Texas Tribune Profiles Five Texas ICE Detainees With No Criminal Convictions; DHS Disputes the "Noncriminal" Label
The Sept. 22 investigation follows immigrants from Mexico, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, and cites federal data showing 31% of people ICE arrested nationally as of Aug. 6, 2026 had a criminal conviction; DHS says most arrestees are charged or convicted criminals.
Five Names, No Convictions, Two Very Different Numbers
On Sept. 22, 2026, The Texas Tribune published a story about five people. Each is being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a Texas facility. They come from Mexico, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela[1].
The Tribune checked immigration, state and federal court records for all five. None has a criminal conviction[1]. Some entered the country legally. Others were in the middle of applying for legal status when they were detained[1].
The Tribune set those five stories next to a national number. As of Aug. 6, 2026, ICE had arrested more than half a million people. Only 31% of them had a criminal conviction[1]. In Texas, which accounts for about a quarter of all ICE arrests nationally, two out of three people arrested have no conviction[1].
The Department of Homeland Security disputes that framing directly. DHS says about 70% of the people ICE arrests have either a criminal conviction or a pending criminal charge[4][6]. Both numbers come from the same pool of arrests. They just count different things.
Why the Same Records Produce Opposite Headlines
The gap between 31% and 70% is not a mystery, and it is not a case of someone getting the math wrong. It comes down to what counts as "criminal."
Critics of ICE's arrest patterns count only convictions — cases where a court found someone guilty[1][2]. That is the strictest possible test. The Deportation Data Project, a records effort run by law schools at UC Berkeley and UCLA using Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits, found that 73% of people booked into ICE custody this fiscal year had no conviction. About half had neither a conviction nor even a pending charge[2][3].
DHS counts pending charges as criminal too. A pending charge is an accusation still working through court, not a finding of guilt. Add those cases to the convictions, and the "criminal" share jumps to roughly 70%[4][6].
There is a third layer underneath both numbers. Crossing the border without authorization is itself a federal misdemeanor, under a law known as 8 U.S.C. 1325[5]. Overstaying a visa or simply being present without legal status is not a crime — it is a civil violation[5]. So a person can be in the country unlawfully and still be, by the strict legal definition, a noncriminal.
The People Behind the Percentages
The Tribune's five profiles are meant to put a face on that 31% figure. Several of the people it followed were doing what the government tells people to do: filing paperwork, attending scheduled check-ins, waiting in line for a legal outcome[1]. They were detained anyway.
That matters beyond the individual cases, their lawyers argue. If following the legal process still ends in detention, the legal process stops functioning as an alternative to entering illegally[1]. Detention itself is supposed to ensure someone shows up for a hearing, not to punish them before one has happened, lawyers add[15].
For three of the five — the people from Iran, Cuba and Venezuela — the destination matters as much as the process. Iran's asylum approval rate for people from that country fell from 86% in January 2024 to 48% in 2026[9]. The U.S. deported more than 200 people to Iran in the year before American forces bombed the country[9][10]. Removal, for those three, is not simply a return home; it is a return to a country the U.S. government itself treats as dangerous.
The Machinery Pushing Arrests Toward People With No Record
Underneath the dueling percentages is a structural fact that both sides, in different ways, point to: a mass-removal program built around arrest quotas naturally pulls in more people with no criminal record over time.
People with violent convictions are relatively few, and many are already in prison. People with no record are far more numerous, and far easier to find — they have given the government an address, a scheduled check-in or a pending application[2][3]. A push for higher daily arrest numbers runs toward the population that is easiest to locate, regardless of what officials say the stated priority is. In Texas, average daily ICE arrests roughly doubled, from 85 to 176, over the first six months of the surge, even as the share of arrestees with convictions fell[2][12].
A second mechanism works the same way. ICE issues "detainers," requests asking local jails to hold someone past their scheduled release so ICE can pick them up. That pipeline delivers people who were booked into jail but never convicted of anything — charges dismissed, dropped, or never filed at all[3]. Expanding detainers raises both the noncriminal count and the pending-charge count at once. It's why both sides can look at the same growth and claim it supports their case.
Detention space is the one hard limit on all of this. ICE's detention population peaked above 73,400 people on a single day in mid-January 2026 and stood at 65,765 as of July 11[9][13]. That ceiling shapes who gets released and who gets transferred, independent of the argument over labels.
