentration and the policy landscape that enables or constrains federal action [2] [3] [4].