The data is clear: most immigration enforcement is civil—and most ICE detainees are not “violent criminals,” including those subjected to non-criminal ohio ICE arrests.
Ohio voters are being fed a familiar script in 2025–2026:
“ICE only targets the worst of the worst.”
“ICE doesn’t do raids or sweeps.”
“ICE is focused on public safety threats.”
That messaging may be politically convenient, but it is not an accurate description of how immigration enforcement works—or who is actually getting arrested and detained.
This matters in Ohio right now for two reasons:
- Ohio communities are directly experiencing intensified ICE enforcement, including high-volume “at-large” arrests.
- A senior ICE executive is now using that enforcement record as a political launchpad—running for Congress in Ohio.
If Ohio elected officials want to have a serious conversation about immigration, they should start with the truth.
1) “Illegal immigration” is usually a civil violation, not a criminal case
One of the most persistent myths in modern politics is that being in the U.S. without lawful status is automatically a “crime.”
In many real-world scenarios, it is not.
Much of ICE’s work involves civil immigration violations, such as:
- Overstaying a visa
- Violating the terms of a visa
- Working without authorization
- Being present without admission or parole
- Having a prior removal order
- Missing an immigration hearing (in absentia order)
- Losing or changing status due to paperwork or timing issues
None of those facts automatically make someone a violent criminal.
And crucially: ICE detention is not the same thing as a criminal jail sentence. It is an administrative custody system tied to deportation proceedings.
So when public officials describe ICE’s work as if it is primarily a criminal dragnet for “dangerous people,” they are collapsing two separate systems—criminal law and civil immigration law—into one misleading narrative.
2) Congressman Max Miller’s claim doesn’t match the data reality
According to reporting from cleveland.com, U.S. Rep. Max Miller has been telling concerned constituents that ICE does not conduct “patrols, raids, or sweeps,” and instead focuses enforcement on “those who pose the greatest threat to public safety.” (See: Ohio congressman tells constituents one thing about ICE, but data tells different story.)
But major analyses of government data point to a different pattern:
- A significant share of ICE arrests and detentions involve people with no criminal convictions and often no pending charges
- Many enforcement actions are conducted through “at-large” arrests—meaning arrests made outside a jail setting, frequently in communities and near courthouses
This is not an abstract debate about “policy.” It is about what Ohio residents can see with their own eyes: enforcement activity that reaches deep into ordinary life—workplaces, neighborhoods, homes, and immigration courts.
3) The “worst of the worst” narrative collapses when you look at ICE detention numbers
If the central claim is: “ICE is primarily detaining dangerous criminals,” then the detention population should reflect that.
But TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse), one of the most widely cited independent data sources tracking immigration enforcement, reports:
- 73.6% of people in ICE detention had no criminal conviction (data current as of Nov. 30, 2025).
Source: TRAC Immigration – Quick Facts
That does not mean “nobody in ICE custody ever committed a serious offense.” Of course some did—and ICE publicizes those cases heavily.
But when you zoom out, the data supports this conclusion:
ICE detention is predominantly a civil enforcement pipeline—focused on deportability, not violent crime.
And the public deserves to hear that plainly, not spun into fear-based talking points.
4) A major 2026 report says detention is expanding—and not primarily for public safety
A January 2026 report from the American Immigration Council describes the current detention strategy as larger, harsher, and less accountable—arguing that expanded detention is being used to pressure people to give up immigration cases, including many with no criminal record.
Source:
- Press release: Report: Trump immigration detention is bigger, harsher, and less accountable than ever
- Full report landing page: Immigration Detention Expansion in Trump’s Second Term
Whether you agree with the report’s framing or not, it reinforces an undeniable point:
Detention growth does not automatically equal “dangerous criminals being removed.”
It often means more ordinary people are being jailed in a civil system while they fight complex immigration cases.
5) ICE enforcement is becoming a political résumé in Ohio
Ohio is now seeing something that should alarm voters across the political spectrum:
Immigration enforcement leadership is being converted into a campaign credential.
The New York Times has reported on Madison Sheahan, a senior ICE official, stepping into Ohio congressional politics. (See: Meet the Top ICE Official Resigning to Run for Congress and coverage of the same development in major outlets.)
This is not just “someone who supports enforcement running for office.” That has always happened.
The difference now is the enforcement apparatus itself is being marketed to voters—at the same moment communities are reporting heightened ICE activity, broader arrest patterns, and a growing share of non-criminal detainees.
When public officials insist ICE is only pursuing violent criminals—while the data indicates the opposite—Ohio residents should ask:
Is this governance, or campaigning?
6) What honest leadership would sound like in Ohio
Ohio Republicans (and Democrats) can disagree strongly about immigration policy—but honesty is the minimum requirement for legitimacy.
Here is what truthful public messaging would acknowledge:
A) Most ICE enforcement is civil
Immigration detention and removal are administrative outcomes, not criminal sentences.
B) “No criminal conviction” does not mean “no wrongdoing”
But it does mean public officials should stop implying that detention equals violence.
C) The system captures people for paperwork, status problems, and technical violations
That includes longtime residents, parents, workers, and people with pending claims or complicated histories.
D) Enforcement has real community consequences
Even where removal is legally allowed, mass-scale “at-large” arrest strategies create fear, destabilize families, and discourage victims and witnesses from cooperating with police.
E) If you want tougher enforcement, say so directly
Don’t pretend it is only about “dangerous criminals” while the detention population shows otherwise.
7) Why the “criminal alien” framing is so effective—and so misleading
Politically, there is a reason some officials prefer the “worst of the worst” script:
- It reduces complex policy to a simple villain story
- It discourages scrutiny of who is being detained
- It treats deportation like a moral punishment rather than an administrative process
- It avoids accountability for collateral damage
But the public is catching on—because the lived reality doesn’t match the rhetoric.
When the message says “targeted enforcement,” and communities see broad arrests, courthouse pickups, and detention expansion, the public response is predictable:
People stop trusting their elected officials.
That is not “anti-ICE.”
That is pro-truth.
Bottom Line: Ohio voters deserve facts, not spin
Ohio can have a serious, lawful conversation about immigration enforcement.
But that conversation cannot start with gaslighting.
The data supports a clear, measurable reality:
- Immigration enforcement is largely civil, not criminal
- ICE detention is predominantly non-criminal by conviction history
- And political messaging that implies otherwise is misleading the public
Ohio leaders should stop hiding behind slogans and start telling constituents the truth:
This is not just about “violent criminals.” This is about mass civil enforcement—and Ohio is part of the test case.
