DOCSLIB.ORG

Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement SPECIAL REPORT TRACKING THE BIDEN AGENDA ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT by Jorge Loweree and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick About the American Immigration Council The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. Through its research and analysis, the American Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with information about how the immigration system works, the impact of policy proposals, and the crucial role that immigration plays in our communities and workplaces. Visit us at www.AmericanImmigrationCouncil.org and www.ImmigrationImpact.com. About the Authors Jorge Loweree is the Director of Policy at the American Immigration Council, where he directs the Council’s administrative and legislative advocacy and leads the Council’s efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States. Previously, Jorge spent ten years in a variety of positions with the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as Senior Counsel for Immigration Law and Policy, working on a wide range of enforcement and benefits issues. Jorge holds a J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School and Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from the Saint Mary’s University. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council, where he works primarily on immigration court issues and the intersection of immigration law and policy. He previously worked as a Staff Attorney at the Council, working on impact litigation, Freedom of Information Act litigations, and practice advisories. Prior to joining the Council, he was an Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow placed as a Staff Attorney at the Immigration Law Unit of The Legal Aid Society in New York City, representing immigrants placed in removal proceedings because of a prior criminal conviction. Aaron holds a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Politics and East Asian Studies from Brandeis University. Acknowledgments For her invaluable advice and assistance in conducting much of the research and analysis associated with the development of this report, we thank Emily Samson, Consultant with the American Immigration Council. For their assistance in fact-checking, editing, and reviewing this report, we also thank Rebekah Wolf, Emma Winger, Walter Ewing, and Karen Lucas. 2 I Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement Contents About the American Immigration Council ................................................................................................. 2 About the Authors ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4 Immigration Enforcement in the Trump Era .............................................................................................. 4 President Biden’s Commitments and Accomplishments on Immigration Enforcement ......................... 5 Analysis and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Immigration Enforcement in the Trump Era ............................................................................................ 9 Arrests and Removals .................................................................................................................................. 9 Detention Numbers and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 12 Challenges to Sanctuary Jurisdictions ..................................................................................................... 14 Engagement with Local Law Enforcement .............................................................................................. 15 Worksite Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 16 Funding for Interior Enforcement ............................................................................................................. 16 Enforcement During the COVID-19 Pandemic .......................................................................................... 17 President Biden’s Commitments and Accomplishments on Immigration Enforcement ................... 18 Enforcement Priorities .............................................................................................................................. 18 Expedited Removal ................................................................................................................................... 21 Immigration Court Issues.......................................................................................................................... 21 Detention Numbers and Capacity ............................................................................................................ 21 Sanctuary Policies ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Engagement with Local Law Enforcement .............................................................................................. 24 Agreements with Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 24 Worksite Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 24 Analysis and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 25 Arrests and Removals ................................................................................................................................ 25 Immigration Detention ............................................................................................................................. 26 Sanctuary Policies .................................................................................................................................... 26 Engagement with Local Law Enforcement .............................................................................................. 27 Funding for Interior Enforcement ............................................................................................................ 27 Endnotes .................................................................................................................................................... 