I never said it was okay, I merely said that the wrongful deportations happen by mistake under every administration, whether its Republicans or Democrats
''
he Obama administration utilized existing legal frameworks for deportations, primarily
formal removal proceedings (which involve a hearing before an immigration judge and associated due process rights) and
expedited removal (a faster process with limited judicial review). The administration also shifted focus to prioritize the removal of individuals who posed a threat to national security or public safety, such as those with serious criminal convictions or recent border crossers.
Formal Removal Proceedings
For many undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended in the U.S. interior and with established community ties, the primary mechanism was formal removal proceedings.
- Immigration Court Hearings: Individuals had the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, where they could present their case, challenge the government's evidence, and apply for forms of relief from deportation (such as asylum, cancellation of removal, or other legal status).
- Right to Counsel (at no government expense): Immigrants in these proceedings had the right to secure legal representation, though the government did not provide them with a lawyer.
- Appeals Process: Decisions made by an immigration judge could be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and potentially to federal courts.
- Prosecutorial Discretion: The administration encouraged the use of prosecutorial discretion to prioritize cases involving serious criminals and allow others, such as eligible parents of U.S. citizens (under the proposed DAPA program) and DACA recipients, to seek temporary relief from deportation.
Expedited Removal
The Obama administration continued the use of expedited removal authority, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove certain individuals without an immigration court hearing.
- Eligibility: This process was primarily used for noncitizens apprehended at or near the border who lacked proper entry documents or used fraudulent ones, and who had not been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years.
- Limited Review: In these cases, due process was limited. However, individuals who expressed a fear of persecution or torture were entitled to a credible fear interview with an asylum officer to access the asylum system.
Due Process Concerns
Despite the existence of formal processes, the administration faced criticism from civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates regarding due process issues:
- "Rocket Dockets": The administration created expedited hearings, or "rocket dockets," for families and unaccompanied children from Central America, which critics argued gave individuals less time to find adequate counsel and prepare their asylum claims, potentially violating due process.
- Stipulated Removal: The use of stipulated removal, where detainees agreed to deportation without a full hearing, was also scrutinized. Reports suggested government officials sometimes provided misleading information, leading immigrants to waive their rights without fully understanding the consequences or their eligibility for relief.
In essence, the Obama administration followed existing legal procedures for deportations, which offered varying levels of due process depending on the specific circumstances and location of apprehension. The focus was on creating a more targeted system that prioritized serious threats while attempting to provide a path to temporary legal status for others through executive actions like DACA and DAPA.
This is what AI overview has to say...Sounds like a balanced way to go about things to me.
www.allenanalysis.com
