What role did Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Homeland Security play in due process for removals under Obama?

1. ICE grew enforcement capacity even as DHS tried to set priorities

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations expanded its workforce and operational reach during the Obama years — agents rose from roughly 2,700 to about 5,000 and formal removals rose relative to voluntary returns — which gave ICE the capacity to carry out large numbers of interior arrests and removals ^[1]. Migration Policy and bipartisan analyses show the administration paired that capacity expansion with policies trying to focus resources on certain categories of removable noncitizens (criminals and recent entrants), but the practical effect was a system that increasingly funneled people into removal proceedings ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The 2014 DHS/ICE priorities: intent to limit enforcement, effect of concentrating removals

DHS guidance issued in 2014 applied across DHS agencies and aimed to prioritize threats to public safety and national security, which proponents argued would focus ICE on higher‑priority cases ^[1]. Analysts found that by FY2015–FY2016 nearly all interior removals fell into the listed priorities — for example, MPI and bipartisan reporting note that in FY2016 a very large share (up to 98% of interior removals in some summaries) met one of those priorities and that a high share had criminal convictions ^{[2] [1]}. Critics argue this concentration reflected both realignment and a narrowing of discretion in practice, often driven by which cases ICE could easily apprehend (“low hanging fruit”) ^[2].

3. Speed, expedited processes, and limits on individualized hearings

Civil‑liberties organizations and law reviews documented a substantial use of accelerated or nonjudicial processes during the Obama administration that, they say, reduced individualized due process. The ACLU characterized the system as “speed over fairness,” noting that a large share of removals moved through fast‑track procedures without the kind of individualized adjudication many expect in American courts ^[3]. Academic analyses and public‑interest legal sources document an increase in in‑absentia orders and concerns over ICE’s compliance with statutory Notice to Appear requirements, which are foundational to ensuring a person has an opportunity to contest removal ^[4].

4. Prosecutorial discretion: paper protections, uneven application in the field

Obama administration defenders point to prosecutorial discretion and DACA as evidence of efforts to temper enforcement and protect certain immigrants; critics counter that the practical application of discretion was uneven, constrained by local ICE practices and by the larger institutional emphasis on removals ^{[1] [2]}. Bipartisan observers warned the bottom‑up discretion model meant actual enforcement decisions often depended on what ICE agents could practically accomplish and supervisory approvals in the field, rather than consistent case‑by‑case legal assessments ^[2].

5. Outcomes: high removal totals while due‑process concerns rose

Multiple data‑driven accounts place formal removals under Obama at historically high levels compared with some prior administrations, even as returns fell, producing debates about whether emphasis was on “numbers” or on lawful, individualized adjudication ^{[1] [3]}. Legal scholars link the surge in in‑absentia orders and procedural shortcuts to DHS/ICE practices beginning in 2014, arguing tens of thousands faced removal without meaningful court participation ^[4].

6. Competing perspectives and the limits of the record

The Migration Policy Institute and other policy shops document the statistical shift toward prioritized removals and increased ICE capacity as administratively driven ^{[1] [2]}. Civil‑liberties groups and law reviews emphasize due‑process harms from expedited procedures and alleged failure to meet Notice to Appear requirements ^{[3] [4]}. Available sources do not mention every internal ICE memo or each case-level practice that would be necessary to prove whether every individual removal lacked due process; they instead offer institutional data and legal critiques pointing to systemic trends ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

DHS and ICE under Obama both expanded enforcement capacity and issued prioritization policies intended to limit who should be removed — but implementation produced concentrated removal outcomes and significant critiques that expedited procedures and administrative practices eroded individualized due process for many noncitizens ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Where sources disagree is on balance and intent: policy makers pointed to targeted enforcement and public‑safety priorities ^[1], while advocates and scholars highlight procedural shortcuts and the human consequences of rapid, nonjudicial removals ^{[3] [4]}.