28 3 I Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement Executive Summary The Trump administration implemented a total of 363 policy changes to interior enforcement with the overarching goal of subjecting all undocumented immigrants to enforcement actions. President Biden assumed office following significant commitments to implement changes to immigration enforcement, to limit enforcement activities, and to reduce the hardship experienced by noncitizens and their families. This report analyzes some of the most consequential changes to immigration enforcement implemented by the Trump administration, the changes that President Biden committed to making during his campaign and transition, and the progress that his administration has achieved in its first 100 days. The report concludes with recommendations for additional changes that the administration should prioritize in working to create a fairer and more humane system of immigration enforcement. Immigration Enforcement in the Trump Era Arrests and Removals Trump issued executive orders in 2017 that eliminated existing enforcement priorities and redefined “all removable aliens” as targets for deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In addition, the administration extended the reach of “expedited removal”—the process by which an individual immigration enforcement official can order the immediate deportation of certain undocumented immigrants without going through immigration court proceedings. The administration also sought to implement a rule that would end the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases. That rule is currently blocked by a preliminary injunction. Despite these measures, removals of individuals apprehended by ICE never rose above 100,000 a year under the Trump administration—less than half the level of President Obama’s first term. The reasons for this include higher immigration court backlogs under Trump, increased attorney representation rates, and less cooperation from state and local jurisdictions. Detention Numbers and Capacity In one of his 2017 executive orders, Trump demanded increased detention along the southern border, an end to the so-called “catch-and release” policy for families, and a restriction on parole,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019
    Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019 MIKE GUO SEPTEMBER 2020 INTRODUCTION • ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) engages in initiated 29 percent more intakes into immigration immigration enforcement actions to prevent unlawful detention, with detentions of aliens from Mexico entry into the United States and to apprehend and and the Northern Triangle of Central America repatriate aliens who have violated or failed to comply accounting for 82 percent of all detentions. with U.S. immigration laws. The primary responsibility • DHS performed 9.5 percent more removals in 2019 for the enforcement of immigration law within DHS than in 2018, with about 43 percent of removals rests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and involving aliens who had a prior criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP conviction. primarily enforces immigration laws along the borders and at ports of entry (POEs) and ICE is responsible for ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PROCESSES interior enforcement and most detention and removal operations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Determinations of Inadmissibility (USCIS) adjudicates applications and petitions for All aliens seeking admission at a POE are subject to immigration and naturalization benefits. inspection. OFO officers conduct these inspections at designated POEs and at pre-clearance locations at The 2019 Immigration Enforcement Actions Annual Flow Report, certain foreign ports. Applicants for admission who are authored by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics determined to be inadmissible may be permitted to (OIS), presents information on DHS immigration voluntarily withdraw their application for admission enforcement actions during 2019.1 This includes and return to their home country, processed for determinations of inadmissibility by CBP Office of expedited removal, referred to an immigration judge Field Operations (OFO) officers, apprehensions by CBP (IJ) for removal proceedings, processed for a visa U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues
    Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Lisa M. Seghetti, Coordinator Section Research Manager (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Specialist in Immigration Policy September 28, 2005 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33106 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Summary Border security has emerged as an area of public concern, particularly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Although recent public concerns pertaining to border security may be attributed to the threat of potential terrorists coming into the country, past concerns that centered around drug and human smuggling and the illegal entry of migrants remain important issues. As Congress passes legislation to enhance border security (e.g., P.L. 109-13) and the Administration puts into place procedures to tighten border enforcement, concerns over terrorists exploiting the porous southwest border continue to grow. The U.S. border with Mexico is some 2,000 miles long, with more than 800,000 people arriving from Mexico daily and more than 4 million commercial crossings annually. The United States and Mexico are linked together in various ways, including through trade, investment, migration, tourism, environment, and familial relationships. Mexico is the second most important trading partner of the United States and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. In an effort to facilitate the legitimate flow of travel and trade, the governments of the United States and Mexico signed the U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuc Vu, Director
    Cuc Vu, Director July 3, 2019 Submitted via email OMB USCIS Desk Officer [email protected] Re: Agency USCIS, OMB Control Number 1615-0116 - Public Comment Opposing Changes to Fee Waiver Eligibility Criteria, Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Fee Waiver FR Doc. 2019-11744, Filed 6-5-19; 84 FR 26137 Dear Desk Officer: The City of Seattle (“the City”) submits this comment in response to the proposed revision of a currently approved collection published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in their Agency Information Collection Notice published on June 5, 2019. We are responding to the lack of response to the public comments previously submitted on April 5, 2019 and to address the inadequacy of responses by USCIS to comments submitted in response to their Notice of Revision of Currently Approved Collection published on September 28, 2018. The City of Seattle continues to strongly oppose the proposed rule to modify Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. The City of Seattle created the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA) in 2012 to improve the lives of Seattle’s immigrant and refugee families. Through OIRA, the City of Seattle funds and coordinates two naturalization programs called the New Citizen Campaign (NCC) and the New Citizen Program (NCP) to help an estimated 75,000 Seattle-area legal permanent residents (“LPR”) become U.S. citizens. Since its inception in 1997, NCP has served over 19,000 people, provided naturalization assistance to over 12,300 LPRs, successfully naturalized 9,500 LPRs, and provided over 90,000 hours of citizenship instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctuary Cities and the Federal Government Power Struggle: How Sanctuary Cities Are Fighting Back