DHS's Case: The Statute, Not the Rap Sheet
DHS's response is not just about which number sounds better. It rests on what ICE's job actually is.
ICE is not a police force investigating crimes; it enforces immigration law. Someone with no U.S. conviction who has no legal right to remain in the country is not a mistaken target under that law — that person is exactly who the statute is written to cover, DHS and its allies argue[5]. Asking ICE to arrest only people with convictions, in this view, is effectively asking it to stop enforcing most of the law it exists to enforce.
DHS also argues that a clean U.S. record does not mean a clean record overall. Lauren Bis, DHS's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, has said that many people counted as "noncriminals" are foreign nationals whose crimes — including alleged gang ties or human rights abuses — occurred abroad and never generated a U.S. case file[6]. DHS has not released case-level data to support that claim, so it remains an assertion the agency has made but not documented publicly[6].
Restrictionist groups add a legal argument. The Center for Immigration Studies and conservative outlets note that a dropped or pending charge does not mean innocence — witnesses move, deals get restructured, or ICE takes custody before a local case concludes[5]. Their broader worry is about who ends up deciding immigration policy: if a sympathetic news profile is enough to halt a removal, enforcement starts running on media coverage instead of the statute Congress passed[5][14].
What the Coverage Left Out, on Both Sides
Newsrooms on the left, including the Tribune and The Washington Post, lead with people and use words like "swept up" and "soaring" before presenting any data[1][7]. That framing is not inaccurate, but it treats the conviction-only measure as the obvious yardstick without flagging that it's a choice, or engaging DHS's pending-charge count.
Outlets on the right did the same thing in reverse. The Washington Examiner and Fox News built stories around DHS's own released tally rather than independently verified case files, and folded pending charges in as "criminal histories" without noting that a charge is an accusation, not a finding[4][6]. The Center for Immigration Studies went further, labeling the noncriminal-arrest data a "tale" before addressing the fact that a large share of the people it is describing committed only civil violations, not crimes[5].
A third group of outlets, including The Intercept, shifted the frame entirely to what happens after removal — where people are sent, and how dangerous it is once they get there[9][10]. That reporting barely engages the criminal-record fight at all, which makes the enforcement side's argument nearly invisible rather than answered.
One fact sits underneath all of it, undisputed by anyone: DHS could release the case-level records that would show exactly what the people it calls "noncriminals" are alleged to have done. As of Sept. 22, 2026, it hadn't[6].
Summary
On Sept. 22, 2026, The Texas Tribune published an investigation following five immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas[1]. They come from Mexico, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Some entered the country legally and then saw the rules change. Others were in the middle of applying for legal status. According to immigration, state and federal court records checked by the Tribune, none has a criminal conviction[1].
The Tribune put those five stories against federal numbers. Of the more than half a million people ICE arrested nationally as of Aug. 6, 2026, 31% had a criminal conviction[1]. Texas accounts for about a quarter of all ICE arrests. There, two of every three people arrested have no criminal conviction[1]. Separate data from the Deportation Data Project, a records project run by UC Berkeley and UCLA law schools, shows 73% of people booked into ICE custody this fiscal year had no conviction[2][3].
The Department of Homeland Security rejects the way those numbers are framed. DHS says ICE targets "the worst of the worst" and that about 70% of arrests involve people charged with or convicted of a crime[6]. DHS figures reported by the Washington Examiner put that combined share near 70% as well[4]. Lauren Bis, DHS's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, has also said many people counted as "noncriminals" are terrorists, human rights abusers or gang members who simply have no U.S. rap sheet; DHS has not released data showing how many fit that description[6].
The real dispute is not about the raw counts. Both sides use the same ICE records. They disagree about what should count as criminal. Critics measure convictions only. The administration counts pending charges too, and argues that being in the country illegally is itself the violation ICE exists to enforce[5]. Those two yardsticks produce nearly opposite headlines from one dataset.
The Event
On Sept. 22, 2026, The Texas Tribune published an investigation profiling five immigrants held by ICE in Texas detention facilities[1]. The five came from Mexico, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela; some had entered legally and some were pursuing legal status, and the Tribune reported that none had a criminal conviction according to immigration, state and federal court records[1]. The story cited ICE data showing 31% of the more than half million people arrested nationally as of Aug. 6, 2026 had a conviction, and that about two in three people arrested in Texas had none[1]. The piece was republished the same day by Texas television stations including KSAT and KPRC[8].
