Fact check: What are the grounds for deporting a legal immigrant in the US?

1. The Law on Paper: What the statute says and why it matters

The statutory backbone cited across analyses is 8 U.S.C. §1227, which sets out deportability for lawful permanent residents and other admitted aliens, listing categories such as inadmissibility at entry, status violations, and specified criminal convictions; this is presented as the primary legal authority for removals ^[1]. The source framed these grounds as inclusive of crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substances, and other disqualifying offenses, which aligns with the legal framework used to initiate removal proceedings and underlies many case-level actions. The statutory description is concrete and legalistic, and it serves as the baseline against which news accounts and policy changes are measured ^[1].

2. Case reporting that puts law into human terms: The Barranco example

Reporting on Narciso Barranco’s arrest after decades in the U.S. illustrates how individual facts and alleged offenses trigger enforcement even for long-settled immigrants; his story underscores how criminal or immigration-status disputes can lead to detention and removal actions despite family ties and long residence ^[3]. The coverage signals tensions between statutory grounds and community impacts, and it shows enforcement discretion and documentation disputes often determine outcomes. The account also reveals disagreement about specifics in practice: news reporting focuses on human consequences while legal sources set out formal grounds, creating a gap between law-as-written and law-as-applied ^[3].

3. Policy shifts that change who enforces and how aggressively

A 2025 DHS final rule expanding USCIS law enforcement powers is highlighted as a policy development that could materially affect deportation practice by giving USCIS officers authority to execute warrants, detain, and use force, thereby altering which agency actors initiate or carry out removals and increasing operational touchpoints for grounds in the statute ^[4]. The policy summary emphasizes concerns about accountability, training, and the blurring of service versus enforcement roles, suggesting that statutory grounds may be enforced more broadly or differently depending on administrative implementation. The rule thus reframes enforcement capacity without changing the statutory list of deportable conduct ^[4].

4. Practical categories that commonly trigger removal proceedings

A recent review summarizing removal practice lists typical practical grounds: being present without lawful status, criminal convictions, prior removals, drug use, unlawful voting, false claims of citizenship, and terrorism-related activity; the list captures how statutory grounds translate into case-level allegations that start proceedings ^[2]. This synthesis serves as a practical checklist for what enforcement actions commonly allege, and it underscores the heterogeneity of deportable conduct—ranging from procedural status defects to serious national-security offenses. The review functions as a pragmatic complement to the statute by showing how agencies and courts operationalize the listed grounds ^[2].

5. Where sources disagree, or fail to say enough, and why that matters

The provided analyses show disagreement mainly on emphasis and implication: statutory text ^[1] is neutral and categorical, journalistic narratives ^{[3] [2]} spotlight human impacts and enforcement choices, and policy summaries ^[4] highlight administrative capacity and potential risks. Several regulation excerpts in the dataset were judged irrelevant to the question, signaling that navigation documents and rule labels do not substitute for substance about deportability ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The gap between statutory enumeration and real-world enforcement—especially under new agency powers—creates uncertainty about how strictly or expansively grounds will be applied ^{[1] [4]}.

6. Missing context and questions that remain unanswered

The provided materials omit detailed discussion of defenses, relief forms, and procedural protections such as cancellation of removal, asylum, waivers, or judicial review processes that can prevent deportation despite statutory grounds; that absence matters because statutory deportability often does not result in actual removal when relief is available or discretion is exercised ^{[1] [2]}. They also omit statistical data on how often each ground leads to removal, demographic impacts, and administrative outcomes under the new DHS rule—gaps that limit assessment of practical risk for specific populations and constrain comparisons across agencies and time ^{[4] [2]}.

7. Bottom line: What a legal immigrant should know right now

A legal immigrant faces removal primarily when they meet one of the statutory deportability categories—criminal convictions, status violations, fraud, or national-security-related grounds—while evolving enforcement policies may change which agencies act and how forcefully grounds are pursued ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Individual cases like the Barranco report show that long residence and family ties do not by themselves prevent enforcement, and the lack of detail about relief options in these materials means anyone concerned should seek case-specific legal counsel to understand available defenses and how administrative changes could affect their situation ^{[3] [4] [2]}.