    Public Interest Law Reporter Volume 22 Issue 2 Article 2 2017 Sanctuary Cities and the Federal Government Power Struggle: How Sanctuary Cities are Fighting Back Conor Grealish Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Conor Grealish, Sanctuary Cities and the Federal Government Power Struggle: How Sanctuary Cities are Fighting Back, 22 Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 73 (2017). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr/vol22/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Interest Law Reporter by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact law- [email protected]. Grealish: Sanctuary Cities and the Federal Government Power Struggle: How S No. 2 * Spring 2017 Sanctuary Cities and the Federal Government Power Struggle: How Sanctuary Cities are Fighting Back Conor Grealish Recently, President Trump signed an executive order that would limit fed- eral funding to sanctuary cities that do not comply with the administration's immigration policies.' The purpose of the order is to increase the "national security and public safety of the United States."2 The order claims that the actions of sanctuary cities have caused "immeasurable harm" to the safety of the American people and that "many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise
    [Show full text]
  • Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers
    Woods: Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Woods camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/18/2020 12:00 PM BORDER MYTHS: HOW U.S. POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CONTROLLING THE BORDER NARRATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CINDY S. WOODS* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 82 I. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL IMPERATIVE ...................................... 84 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES’ APPROACH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS ................................... 87 A. International Law Obligations to Asylum Seekers ....... 88 1. The Non-Refoulement Principle ............................. 88 a. Non-Rejection ................................................... 89 b. Access to Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures ................................................ 90 B. U.S. Interpretations of International Obligations ........ 91 1. Exclusion of the Non-Rejection Principle ............. 92 2. Punitive Measures for Illegal Entrants ................. 93 3. Expedited Removal and the Credible Fear Process ............................................................... 94 III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE BORDER NARRATIVE ............................................................. 96 A. Port of Entry Denials .................................................. 96 B. CBP Abuse at the Border .......................................... 102 C. Increased Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossers ... 107 * J.D. Georgetown University Law
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Bill 4: Police Officers' Opinions on Texas's Ban of Sanctuary Cities
    SENATE BILL 4: POLICE OFFICERS’ OPINIONS ON TEXAS’S BAN OF SANCTUARY CITIES Megan E. Reed* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .....................................................68 I. Background on SB4 ..........................................69 A. History of Sanctuary Cities in the United States .................69 B. Events Leading to SB4’s Enactment ........................... 74 C. SB4’s Provisions ...........................................77 1. ICE-DETAINER PROVISION ................................78 2. ENFORCEMENT-COOPERATION PROVISION ....................78 D. Similar State Legislation ....................................79 II. In Practice, What Will SB4 Change? ...........................82 A. Racial Profiling v. Probable Cause ............................82 B. Reports to Police by Victims and Witnesses .....................85 1. LOWER CRIME REPORTING AND COOPERATION ................85 2. U AND T VISAS .........................................87 C. Inquiries Into Immigration Status .............................91 1. THE NEED TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE ...........................91 2. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS CARRYING NON-U.S. IDENTIFICATION . 93 D. Jails and Detainers .........................................96 1. BASIS FOR DETAINERS ....................................96 2. SB4’S IMPACT ON HONORED ICE DETAINERS IN TEXAS .........97 3. FOURTH AMENDMENT CONCERNS. 99 E. Officers’ Reputations Within Their Communities ...............104 F. Training on Immigration Law. 107 G. Resource Reallocation and the Tenth Amendment ..............108 III.
    [Show full text]
  • CLINIC Sanctuary Cities Toolkit
    CLINIC Sanctuary Cities Toolkit Contents What is a Sanctuary City? CLINIC Sanctuary Cities Toolkit ..........................1 The phrase "Sanctuary city" originates from the religious immigration-centered movement of the 1980s...Churches, What is a Sanctuary City? ........................................................ 1 synagogues, and other religious institutions opposed the What Is the Existing Federal Policy? ......................................... 2 return of Central American refugees to the countries where they had been persecuted. This became known as the What Counties and Cities Have Sanctuary City Policies Sanctuary Movement." That Separate Federal Immigration Enforcement from Local Law Enforcement? ...................................................................... 2 The term “sanctuary city” is a misnomer as some have What Are the States’ Policy Choices? ...................................... 3 confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any Public Policy Argument: Economic Impact of Immigration in immigration enforcement action brought against them. America ...................................................................................... 3 However, nothing in a "sanctuary city" policy prevents The Francis Effect: Harness the Power of the Pope and federal enforcement actions.1 Catholic Social Teaching ........................................................... 4 Some cities and localities, including San Francisco, have Coalition-Building and Finding Allies
    [Show full text]
  • BERKELEY WILL REMAIN SANCTUARY CITY, MAYOR-ELECT VOWS Arreguín Holds Firm Against Trump Administration Threats
