Department of Homeland Security

Papers, Please! DHS Wants Power to Deport People Faster with Less Judicial Oversight

A policy that allows for quicker deportations near the border could expand nationwide.

|

Quick: Do you think you can prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that you have the right to be in the United States right now? Can you prove that you've been living in the United States for at least two years?  If not, you risk getting deported under a new policy being pushed by President Donald Trump's administration.

Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, released a notice announcing plans to dramatically expand the "expedited removal" process.

This process generally bypasses judicial review hearings, meaning those subjected to it don't get the typical due process mechanisms of those facing deportation (which can normally take months or years). Expedited removals already exist, but with restrictions: The process can be applied only to those who arrived to the United States by sea and have been in the country for less than two years; or to those who crossed the United States border by land, and are still within 100 miles of the U.S. border, and were in the United States for less than 14 days before encountering immigration officers.

The new policy would erase many of the geographic limitations. McAleenan says the DHS is "exercising its statutory authority" under a 1996 law to cover immigrants anywhere within the United States who have been here less than two years, regardless of how they arrived. So that 100-mile limit would go away under this new system. Any immigrant found anywhere in the United States would risk expedited removal if they "have not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for the two-year period immediately preceding the date of the determination of inadmissibility."

The burden then is put on the immigrants to prove they're here legally—or, if they can't do that, that they've been here for more than two years. Otherwise they risk rapid deportation with little to no recourse.

Part of the justification for expanding the policy, the order explains, is the massive logjam in immigration enforcement procedures, which has caused a growing humanitarian crisis at several detention facilities near the border. McAleenan explains that the new policy would "help to alleviate some of the burden and capacity issues currently faced by DHS and [the Department of Justice] by allowing DHS to remove certain aliens encountered in the interior more quickly, as opposed to placing those aliens in more time-consuming removal proceedings." They calculate that more than a third of the aliens they have detained from the interior of the United States (deeper than that 100-mile limit) would potentially qualify for expedited removal if immigration had been following these guidelines.

Regardless of how one feels about immigration levels and border enforcement, any fan of human liberty should be concerned when an arm of the executive branch proposes expanding the scope of how much it can enforce regulations without judicial review. It's bad enough to deny aliens here due process. (Yes, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are generally supposed to apply to noncitizens.) But what's worse is what we already know from how DHS treats American citizens and legal immigrants within that 100-mile zone—with intrusive, unwarranted searches. This authority will most certainly be abused.

Just last week U.S. Customs officials detained three children, who are U.S. citizens, at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, in the hopes of luring out their parents, who they believe are illegal immigrants. Expanding the power to remove people quickly is almost sure to hit people that it shouldn't, and to be used to threaten immigrants and minorities even when they're here legally.

The American Civil Liberties Union is already announcing plans to sue:

Read the order for yourself here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Can't Stay Awake During Meetings. Does That Mean It's Time to Put His Whole Crony Capitalist Department to Rest?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just last week U.S. Customs officials detained three children, who are U.S. citizens, at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, in the hopes of luring out their parents, who they believe are illegal immigrants.
    Since the accompanying adult was inadmissible the children are considered unaccompanied. Unaccompanied children are not released into the wild. They require pickup by a guardian or guardian approved adult.

    1. Can’t they be released by the police to the parents, rather than CBP? Presumably the safety of children is more important than immigration law, whose violation is just a malum prohibitum.

      1. The police didn’t hand them over to CBP. They were picked up going through immigration.

        1. Right, I’m saying CBP can hand them over to the police.

          1. They tried to give them to the mother, but she was afraid to pick them up.

            1. And we’ve come full circle.

            2. I’m saying you can have the kids picked up without requiring the mother to present herself to CBP.

              1. The kids were with the CBP. The person picking them up has to go to CBP to get them. She did present herself to CBP and left with the children.

              2. I like how metas solution is to make police into human transporters.

      2. Do you think you can prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that you have the right to be in the United States right now? Can you prove that you’ve been living in the United States for at least two years?

        Yeah, I could prove it about seven different ways just off hand. But then, I’m not a criminal invader.

        As for the kids, just dump them over the wall. Not our problem.

        The reason we have an invasion crisis is because we aren’t treating the invaders properly.

        We should be shooting them the instant they cross the border.

        1. “Yeah, I could prove it about seven different ways just off hand.”

          Really? Let’s see you list them.

          1. I could provide a preponderance of the evidence that I’ve lived here for two years just off my facebook feed.

            1. What does living here for two years have to do with your immigration status. It isn’t hard to find stories of “illegals” who have been living here for as much as twenty years and more.

              Also, it’s not very likely that ICE or CBP is going to have a computer you can use to show them your facebook feed.

        2. “Yeah, I could prove it about seven different ways just off hand.”

          Sure, but do you carry the necessary documents for all those different ways on you every time you leave the house. Under the expedited removal protocols, if you don’t have the documentation on your person when ICE arrests you, it won’t matter, because you won’t be given the opportunity to go get it.

          There are documented cases of ICE/CBP deporting adult natural born US citizens.

