Comment 1: Claims that 75% to 83% of those deported "never saw a judge or had a chance to plead their case" are based on statistics from individual years, particularly 2012 and 2013. And who was President back then? Snopes ruled that statement mostly true.
Response: The Snope analysis is here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deportations-court/
A couple of points need to be made clear.
1. If Obama or his subordinates violated due process or engaged in any other serious, widespread violations of the Constitution, I would want him prosecuted and jailed. I want to Constitution to be applied to everyone equally and fairly. I seriously believe in the rule of law and it's fair and equal treatment for everybody, including Democrats, Republicans, independents, crooks, liars, traitors, innocents, communists, capitalists, crackpots, creeps and everyone else.
2. Court cases about due process violations associated with "summary removals" by legal procedures such as "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal" have found that those deportation procedures do not violate the US Constitution. Courts have generally upheld expedited removal under Congress’s plenary power over immigration, citing the "entry fiction" doctrine that treats noncitizens at the border as outside constitutional protections. Also, the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) declined to extend due process rights to noncitizens detained shortly after entry, reinforcing the distinction between those "on the threshold" of entry and those with established ties. The Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld reinstatement under the rationale that noncitizens who illegally reenter forfeit procedural rights.
3. Civil rights advocates like the ACLU strenuously argue that expedited deportation procedures violate due process, but so far they have not won.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/due-process-immigration
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal
4. I searched for due process violations in expedited deportations under Obama. During the Obama administration, there were two federal court cases that found due process violations in expedited deportation procedures, US v Ramos (2010) and US v Raya-Vaca (2014). Those two cases identified violating deportation procedures, and Obama responded by implementing procedural reforms and adjustments.
The Ramos decision exposed widespread flaws in the stipulated removal program, where unrepresented detainees waived their rights to hearings and appeals without adequate understanding of the consequences. In response:
In response to Ramos, Obama's Executive Office for Immigration Review issued Operational Policy and Procedure Memorandum 10-01 in September 2010, mandating that Immigration Judges conduct individualized reviews of stipulated removal requests. Judges were required to verify that waivers of rights were “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,” including confirming detainees’ comprehension of charges, relief eligibility, and consequences of removal.
https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-oppm-procedures-requests-stipulated-removal
Also, Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) updated its stipulated removal forms to include clearer explanations of rights in Spanish and English, addressing the language barriers highlighted in Ramos. Detainees were also provided access to legal orientation programs in detention centers to improve awareness of procedural options. And, DHS stopped doing mass presentations of stipulated removal forms in group settings, instead employing individualized meetings between officers and detainees.
https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf
The Raya-Vaca ruling held that expedited removal violated due process when officers failed to provide notice of charges or opportunities to contest removal. The Obama administration responded by having U.S. Customs and Border Protection implement mandatory training modules emphasizing proper notice procedures, language access, and documentation of interactions during expedited removal interviews. Agents were instructed to ensure noncitizens understood their right to request asylum or voluntary departure.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/practice_advisory/final_expedited_removal_advisory-_updated_2-21-17.pdf
A November 2014 DHS Memorandum prioritized enforcement actions against “threats to national security, public safety, and border security,” indirectly reducing reliance on expedited removal for long-term residents or low-priority cases.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion(1).pdf
Critics still argue that Obama's changes, although improvements, still fall short of what critics see as continuing non-trivial due process violations in deportations. As far as I know, the courts did not go back and whack Obama a second time after policy changes he implemented in the wake of the Ramos and Raya-Vaca court cases. Apparently, Obama's policy changes satisfied the federal courts.
5. This point is very important. Two wrongs almost never or never make a right. Obama's earlier wrongs do not justify or sanction Trump's later wrongs. Their wrongs, if any, are separate and independent things. So, what about the Trump administration? Oops! It turns out that Trump is a very, very naughty boy.
Trump reintroduced stipulated removal, a process allowing noncitizens to waive their right to a hearing-through executive orders in early 2025. This policy re-establishes the pre-Ramos practices where detainees, often unrepresented and under coercive conditions, signed removal orders without understanding their rights. Despite Ramos mandating clarity in forms, non-English speakers in Trump-era stipulated removals often receive inadequate translations, leading to erroneous waivers of rights.
