https://austinkocher.substack.com/p/92-of-ice-detention-growth-in-fy
The headline: ICE detention hit a record 68,990 people across 212 facilities on January 7, 2026.
The mismatch: If this is “about dangerous criminals,” the data tell a different story.
What the numbers showWhat the numbers show
Between September 21, 2025 and January 7, 2026, ICE’s detained population grew by 11,296 people. Breaking down that growth:
- 72% were classified as “Other Immigration Violators” (no criminal charges or convictions)
- 20% had pending charges
- 8% had prior criminal convictions
The number of detainees with convictions hasn’t increased since August and has actually decreased since mid-December.
In the January 7 snapshot filtering for ICE arrests only: 24,644 fell into “Other” vs. 16,627 with convictions and 16,040 with pending charges. In the total ICE+CBP population, 48% have no recorded criminal history.
The machinery problemThe machinery problem
Message vs. metric: The public justification is “public safety,” but the growth engine is the easiest-to-scale category—people with no criminal record—not the “convicted criminal” bucket.
Category design: “Other Immigration Violator” is a capacious label. ICE has suggested it can include serious threats, but hasn’t published granular data to verify that claim beyond anecdotes.
Trend reality: The “dangerous criminal” line isn’t spiking. The “no record” line is.
The transparency gapThe transparency gap
I’m not claiming “no conviction” equals “no risk.” I’m claiming the stated rationale doesn’t match the observable driver. If the justification is threat mitigation, we need threat metrics,not just headcount and a culture-war frame.
What should replace the current frameWhat should replace the current frame
If the goal is genuinely public safety plus flight-risk management, the focus should be:
- Transparent, standardized detention criteria
- Outcome metrics (recidivism, appearance rates, threat materialization)
- Proactive disclosure that allows independent falsification of the “public safety” narrative
The limiting-principle questionThe limiting-principle question
What evidence would constitute a meaningful constraint on expanding detention?
- Violent-conviction share?
- Specific pending-charge composition?
- Measured flight risk by category?
And what should ICE disclose proactively so the public can actually test, and potentially falsify, the safety justification it’s offering?
Without answers to those questions, we’re left with a record detention population and a rhetorical claim that the data don’t support. 
ICE detention statistics / detention management: https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management