    BERKELEY WILL REMAIN SANCTUARY CITY, MAYOR-ELECT VOWS Arreguín Holds Firm Against Trump Administration Threats BERKELEY, Calif. (Nov. 22, 2016)—Flanked by a majority of the Berkeley City Council, Mayor-elect Jesse Arreguín announced Tuesday that Berkeley will remain a ‘sanctuary city,’ rebuking threats made by President-elect Donald Trump to penalize cities that refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal officials. “Berkeley will remain a beacon of light during this dark time,” Arreguín said. “From hard-working families in our neighborhoods to Dreamers in our classrooms, our city will be a safe space.” President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to cut off federal funding to ‘sanctuary cities’—over 300 cities across America—whose local governments don’t alert federal immigration officials when they discover undocumented immigrants. Many of these cities are also refusing to cave to threats from Washington—including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago. Arreguín, who becomes Berkeley’s first Latino mayor on December 1, said this kind of strong solidarity amongst like-minded cities reduces the likelihood that Trump’s Administration will actually act on such draconian threats. “Trump’s election has had a chilling effect on race relations across America, and now there’s a clear and present danger to families in our own city,” said Arreguin “They’re truly scared, and our best line of defense are cities standing up to this president.” Berkeley currently receives approximately $11.5 million in federal funding, according to city staff. Most of it helps the City’s most vulnerable on issues such as affordable housing, supportive care, emergency shelter and health services.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Publication
    LATINO IMMIGRANTS IN THE WINDY CITY: New Trends in Civic Engagement Authors: Judith Boruchoff Katz Center for Mexican Studies, University of Chicago Oscar A. Chacón National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities Susan R. Gzesh Human Rights Program, University of Chicago Amalia Pallares Latin American and Latino Studies Program University of Illinois at Chicago Rebecca Vonderlack-Navarro School of Social Work University of Chicago Rapporteur’s report by: Amy Shannon Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Editors: Xóchitl Bada University of Illinois at Chicago Oscar A. Chacón National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities Jonathan Fox University of California, Santa Cruz Authors: Judith Boruchoff, Oscar A. Chacón, Susan R. Gzesh, Amalia Pallares, Amy Shannon, and Rebecca Vonderlack-Navarro Copyeditor: Leah Florence Series Editors: Xóchitl Bada, Jonathan Fox, and Andrew Selee Coordinators: Kate Brick and Robert Donnelly www.wilsoncenter.org/migrantparticipation Preferred citation: Bada, Xóchitl, Oscar A. Chacón, and Jonathan Fox, Eds. Latino Immigrants in the Windy City: New Trends in Civic Engagement, Reports on Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 2010. © 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Cover images: At top, members of the honor guard of the Club Ciudad Hidalgo (Michoacán) hometown association participate in a ceremony commemorating the birth of Mexican President Benito Juárez at the Plaza de las Américas in Chicago, IL, on March 21, 2009. At bottom, dancers affiliated with Ballet Folclórico de Víctor Soria are photographed at the same ceremony. (Photos by Claudio Ugalde) CONTENTS PREFACE 5 PROLOGUE 6 Chicago Community Dialogue: A Step toward Stronger Transnational Collaboration Oscar A.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican and Central American Asylum and Credible Fear Claims Background and Context
    MEXICAN AND CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM AND CREDIBLE FEAR CLAIMS Background and Context By Sara Campos, Esq. and Joan Friedland, Esq. Special Report | May 2014 MEXICAN AND CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM AND CREDIBLE FEAR CLAIMS BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sara Campos, Esq. is a writer, lawyer, and consultant specializing in immigration and refugee issues. Before working independently, she was a Staff Attorney for the National Immigration Law Center and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. She also taught Refugee Law at Golden Gate University and USF Law Schools. Joan Friedland, Esq., was Managing Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Washington, D.C. until 2011. She worked for many years with non-profits and in private practice in New Mexico and Florida, practicing primarily in the areas of civil rights, immigration, and criminal law. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and currently lives in New Mexico. ABOUT THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL The American Immigration Council’s policy mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, the Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy in U.S. society. Our reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policymakers. Our staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers, and the media. We are a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org and our blog at www.immigrationimpact.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Billing Code: 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/20/2021 and available online at Billing Code: 9111-97-P federalregister.gov/d/2021-17779, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 208 and 235 [CIS No. 2692-21; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012] RIN 1615-AC67 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1003, 1208, and 1235 [A.G. Order No. 5116-2021] RIN 1125-AB20 Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, “the Departments”) are proposing to amend the regulations governing the determination of certain protection claims raised by individuals subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”) (“statutory withholding of removal”), or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Such individuals who are granted relief by the asylum officer would be entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT, as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework
    Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework Updated October 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45314 SUMMARY R45314 Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework October 8, 2019 The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government Hillel R. Smith may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally Legislative Attorney apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission. In general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review. INA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States.
    [Show full text]