Latest news with #IIRIRA
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Bill Clinton did not sign law in 1996 allowing deportation without due process
Claim: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. Rating: Social media posts alleged that former U.S. President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law allowed the U.S. government to deport noncitizens without due process. The posts referenced the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which created the "expedited removal" process. While expedited removal permits the deportation of certain noncitizens without a court hearing, it does not eliminate due process protections. The Fifth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution guarantee due process to all people in the United States, including noncitizens, and courts have consistently upheld that expedited removal procedures remain subject to due-process standards. In early May 2025, a claim circulated on social media that in 1996, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an "Immigration Reform Act" that allowed deportation without due process. One Facebook post (archived) with the claim, as of this writing, reached more than 10,000 reactions, 1,200 comments and 11,000 shares. The text on the attached image read, "In 1996 Bill Clinton signed his Immigration Reform Act that stated illegals could be deported without judicial hearings, sooo if this is really about Due Process and the Constitution talk to him…" Additionally, the description of the post stated that in 1996 "Congress specifically authorized the executive branch to conduct non-judicial deportations NOT SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS." The post continued, "The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) was passed by Bill Clinton, enforced by George W. Bush, and expanded by Barack Obama, with support from both political parties." It later mentioned the act introduced "the expedited removal process." The claim gained attention on social media platforms including Facebook and Instagram. In short, the posts referenced the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which Clinton signed in 1996. While the law created a legal mechanism called "expedited removal," allowing certain noncitizens to be deported without a court hearing, it did not eliminate due process. For people seeking initial entry into the United States, the Supreme Court has long held that decisions made by immigration officers under powers granted by Congress constitute due process of law. Although fast-track procedures like expedited removal do not involve hearings before a judge, they remain subject to legal constraints and procedural safeguards. Therefore, the claim that Clinton signed a law allowing deportation without due process is false. The IIRIRA, which Clinton signed in 1996, introduced a procedure known as "expedited removal," which refers to a fast-track process that allows U.S. immigration officers to remove certain noncitizens who are "inadmissible because the individual does not possess valid entry documents or is inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of material fact." The term also refers to the removal of a noncitizen "who has not been admitted or paroled in the United States and who has not affirmatively shown to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien had been physically present in the United States for the immediately preceding 2-year period." According to Department of Homeland Security documents, people placed in expedited-removal proceedings "are generally not entitled to immigration proceedings before an immigration judge unless the alien is seeking asylum or makes a claim to legal status in the United States." In those cases, immigration officers must refer the individual for a credible fear interview or to further proceedings to assess the validity of their claim. The expedited removal Clinton introduced did not apply to noncitizens already residing in the interior U.S. However, in 2004, the DHS under then-President George W. Bush expanded the use of expedited removal, allowing immigration officers to deport certain noncitizens without a court hearing if they were apprehended within 14 days of entering the U.S. and found within 100 miles of a land border. Previously, expedited removal had been limited to noncitizens encountered at official ports of entry, such as airports or border crossings. In 2019, the Trump administration removed these time and geographic constraints, allowing DHS to apply expedited removal nationwide to people who could not prove they had been in the U.S. continuously for at least two years, which was the maximum extent permitted under federal law. In 2022, the Biden administration "had rescinded this policy, reverting back to the pre–Trump Administration application of expedited removal." In January 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the Biden-era restrictions on expedited removal and reinstated the broader enforcement guidelines originally implemented in 2019. This shift was introduced through an executive order titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion." "Due process" is a term with both a specific legal meaning and a broader everyday sense of fairness. In constitutional law, it refers to the government's obligation to follow fair procedures and respect individual rights when taking action that affects a person's life, liberty, or property. The website of Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute explains that due process (or due process of law) primarily refers to the concept found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" by the federal government. It also underscored that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, used the same eleven words ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), called the Due Process Clause, to extend this obligation to the states. "These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ('legality') and provide fair procedures," the LII article summarized. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, due process can refer to two concepts: procedural due process — a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles; substantive due process — a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual. Another dictionary, Collins, describes it more broadly as "carrying out of the law according to established rules and principles." Although the 1996 law introduced expedited removal, it did not eliminate due-process protections for noncitizens. Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel for the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, told PolitiFact, a fact-checking organization that also investigated this topic, that in the context of immigration, due process generally refers to "appropriate notice (of government action), the opportunity to have a hearing or some sort of screening interview to figure out, are you actually a person who falls within the law that says that you can be deported." She also noted that "the courts have never said that expedited removal negates migrants [sic] due process rights." According to the Constitution Annotated, which provides a comprehensive overview of how the Constitution has been interpreted over time, the Supreme Court has recognized that "aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." The website further said that "there are greater due process protections in formal removal proceedings brought against aliens already present within the United States" and explained these protections "generally include the right to a hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a liberty interest." It summarized that the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that noncitizens present within the United States generally have due-process protections under the Constitution. However, those protections "may depend on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully admitted or developed ties to the United States, and whether the alien has engaged in specified criminal activity." In 2020, the Supreme Court opinion (Page 34) in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam also mentioned that according to its previous