    2. More mendacious horse$hit from Shackford. His description of the event at O’Hare is a lie.

      1. That isn’t shocking. His representation of facts is often distorted.

  2. This is absolutely outrageous.

    Fortunately there is a consensus emerging in the Democratic Party that says any form of “border enforcement” is inherently evil and racist. In fact, I predict the 2020 Democratic nominee will explicitly call for a Koch / Reason open borders policy. And it will be a winning message, since polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.”

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. Yet another meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel Immigration Policies And Procedures is convened by the right-wing malcontents who afflict reason.com.

      This timing might cause a conflict with that Libertarians For Tariffs meeting, or the Libertarians For Statist Womb Management Meeting.

      1. OMG REV, EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!

        Haha

        1. Things are going well, in general, thanks to the culture war that has enabled my side to shape American progress for 60 or 70 years. The clingers are whining and muttering bitterly, though, because they hate all of this damned progress controlled by their betters.

          Are you part of the victorious liberal-libertarian mainstream, EISTAU, or a vanquished, bitter clinger?

          1. RUN Clingers.exe

      2. RUN Bigot.exe

    2. ” I predict the 2020 Democratic nominee will explicitly call for a Koch / Reason open borders policy. ”

      They already have.

      Vote Democrat 2020
      #HateAmericaFirst

  3. Just what we need: expanding the role of a policing group which already has more power than they should have under the Constitution.

    1. Any true libertarian would favor this massive expansion of police power, as we know that the single biggest threat to liberty consists of people who might be here illegally.

  4. Do you think you can prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that you have the right to be in the United States right now?
    Yes. The three government issued photo identification cards in my wallet should be enough. I also have a corporate issued identification card.

    1. And two of the several government-issued photo IDs required that I prove I was a citizen by way of original birth certificate and other photo id, then be fingerprinted and submitted to a background check before being photographed (thereby ensuring that my fingerprints and photo are available to LEOs all over the country). And pay several hundred dollars for the process, thank you very much. And my driver’s license similarly required birth certificate, and proof of residence, but did not require the fingerprinting and background check. I have accidentally let my passport expire or I’d have at least that and the passport card.

  5. If the government accidentally deports someone who was lawfully in the country (a citizen or visa holder), so what? The individual is entitled to come right back into the country through any official border crossing.

    I’m not going to lose any sleep over this.

    1. The individual is entitled to come right back into the country through any official border crossing.

      Are they? They’ll be dealing with the same organization that deported them with no due process. And paying for the pleasure (if they were allowed access to their money).

    2. And if they lose their job because of the long amount of time they were gone, then what? If they are seriously harmed in the foreign country to which they are departed, who pays the consequence?

      1. If a citizen loses their job to an illegal alien, then what?
        If an illegal alien seriously harms someone in this country, which they’ve entered and remained in contrary to law, who pays the consequence?

      2. If I trip on the steps of the courthouse and break my legs on the way to traffic court, then what?

    3. The individual is entitled to come right back into the country through any official border crossing.

      If they couldn’t prove their right to be here in the first place, how are they going to prove their right to “come right back?”

      1. I’m really curious how you think there is a single person who cant prove they are a citizen. Can you elicit the parameters of a situation you think is covered by this? At a minimum they would have hospital or schooling records if born in the last 50 years. They would presumably have medical or dental records as well. So which situation are you worried about?

        1. “At a minimum they would have hospital or schooling records if born in the last 50 years. They would presumably have medical or dental records as well. So which situation are you worried about?”

          Under the conditions of the ICE/CBP expedited removal process, you would have not have the opportunity to go home to fetch those documents. Nor would you have access to a lawyer to get them for you. How many people carry those records on them every time they leave their home?

  6. Buying tobacco or alcohol? Papers please!

    Get the fuck out of here with your immigration bullshit.

    1. Buying tobacco or alcohol? Papers please!

      Guess what libertarians think about that.

      1. Guess what libertarians think about that.

        What does that have to do with associate editors at Reason?

      2. More clearly, do you have any articles from Reason that say that the basal concept of age of consent should be abolished? My take on the libertarian, not anarchist, stance is that child labor laws and prohibition to minors aren’t bad ideas, rather they just represent good ideas imperfectly implemented or unreasonably expanded.

        Considering many of the alcohol, tobacco, and labor laws protecting children are even older and more socially entrenched than civil rights law, and given my understanding of Reason’s selective support for the CRA, I can only assume Reason’s stance in opposition to them is similarly feckless, unprincipled, and cowardly.

        It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that Shackford, or especially Dalmia, firmly believes nobody should have to present identification to walk into the country but, if you want to buy tobacco or beer or drive a car, should have to prove that you’re 21 or 18 or 16.

        1. They may well believe that (I don’t know), but it doesn’t make the present argument wrong. It would only make them hypocrites.

          1. It would only make them hypocrites.

            Not even that. It simply doesn’t follow that “it’s okay that you have to prove your age to buy alcohol” therefore “it’s okay that you should have to show papers signifying approval to leave your house.”

            Something about an otherwise reasonable power being “unreasonably expanded.”