https://www.vera.org/explainers/trumps-week-one-orders-on-immigration-law-explained
https://immigrantjustice.org/know-your-rights/mass-deportation-threats
The Trump administration expanded expedited removal in March 2025 to apply nationwide to noncitizens unable to prove two years of continuous U.S. residence. This policy directly conflicts with Raya-Vaca’s holding that noncitizens must receive notice of charges and opportunities to contest removal. Trump eroded of notice requirements under his expanded policy. Now, Border Patrol agents conduct rapid interviews without ensuring comprehension of charges or relief options. That violates Raya-Vaca’s mandate for meaningful notice. For example, Venezuelan deportees in 2025 alleged they were not informed of their right to seek asylum, leading to a Supreme Court challenge.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/28/trump-immigration-100days-due-process-00307435
Although Raya-Vaca emphasized the right to consult counsel, Trump has again restricted it. Expedited removals under Trump now usually occurs within hours of apprehension, leaving no time for legal representation. The ACLU estimates that 90% of expedited removal cases in 2025 lacked attorney participation.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-fast-track-deportation-policy
https://www.nilc.org/resources/know-your-rights-expedited-removal-expansion/
Beyond Ramos and Raya-Vaca, the Trump administration’s policies have introduced new due process risks. Trump policy eviscerates of asylum protections by empowering immigration judges to dismiss asylum cases without hearings. That directly contradicts the “credible fear” screening process upheld in Raya-Vaca. In April 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that 40% of asylum cases were summarily dismissed under this policy.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/28/trump-immigration-100days-due-process-00307435
https://www.aila.org/library/featured-issue-u-s-immigration-courts-under-trump-2-0?page=391
Federal courts have repeatedly cited the Trump administration for disregarding due process obligations. Wrongful Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: In April 2025, a Maryland district court found that DHS deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite a 2019 order barring his removal. The administration defied court mandates to facilitate his return, prompting Judge Paula Xinis to order sworn testimony from DHS officials.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/04/us-judge-orders-sworn-testimony-of-trump-officials-on-compliance-in-wrongful-deportation-case/
ACLU v. Trump (2025): A coalition sued the administration over its expanded expedited removal policy, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The lawsuit cites Raya-Vaca and Ramos to argue that the policy “replicates and amplifies past constitutional failures”.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-fast-track-deportation-policy
Ninth Circuit due process violation found: In Doe v. Trump (2025), the Ninth Circuit blocked the administration’s use of expedited removal for long-term residents, noting that the policy “ignores decades of precedent requiring individualized hearings”.
https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
Trump and his officials have openly rejected due process as an impediment to deportation goals. President Trump stated in April 2025, “We cannot provide everyone a trial… doing so would take 200 years,” while Acting DHS Secretary Benjamin Huffman called due process “a luxury we cannot afford”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/us/politics/trump-immigrants-trials-deportation.html
The administration’s “self-deportation” initiative, including the CBP Home app, pressures migrants to leave without hearings, undermining Ramos and Raya-Vaca.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-administration-expedited-removal/
One can reasonably and fairly conclude that the Trump administration has systematically dismantled due process protections upheld in Ramos and Raya-Vaca, reviving stipulation practices, expanding expedited removal, and curtailing asylum access.
Therefore, if Obama was X bad regarding illegal deportations because his fixes arguably weren't good enough, Trump is at least ~5X bad because (1) Trump has gone back to the old problems that Obama tried to fix and had at least partly fixed, (2) Trump says due process is too much trouble, and (ii) Trump is openly telling the federal courts to fuck off, something that Obama never did.
A couple of points need to be made clear.
1. If Obama or his subordinates violated due process or engaged in any other serious, widespread violations of the Constitution, I would want him prosecuted and jailed. I want to Constitution to be applied to everyone equally and fairly. I seriously believe in the rule of law and it's fair and equal treatment for everybody, including Democrats, Republicans, independents, crooks, liars, traitors, innocents, communists, capitalists, crackpots, creeps and everyone else.
2. Court cases about due process violations associated with "summary removals" by legal procedures such as "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal" have found that those deportation procedures do not violate the US Constitution. Courts have generally upheld expedited removal under Congress’s plenary power over immigration, citing the "entry fiction" doctrine that treats noncitizens at the border as outside constitutional protections. Also, the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) declined to extend due process rights to noncitizens detained shortly after entry, reinforcing the distinction between those "on the threshold" of entry and those with established ties. The Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld reinstatement under the rationale that noncitizens who illegally reenter forfeit procedural rights.
3. Civil rights advocates like the ACLU strenuously argue that expedited deportation procedures violate due process, but so far they have not won.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/due-process-immigration
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal
4. I searched for due process violations in expedited deportations under Obama. During the Obama administration, there were two federal court cases that found due process violations in expedited deportation procedures, US v Ramos (2010) and US v Raya-Vaca (2014). Those two cases identified violating deportation procedures, and Obama responded by implementing procedural reforms and adjustments.
The Ramos decision exposed widespread flaws in the stipulated removal program, where unrepresented detainees waived their rights to hearings and appeals without adequate understanding of the consequences. In response:
In response to Ramos, Obama's Executive Office for Immigration Review issued Operational Policy and Procedure Memorandum 10-01 in September 2010, mandating that Immigration Judges conduct individualized reviews of stipulated removal requests. Judges were required to verify that waivers of rights were “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,” including confirming detainees’ comprehension of charges, relief eligibility, and consequences of removal.
https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-oppm-procedures-requests-stipulated-removal
Also, Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) updated its stipulated removal forms to include clearer explanations of rights in Spanish and English, addressing the language barriers highlighted in Ramos. Detainees were also provided access to legal orientation programs in detention centers to improve awareness of procedural options. And, DHS stopped doing mass presentations of stipulated removal forms in group settings, instead employing individualized meetings between officers and detainees.