rulings, "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." Therefore, for noncitizens seeking initial admission to the United States, due process is satisfied so long as the procedures established by Congress are followed. Similarly, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in mid-May 2025 that "although expedited removal and the Alien Enemies Act limit people's due process protections, they do not eliminate them." She clarified, "There are no exceptions to due process." Internet users also shared claim about the alleged lack of due process in deportation procedures with regard to the number of noncitizens removed from the country under former U.S. presidents. One X post (archived) on the topic claimed that during the Obama administration "75% of illegals deported received NO Due Process." Other posts (archived) claimed "Bill Clinton deported 12 million illegals during his presidency -- AND 93% of those aliens were deported WITHOUT a [FORMAL PROCEEDING AKA] 'due process' hearing." The posts likely referred to the proportion of removals carried out through summary processes, such as expedited removals, reinstated removals or returns. While these procedures do not involve court hearings, they are still subject to due-process protections. In early May 2025 we investigated the related claim that, during the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people, 75% to 83% of whom did not see a judge or have the opportunity to plead their case. In another article, we examined how deportation figures during Trump's first term compared to those under previous presidents. "8 U.S. Code § 1225 - Inspection by Immigration Officers; Expedited Removal of Inadmissible Arriving Aliens; Referral for Hearing." LII / Legal Information Institute, American Immigration Council. "Expedited Removal Explainer." American Immigration Council, 3 Feb. 2017, Christensen, Laerke, and Nick Hardinges. "Comparing Deportations under Trump's First Term to Past Presidents." Snopes, 14 Feb. 2025, "Definition of Due Process." HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 2 June 2025, Accessed 5 June 2025. "Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal." Federal Register, 11 Aug. 2004, Accessed 5 June 2025. "Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal." Federal Register, 23 July 2019, "Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal." Federal Register, 24 Jan. 2025, "Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." "H. Rept. 104-828 - ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM and IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT of 1996." 24 Sept. 1996, Jazeera, Al. "Is Due Process Different for Undocumented Immigrants as Trump Claims?" Al Jazeera, 11 May 2025, "Katherine Yon Ebright." Brennan Center for Justice, 19 Feb. 2025, "Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening | USCIS." 31 May 2022, "Removal of Aliens Who Have Entered the United States | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 2020, "Removal of Aliens Who Have Entered the United States | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 2020, Accessed 5 June 2025. "Rescission of the Notice of July 23, 2019, Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal." Federal Register, 21 Mar. 2022, Accessed 5 June 2025. Simanski, John. Office of Immigration Statistics Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2013. Simanski, John, and Lesley Sapp. Office of Immigration Statistics Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2012. Strauss, Peter. "Due Process." Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2022, SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES. 2019, SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES. 2019, Trump, Donald. "Protecting the American People against Invasion." The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, Uribe, Maria Ramirez. "Are Fast-Track Deportations an Exception to Due Process?" @Politifact, 2024, Accessed 5 June 2025. ---. "Are Fast-Track Deportations an Exception to Due Process?" @Politifact, 2024, Webster, Merriam. "Definition of DUE PROCESS." 2019, Wrona, Aleksandra. "US Deported More than 3M People during Obama Presidency. Most Did Not Have Chance to Plead Case in Court." Snopes, 4 May 2025,
New York Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme Court helping Trump undo one of Biden's most egregious migrant moves
On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to suspend a program that provided 'parole' to 500,000 aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Democrats are crying foul, saying Trump isn't following the law. But it was President Biden who broke the law when he allowed these migrants here in the first place. While the Supreme Court's reprieve doesn't assure that the Court will ultimately rule in the administration's favor, it is good news for now. For these parole programs were some of the most egregious misdeeds of Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security. Advertisement US President Donald Trump walks to speak to journalists before boarding Air Force One from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, May 25, 2025, after spending the weekend in New Jersey. AFP via Getty Images This program ushered into the United States on a red carpet over half a million aliens who, under our nation's immigration laws, were flatly inadmissible. In fact, the House of Representatives impeached Secretary Mayorkas for high crimes and misdemeanors in part because of these very programs: proclaiming that 'Mayorkas willfully exceeded his parole authority' by 'creat[ing], re-open[ing], or expand[ing] a series of categorical parole programs … which enabled hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens to enter the United States in violation of the laws enacted by Congress.' When Congress granted the President the parole power in 1952, it was strictly for, as the House Judiciary Committee made clear, ONLY 'emergency cases,' such as 'an alien who requires immediate medical attention' or an inadmissible alien who needs to be here as 'a witness or for purposes of prosecution.' Advertisement In 1996, Congress reacted to decades of abuses by administrations of both parties by tightening the language of the parole power in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among other changes, IIRIRA required that parole only be granted 'on a case-by-case basis.' The 9th Circuit, yes even the activist West Coast 9th Circuit, concluded that '[i]n enacting IIRIRA,' Congress had 'expressed concern' that the Executive Branch 'had been using parole 'to circumvent Congressionally-established immigration policy'' and responded 'by narrowing the circumstances in which aliens could qualify' for parole. The 5th Circuit concluded that DHS 'cannot … parole aliens en masse; that was the whole point of the 'case-by-case' requirement that Congress added in IIRIRA.' Advertisement Haitian immigrant Rose Juliane, center, holds her daughter Rosie Sarah, as she speaks with Immigrant Family Services Institute Executive Director Geralde Gabeau, left, while waiting at the agency in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston for transportation to a shelter, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023. AP Here's the irony. While Biden ignored the 'case by case basis' requirement, and provided a mass parole, the lower-court judge who ruled against Trump, said that since parole can only be granted on a case-by-case basis, it likewise can only be terminated on a case-by-case basis. So one law for Biden, another for Trump. I believe it is clear that the Biden administration could not lawfully grant parole on a categorical basis to over half a million aliens in the first place. The 'case-by-case' requirement bars all mass parole programs (not specifically authorized by Congress). Biden's move was an affront to our constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Advertisement If the Supreme Court does not once and for all put the kibosh on categorical parole programs, the next Biden, the next Mayorkas, could institute a program on steroids, rolling out the red carpet for pretty much any and every person around the world not already in the United States. George Fishman is enior legal fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