Undisputed Facts
- The Texas Tribune published the five-person investigation on Sept. 22, 2026[1].
- The five people profiled are from Mexico, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, and the Tribune reported none has a criminal conviction based on immigration, state and federal court records[1].
- ICE sorts the people it arrests into three buckets: convicted criminals, people with pending criminal charges, and "other immigration violators" whose only recorded violation is an immigration one[3].
- Crossing the border without authorization is a federal misdemeanor under 8 U.S.C. 1325, while overstaying a visa and simply being present without status are civil violations, not crimes[5].
- ICE's arrest totals rose sharply under the second Trump administration; in Texas, average daily arrests roughly doubled from 85 to 176 in the first six months[12].
- As of Aug. 6, 2026, 31% of the more than half million people ICE had arrested nationally had a criminal conviction[1].
- The Deportation Data Project, run by UC Berkeley and UCLA law schools using FOIA and litigation, reports 73% of people booked into ICE custody in fiscal 2026 had no criminal conviction[2][3].
- DHS states that roughly 70% of ICE arrests involve people charged with or convicted of a crime in the U.S., a figure that combines convictions with pending charges[6].
- ICE's detention population hit a record of more than 73,400 people on a single day in mid-January 2026, and stood at 65,765 as of July 11, 2026[9][13].
- DHS has not released case-level data supporting its claim that many people counted as "noncriminals" are foreign criminals, gang members or human rights abusers[6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Arrest quotas meet the path of least resistance
- A mass-removal program needs large daily arrest numbers. People with violent convictions are relatively few and often already in prison. People with no record are far more numerous and far easier to find, because they have given the government an address, a check-in appointment or a pending application. So a numbers target pushes enforcement toward the noncriminal population no matter what the stated priority is. Texas daily arrests roughly doubled from 85 to 176 while the share with convictions fell[2][12].
- The jail-transfer pipeline
- ICE issues detainers asking local jails to hold someone past release. That hands ICE people who were booked but never convicted — charges get dismissed, dropped or never filed. Expanding detainers therefore raises the noncriminal count and the pending-charge count at the same time, which is why both sides can point at the same growth and claim it[3].
- One dataset, two yardsticks
- Both camps use ICE's own records. The gap is definitional. Conviction-only yields roughly 28-31% criminal; conviction-plus-pending-charge yields roughly 67-70%[1][4][6]. Neither number is fabricated. Whichever yardstick a reader accepts decides the story before any fact is added.
- Detention capacity is the hard ceiling
- Beds, not policy statements, cap how many people can be held. The population peaked above 73,400 in mid-January 2026 and was 65,765 in July[9][13]. Capacity pressure shapes who gets released and who gets moved across state lines, independent of anyone's rhetoric.
Material realityAbout half a million people had been arrested by ICE nationally as of Aug. 6, 2026, and roughly two-thirds of them had no criminal conviction[1]. Texas is the single largest site of this activity, with about a quarter of all arrests[1]. Around 65,000 to 73,000 people were in ICE detention at any given time during 2026[9][13]. Whichever label wins the argument, the physical facts do not change: large numbers of people with jobs, families and pending immigration applications are being held in Texas facilities, and some are being removed to countries — Iran, Venezuela, Cuba — the U.S. government itself classifies as dangerous[9][10]. Meanwhile the underlying legal distinction is real and unchanged: illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, while visa overstay and unlawful presence are civil violations[5].