            1. Yeah, you’re right, good point.

            2. Something about an otherwise reasonable power being “unreasonably expanded.”

              Reason’s not arguing against driver’s license so that teenagers can buy alcohol. They’re arguing that immigrants should be able to enter the country without any sort of documentation. They don’t give two shits about the documentation or the unreasonable expansion of power. This isn’t some play to get undocumented minors to buy alcohol and further undermine prohibition. Several authors have rather overtly stated that the goal of such actions, goals they agree with, is to reinforce and expand the welfare state.

              1. Nick declares @Reason’s “core value” as Open Borders:
                In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.
                https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

          2. They may well believe that (I don’t know), but it doesn’t make the present argument wrong.

            It doesn’t make them right and more critically, the main reason they aren’t wrong is because the underlying debate or argument “isn’t even wrong”. When you start from “Of course they have a God given right to enter any sovereignty or municipality they like and selectively partake of any and all social contracts in place and/or enforced in those places.” an opinion that is ‘not wrong’ is a step up… and a glossing over.

            They don’t give shits about presenting papers. If the border became ‘must issue’ of temporary visas to anyone and everyone who came knocking, it’s not clear Reason contributors would care at all as long as all comers were welcome.

            1. We should start a project to find a bunch of illegals who are fairly literate in English and set up a deal for them to replace everyone who is a writer/editor at Reason for half the current compensation.

              I’m sure they will all be on board with that. Nice included. There’s got to be a Fonzi looking illegal who can write that could take Nick’s Job.

  7. On the flip side, is there a license I can apply for that prevents DCFS, under any circumstances, from taking custody of my kids?

  8. In answer to the opening question, I have a driver’s license, birth certificate, and passport, all of which show I have been a resident of the U.S. for the past two years at least. My state requires that all residents have an ID that must be presented to a police officer upon request.

    1. I have those things too, but I don’t carry them with me (besides the DL).

      1. A concealed carry license is good for something else then, since I have to carry it whenever I’m carrying. So I have it on me all the time.

      2. Sure, but until I see the details of the expedited process, I’m going to assume you’ll at least be given an opportunity to have somebody fetch your passport or whatever.

        I really doubt “expedited” means, “hauled to the nearest airport and parachuted into Mexico on the spot if you happen to not have the documents on you.”

        Though I could be proven wrong. Go ahead and do it.

  9. Who knew that #InvasionUSA might be impose costs on Americans?

    Here I thought it was only going to get me an unenfranchised servant class and an impoverished American working class.

    Doh!

  10. Fucking rats invading the country shouldn’t get anything but bombs, bullets, and mines.

    1. I don’t blame them. I blame the democrats. So save the ammo for them. Democrats have to leave.

      1. Open wider, clinger. More liberal-libertarian progress for bitter bigots to swallow is on the way.

        1. It really will end badly for you. I bet you beg like a wino with the shakes when your time comes Arty.

  11. If we stopped illegals from entering, we wouldn’t have to worry about deporting them.

  12. Quick: Do you think you can prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that you have the right to be in the United States right now?

    Yes.

    Can you prove that you’ve been living in the United States for at least two years?

    You don’t need to prove that if you are here legally at all. If you’re here illegally, it’s just a different ID for you.

    Papers, Please!

    You mean like the half dozen times a day I have to give my social security number and my government issued ID? The social security number that 99% of illegals commit identity fraud with and aren’t prosecuted for? The insecure, dangerous identification system that would have been replaced by a secure, verifiable system benefiting all US citizens if it were not for the fact that Democrats want their pet illegal migrants around to weed their lawns and watch their kids at below legal rates? That kind of “papers please”?

    But I forget: Reason likes illegal migrants to get special dispensation to live in a libertarian utopia where you can lie about your identity all day and remove yourself from the scrutiny of government, tax authorities, and regulators, while regular Americans get locked up if they as much as transpose two digits on government forms.

    Reason’s motto: “Libertarianism for Illegals, but American citizens should be slaves because they deserve it!”

  13. If you here illegally then you have no legal right to be here. The article is hyperventilating over the means of enforcement and the off chance that a legal citizen may be inconvenienced by such enforcement. So you are idealogically against the law, fine, change the law. If you don’t like the fact that the executive has the power to make these changes then convince the legislature to overturn the laws that give the executive this power. Why should one group,of people be allowed to circumvent the laws while my life is ruined from having a gram of weed in my pocket?
    Low wage immigrants, legal or not, with access to public services infringes on my property rights as my taxes are paying the difference between what these immigrants pay in taxes and what they receive from government. While the Koch’s may directly benefit from an unlimited supply of low wage workers, I do not and I have as much as a right to satisfy my self interests as they do.
    The welfare state isn’t going away and to break the welfare state with unlimited migration won’t lead to more liberty but socialism as the government is forced to expand its revenue collections beyond taxes and goes after the “greedy capitalists” via nationalizing private industry. All in the name of justice and virtue. It’s already happening ie healthcare, energy, affirmative action, student debt…
    I’m all in for max liberty, small gov., and free trade between capitalist countries but our liberties are very much in danger from outsiders who would prefer to better their lives from our labors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.