Washington D.C. – A recent attempt by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport a foreign student using expedited removal procedures has been flagged as potentially illegal on two distinct grounds, according to immigration policy expert David J. Bier. Bier, an associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, asserted via social media that the action violated established legal parameters for expedited removal. His critique underscores ongoing concerns regarding due process within U.S. immigration enforcement.
"Um, DHS can't use expedited removal against people who entered legally," Bier stated in a tweet, adding, "DHS also can't use expedited removal against people who entered more than 2 years ago, so this attempted deportation of a foreign student was illegal 2X..." This direct challenge highlights specific statutory limitations on the expedited removal process. The procedure, established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), allows for summary deportation without a formal hearing before an immigration judge.
Expedited removal is primarily intended for individuals deemed inadmissible who entered the United States without inspection. Legal provisions generally exempt those who were lawfully admitted or who can demonstrate continuous physical presence in the U.S. for at least two years. The Department of Homeland Security has, in recent years, expanded the scope of expedited removal to the fullest extent permitted by law, particularly targeting individuals who entered without inspection and cannot prove two years of continuous presence.
Bier's commentary suggests a misapplication of these rules in the case of the foreign student, who presumably entered legally on a student visa and had been in the country for an extended period. Such circumstances would typically place an individual outside the purview of expedited removal, requiring them to be processed through standard removal proceedings. These standard proceedings offer greater due process protections, including the right to appear before an immigration judge.
The incident, while specific, reflects broader debates surrounding the balance between efficient immigration enforcement and the protection of individual rights. Immigration advocates and legal experts frequently raise concerns about the limited due process afforded under expedited removal. This case, as highlighted by Bier, serves as a pertinent example of the complexities and potential pitfalls in applying immigration statutes.