Narrative as a weaponTwo well-organized efforts are shaping what you see. DHS runs a steady stream of press releases spotlighting individual arrests of child rapists and murderers, and pairs them with the 70% charged-or-convicted statistic[6][11]. It wants you to believe the enforcement program is, in substance, criminal policing. On the other side, a network of law-school data projects and newsrooms — the Deportation Data Project at Berkeley and UCLA, TRAC at Syracuse, and outlets like the Tribune and the Post — publishes conviction-only rates alongside profiles of sympathetic detainees[1][2][7]. It wants you to believe the program has drifted far from what was promised. Both are working from the same government records. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that opposes the enforcement expansion on limited-government grounds, adds a third voice that is neither left nor pro-administration, reporting that 5% of ICE detainees have violent convictions[2]. The question neither side fully answers in public is the one DHS could settle tomorrow: releasing case-level records showing what the "noncriminals" actually did.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case starts with a promise. The administration said it would deport "the worst of the worst"[1]. So the fair test is whether the people actually taken are dangerous. The strictest, cleanest measure of danger in the data is a criminal conviction, because a conviction means a court found guilt. By that test, most people ICE takes are not dangerous[1][2]. The five profiles are meant to show what the statistic looks like at human scale: people who did the paperwork, showed up to their check-ins, and were detained anyway. The Tribune also argues that naming real people is the only check available, since DHS releases aggregate numbers and individual mugshot press releases, but not the full case records that would let anyone test its claims[6].
WhyThe Tribune is a nonprofit Texas newsroom funded by donors and foundations, with a mission focused on state government accountability. Accountability journalism on a signature state-and-federal policy is its core product[1].
Impact on themIts work sets the terms much of the national coverage uses; the 31% figure and the five names traveled to Texas TV stations the same day[8].
Frames it asDHS argues the "noncriminal" framing is a measurement trick, not a finding. First, a conviction-only count ignores people with serious charges pending, and charges are exactly what a jail hands ICE when it transfers someone; counting only convictions erases them. Combine the two and roughly 70% of arrestees have a conviction or a pending charge[4][6]. Second, DHS says a foreign national's crimes abroad often leave no U.S. rap sheet, so a clean U.S. record is not proof of a clean record[6]. Third, and most fundamental to the agency: ICE is not a criminal police force. Its job is enforcing immigration law. A person with no conviction who has no legal right to be here is not a mistake — that person is the statute's intended subject. On that view, asking ICE to arrest only convicts is asking it to stop enforcing most of the law it was created to enforce[5].
WhyThe administration is pursuing a mass-removal program with high arrest targets. Hitting those targets requires arresting people who are easy to locate, which in practice means people with no criminal history — check-in attendees, jail transfers, and applicants with addresses on file[2][3].
Impact on themDetention capacity is strained; the population peaked above 73,400 in January 2026 and remained near 65,800 in July[9][13]. Public support for enforcement tends to be strongest when the target is a violent offender, so the conviction data is a political liability the agency actively contests[6].
Frames it asThe Center for Immigration Studies, the Washington Examiner and Fox News argue the whole "noncriminal" storyline rests on a definition the press never spells out. Illegal entry is a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. 1325[5]. Someone who has never been prosecuted for it is not innocent of it; they are unprosecuted. They also note that charges get dropped for reasons that have nothing to do with innocence — a witness leaves, a plea gets swapped, or ICE takes custody before the local case finishes — so conviction rates undercount. Their deeper objection is about who decides: if a sympathetic story is enough to block a removal, then enforcement is set by media coverage rather than by statute, and the immigration system's rules stop meaning anything[5][14].
WhyCIS is an advocacy group founded to argue for lower immigration levels; it is not a neutral referee, and its analyses are written to defend enforcement policy[5]. Right-leaning outlets have audiences for whom immigration enforcement is a top-ranked issue.
Impact on themTheir arguments give the administration a ready rebuttal and shape how the same federal dataset is reported in conservative media[4][5].
Frames it asTheir strongest argument is about process, not sympathy. Several of the people profiled entered legally or were actively applying for status when the rules shifted under them[1]. If following the legal path leads to detention anyway, the legal path stops being real, and the government loses its main answer to people who cross illegally: "get in line." Lawyers add a due-process point — detention is supposed to make sure someone appears for a hearing, not to serve as punishment before one[15]. They also point to destination risk: for the Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan detainees, removal is not a return to normal life. Iranian asylum approval rates fell from 86% in January 2024 to 48% in 2026, and the U.S. deported more than 200 people to Iran in the year before bombing it[9][10].
WhyAvoiding removal and staying with family and jobs built over years in Texas[1].