https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf
The Raya-Vaca ruling held that expedited removal violated due process when officers failed to provide notice of charges or opportunities to contest removal. The Obama administration responded by having U.S. Customs and Border Protection implement mandatory training modules emphasizing proper notice procedures, language access, and documentation of interactions during expedited removal interviews. Agents were instructed to ensure noncitizens understood their right to request asylum or voluntary departure.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/practice_advisory/final_expedited_removal_advisory-_updated_2-21-17.pdf
A November 2014 DHS Memorandum prioritized enforcement actions against “threats to national security, public safety, and border security,” indirectly reducing reliance on expedited removal for long-term residents or low-priority cases.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion(1).pdf
Critics still argue that Obama's changes, although improvements, still fall short of what critics see as continuing non-trivial due process violations in deportations. As far as I know, the courts did not go back and whack Obama a second time after policy changes he implemented in the wake of the Ramos and Raya-Vaca court cases. Apparently, Obama's policy changes satisfied the federal courts.
5. This point is very important. Two wrongs almost never or never make a right. Obama's earlier wrongs do not justify or sanction Trump's later wrongs. Their wrongs, if any, are separate and independent things. So, what about the Trump administration? Oops! It turns out that Trump is a very, very naughty boy.
Trump reintroduced stipulated removal, a process allowing noncitizens to waive their right to a hearing-through executive orders in early 2025. This policy re-establishes the pre-Ramos practices where detainees, often unrepresented and under coercive conditions, signed removal orders without understanding their rights. Despite Ramos mandating clarity in forms, non-English speakers in Trump-era stipulated removals often receive inadequate translations, leading to erroneous waivers of rights.
https://www.vera.org/explainers/trumps-week-one-orders-on-immigration-law-explained
https://immigrantjustice.org/know-your-rights/mass-deportation-threats
The Trump administration expanded expedited removal in March 2025 to apply nationwide to noncitizens unable to prove two years of continuous U.S. residence. This policy directly conflicts with Raya-Vaca’s holding that noncitizens must receive notice of charges and opportunities to contest removal. Trump eroded of notice requirements under his expanded policy. Now, Border Patrol agents conduct rapid interviews without ensuring comprehension of charges or relief options. That violates Raya-Vaca’s mandate for meaningful notice. For example, Venezuelan deportees in 2025 alleged they were not informed of their right to seek asylum, leading to a Supreme Court challenge.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/28/trump-immigration-100days-due-process-00307435
Although Raya-Vaca emphasized the right to consult counsel, Trump has again restricted it. Expedited removals under Trump now usually occurs within hours of apprehension, leaving no time for legal representation. The ACLU estimates that 90% of expedited removal cases in 2025 lacked attorney participation.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-fast-track-deportation-policy
https://www.nilc.org/resources/know-your-rights-expedited-removal-expansion/
Beyond Ramos and Raya-Vaca, the Trump administration’s policies have introduced new due process risks. Trump policy eviscerates of asylum protections by empowering immigration judges to dismiss asylum cases without hearings. That directly contradicts the “credible fear” screening process upheld in Raya-Vaca. In April 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that 40% of asylum cases were summarily dismissed under this policy.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/28/trump-immigration-100days-due-process-00307435
https://www.aila.org/library/featured-issue-u-s-immigration-courts-under-trump-2-0?page=391
Federal courts have repeatedly cited the Trump administration for disregarding due process obligations. Wrongful Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: In April 2025, a Maryland district court found that DHS deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite a 2019 order barring his removal. The administration defied court mandates to facilitate his return, prompting Judge Paula Xinis to order sworn testimony from DHS officials.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/04/us-judge-orders-sworn-testimony-of-trump-officials-on-compliance-in-wrongful-deportation-case/
ACLU v. Trump (2025): A coalition sued the administration over its expanded expedited removal policy, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The lawsuit cites Raya-Vaca and Ramos to argue that the policy “replicates and amplifies past constitutional failures”.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-fast-track-deportation-policy
Ninth Circuit due process violation found: In Doe v. Trump (2025), the Ninth Circuit blocked the administration’s use of expedited removal for long-term residents, noting that the policy “ignores decades of precedent requiring individualized hearings”.
https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
Trump and his officials have openly rejected due process as an impediment to deportation goals. President Trump stated in April 2025, “We cannot provide everyone a trial… doing so would take 200 years,” while Acting DHS Secretary Benjamin Huffman called due process “a luxury we cannot afford”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/us/politics/trump-immigrants-trials-deportation.html
The administration’s “self-deportation” initiative, including the CBP Home app, pressures migrants to leave without hearings, undermining Ramos and Raya-Vaca.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-administration-expedited-removal/
One can reasonably and fairly conclude that the Trump administration has systematically dismantled due process protections upheld in Ramos and Raya-Vaca, reviving stipulation practices, expanding expedited removal, and curtailing asylum access.
Therefore, if Obama was X bad regarding illegal deportations because his fixes arguably weren't good enough, Trump is at least ~5X bad because (1) Trump has gone back to the old problems that Obama tried to fix and had at least partly fixed, (2) Trump says due process is too much trouble, and (ii) Trump is openly telling the federal courts to fuck off, something that Obama never did.
