Skip to content 
How Does the Current Immigration System Operate and Why Is it Under Scrutiny?
As of April 2026, approximately 60,311 people are held in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody on any given day, making the United States home to the largest immigration detention system in the world. Individuals held in immigration detention include asylum seekers arriving at the border, undocumented immigrants, visa overstays, and other noncitizens placed into removal proceedings.
The modern immigration detention system expanded dramatically in the 1990s, driven by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 9/11, centralizing enforcement under ICE. The current Trump administration has overseen the largest investment in immigration detention in U.S. history, with detention funding rising over 400 percent from approximately $3 billion in FY2024 to $14 billion in FY2025. Despite this unprecedented investment, the Trump administration deported around 400,000 people in 2025, falling well short of its stated goal of one million annual deportations. This has prompted renewed scrutiny of the fiscal efficiency of detention-centered enforcement. Particularly high-profile operations– such as $40 million spent to deport only 300 people or $20 million spent quelling the LA immigration demonstrations this year– demonstrate the substantial costs associated with expanding the current system.
What Are Alternatives to Detention (ATDs)?
As immigration detention expands, policymakers increasingly question whether physical detention should remain the default approach for individuals awaiting removal proceedings. Although detention has traditionally served to ensure court appearances and facilitate enforcement, critics argue growing financial costs, humanitarian consequences, and oversight failures warrant greater consideration of less restrictive alternatives. These alternatives range from being less restrictive, such as release on recognizance (in which individuals are released into the community based on their promise to appear at future immigration proceedings without posting bond or being subject to ongoing supervision), to more intensive forms of supervision such as community supervision, case management, and electronic-monitoring technologies.
ICE’s primary ATD program is the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), which has been operating since 2004 and currently monitors approximately 180,701 individuals. ISAP uses telephonic reporting, GPS ankle monitors, and the SmartLINK smartphone app to monitor compliance among individuals in removal proceedings but are not detained. ICE determines the intensity of supervision and monitoring technology on a case-by-case basis without standardized criteria.
Although ATDs were originally envisioned as a replacement for detention, many researchers argue they have increasingly operated alongside detention rather than replacing it. Enrollment in ATD programs has remained relatively constant even as detention capacity has expanded, raising concerns that these programs may broaden government supervision instead of reducing reliance on detention.
Why Alternatives to Detention Are Relevant, Now More than Ever
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants pass through U.S. immigration detention facilities each year while awaiting court proceedings, and overcrowding has become a persistent concern within these facilities. This has led to deteriorating living conditions, as reports consistently find inadequate medical care, sanitation deficiencies, and a lack of outside pressure to uphold these standards.
For example, a company called the GEO Group privately operates ICE detention facility Delaney Hall, authorized by a $1 billion federal contract. In June 2026, after the GEO Group denied access to state health inspectors’ investigation into inadequate health conditions and treatment, New Jersey sued the GEO Group. The lawsuit raises questions about whether private contractors have sufficient accountability when their financial incentives are tied to maintaining detention at capacity, especially given the vast majority of detention centers are privately contracted–not just Delaney Hall.
Questions surrounding due process have also intensified. Investigative reporting found ICE detained individuals in at least 170 undisclosed holding facilities in violation of its own 12-hour hold policy, with some held as long as 39 days with minimal access to legal counsel or family contact. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly identified weaknesses in ICE oversight of detention facilities, including inconsistent complaint investigations and inadequate monitoring of detention standards. Yet the Trump Administration has eliminated both DHS offices of the Immigration Ombudsman and for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties while also restricting Congressional access to certain detention facilities. This raises additional questions about transparency and how much accountability can exist when no one can advocate for civil liberties in government.
Advocates for Alternatives to Detention
Substantial cost savings
One of the strongest arguments supporting ATDs is their substantially-lower cost. Traditional immigration detention costs the federal government more than $200 per person each day, while many community supervision and electronic-monitoring programs operate for less than five dollars daily. Because detention expenditures rose dramatically in recent years, expanding lower-cost alternatives could reduce federal spending by billions of dollars while allowing enforcement resources to focus on individuals who present genuine public safety or flight risks.
High court appearance rates
In contrast to critics claiming detention guarantees detainees attend their immigration proceedings, research consistently finds the overwhelming majority of ATD participants appear for immigration court hearings. The Vera Institute of Justice reported that 98 percent of participants in its Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative attended every scheduled court hearing. In fact, evidence shows it is not physical detention that is the strongest predictor of court compliance but rather legal representation, challenging the assumption that detention is necessary to ensure appearance.
Preserving employment, ties to support networks, and access to counsel
ATDs allow individuals to remain in their communities–important support networks–while their cases proceed, enabling them to continue working, obtain medical care that does not exist in detention centers, and meet with attorneys. Maintaining employment and community ties reduces many of the economic and social disruptions associated with prolonged detention while simultaneously improving individuals’ ability to prepare their legal cases, making them significantly more likely to appear for hearings and follow a legal pathway to citizenship.
Critics of Alternatives to Detention
Flight risk reduction
Enforcement advocates argue physical detention remains necessary to reduce flight risk. Although studies demonstrate high court appearance rates among ATD participants, individuals with prior removal orders or histories of immigration violations may require more restrictive supervision to ensure compliance. From this perspective, detention functions as an essential enforcement tool rather than a mechanism for ensuring court appearances, thus remaining essential. Advocates have also frequently cited cases such as that of the 2024 killing of Laken Riley. Attacked by a Venezuelan national who had previously been released after immigration encounters, critics of ATD argue this case illustrates how releasing certain individuals from custody can have severe public safety consequences.
Implementation is inconsistent across jurisdictions
ICE determines the level of ATD supervision on a case-by-case basis through Enforcement and Removal Operations officers– individuals with similar circumstances may receive substantially different levels of monitoring depending on geographic location or officer discretion. In addition, many community supervision programs rely on local nonprofit organizations with limited funding and staffing, raising questions about whether these programs could even scale to a national level.
ATDs may not reduce detention, only add another means of surveillance
Some organizations further contend that ATDs have failed to serve as true alternatives to detention. Instead of replacing detention, enrollment in ATD programs has expanded alongside detention capacity, increasing the total number of individuals subject to government supervision. In fact, ISAP enrollment has remained essentially flat from December 2024 to April 2026 while physical detention expanded dramatically. This phenomenon, often referred to as “net-widening”, suggests that ATDs may become an additional layer of immigration enforcement rather than a substitute for incarceration.
What does the future of Alternatives to Detention look like?
As of 2026, the Trump Administration has significantly expanded detention capacity, making ICE the largest federal law enforcement agency while showing no indication of interest in expanding community-based supervision. ATD enrollment has remained constant at approximately 180,000 even as physical detention grows. Therefore, ATDs are implemented as a supplement, rather than an alternative, to detention.
Looking ahead, the debate is unlikely to focus on choosing between detention and ATDs entirely. Rather, a hybrid approach may offer the most practical path forward by expanding community supervision, legal representation, and case-management services for individuals who present minimal public safety risks while reserving detention for those who demonstrate a significant risk of flight or danger to the public. Such a system would require standardized placement criteria, stronger oversight of both detention facilities and ATD programs, greater transparency regarding electronic monitoring technologies, and continued investment in legal representation, which research consistently identifies as the strongest predictor of compliance with immigration proceedings.
The Immigration Detention Debate: Costs, Safety, and Alternatives was first published by the Alliance for Citizen Engagement, and was republished with permission.
Lily De Bei is an undergraduate student at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