Impact on themDetention means lost income, lost housing and separated families, often while a valid application is still pending[1].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Texas Tribune | U.S. nonprofit state newsroom, center-left framing on immigration | 4 | "Migrants who planted roots in Texas are being swept up in the immigration crackdown. Here are five of their stories." | "Planted roots" and "swept up" are sympathetic verbs chosen before any data appears. The piece verifies the five have no convictions but does not engage the administration's pending-charges counter-count, so the reader never sees why 31% and 67-70% can both be honest readings. |
| The Washington Post | U.S. center-left | 4 | "ICE is arresting soaring numbers of immigrants with no criminal record" | "Soaring" is a trajectory word doing the work of an argument. The conviction-only denominator is used without being flagged as a choice. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 6 | "Seven in 10 ICE arrests under Trump have criminal histories" | "Criminal histories" silently folds pending charges — accusations, not findings — in with convictions. The story is built on DHS's own released tally (595,000 arrests, 70% with a conviction or pending charge) rather than independently audited case-level data. Note this piece predates the September 2026 dispute by about nine months; no Washington Examiner story directly covers the Texas Tribune/DHS exchange. |
| The Intercept | U.S. left / adversarial investigative | 6 | "ICE Worked With Iran on Deportation Flights as Trump Laid Plans for War" | Shifts the frame entirely to destination danger and wartime timing. Criminal history — the whole axis of the domestic fight — is essentially absent, which makes the enforcement case invisible rather than rebutted. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 7 | "White House brings receipts" against media claims that noncriminal ICE arrests are soaring | "Brings receipts" adopts the administration's own framing as the headline verdict. The Bis claim that many noncriminals are terrorists and gang members is passed through without noting DHS supplied no supporting data. |
| Center for Immigration Studies | U.S. restrictionist advocacy group (founded to argue for lower immigration) | 7 | "Media Pushes 'ICE Arrests Record Number of Noncriminals' Tale Yet Again" | "Tale" pre-labels the data as fiction. The legal point — that illegal entry is a crime — is real and load-bearing, but CIS does not concede that visa overstays are civil, not criminal, which covers a large share of the population it is describing. |
References
- Migrants who planted roots in Texas are being swept up in the immigration crackdown. Here are five of their stories. — The Texas Tribune · Nonprofit Texas newsroom funded by foundations and member donors; center-left framing on immigration
- 5% of People Detained By ICE Have Violent Convictions, 73% No Convictions — Cato Institute · Libertarian think tank; consistently opposes immigration enforcement expansion on limited-government grounds
- Understanding the Summer 2026 Surge in ICE Arrests — Deportation Data Project · Academic records project run by UC Berkeley and UCLA law schools; obtains ICE data via FOIA and litigation, staffed by immigration-law academics
- Seven in 10 ICE arrests under Trump have criminal histories — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative; owned by Clarity Media Group (Philip Anschutz)
- Media Pushes 'ICE Arrests Record Number of Noncriminals' Tale Yet Again — Center for Immigration Studies · Restrictionist advocacy organization founded to argue for reduced immigration levels; not a neutral research body
- White House and DHS dispute noncriminal ICE arrest claims by media — Fox News · U.S. conservative; owned by Fox Corporation
- ICE is arresting soaring numbers of immigrants with no criminal record — The Washington Post · U.S. center-left newsroom; owned by Jeff Bezos
- Migrants who planted roots in Texas are being swept up in the immigration crackdown. Here are five of their stories. — KSAT · Local ABC affiliate (Graham Media Group) republishing Texas Tribune content
- Immigration Detention Quick Facts — TRAC Reports · Data clearinghouse founded at Syracuse University; publishes FOIA-obtained federal enforcement data, generally critical of agency opacity
- ICE Worked With Iran on Deportation Flights as Trump Laid Plans for War — The Intercept · U.S. left / adversarial investigative nonprofit
- DHS Recaps the Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens ICE took Enforcement Action on During President Trump's First Year in Office — U.S. Department of Homeland Security · U.S. federal agency; official government position
- Trump vowed to deport 'criminals,' but increasingly those swept up by ICE have no criminal record — KERA News · North Texas NPR member station; U.S. public radio
- Ten Things We Know from the Latest ICE Detention Data — Vera Institute of Justice · U.S. criminal-justice reform nonprofit; advocates for reduced incarceration and detention
- The Oxymoronic 'Criminal Alien' Arguments that Now Define the Immigration Debate — Center for Immigration Studies · Restrictionist advocacy organization
- Can undocumented immigrants legally challenge detention? — The Texas Tribune · Nonprofit Texas newsroom; center-left framing on immigration