Fact check: What is the difference between removal proceedings for citizens versus legal permanent residents?

1. Why the system treats citizens and green-card holders so differently — the legal divide that matters

U.S. law erects a clear legal divide: citizens have immunity from deportation, while LPRs remain removable under federal immigration statutes. Citizens can only lose nationality via voluntary renunciation or by successful government-initiated denaturalization in court; removal proceedings are not available tools to force a citizen out of the country ^[1]. In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security initiates removal proceedings against LPRs by filing a Notice to Appear and litigating before an immigration judge, making due process in immigration court central to whether an LPR stays or is deported ^[1].

2. How removal proceedings start and who controls them — the government's gatekeepers

Removal proceedings for LPRs typically begin when DHS identifies a trigger—criminal convictions, immigration fraud, failure to maintain status, or national-security concerns—and files formal charges in immigration court. ICE detention and a Notice to Appear are common opening acts, illustrated by multiple recent detentions of long-term LPRs who later faced removal adjudication ^{[2] [4]}. The government controls charging and detention decisions, but the immigration judge adjudicates removability and any available relief, leaving LPRs dependent on both prosecutorial discretion and court determinations ^[1].

3. Criminal convictions: the most visible pathway from green card to deportation

Criminal convictions represent a frequent and legally consequential basis for removal. Recent cases of detained LPRs highlight how certain offenses—particularly aggravated felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude under statutory definitions—trigger mandatory or discretionary grounds for deportation. An LPR’s criminal record can eclipse family ties and long residence in the U.S., as seen in the reporting on individuals detained after decades here; possession of a green card does not provide immunity from these deportability grounds ^[2].

4. Family ties, hardship and relief options — what's often omitted from initial headlines

While headlines emphasize detention and deportation, immigration law contains relief mechanisms that can save some LPRs from removal: cancellation of removal (limited for LPRs), waivers, adjustment of status, and prosecutorial alternatives. Reporting frequently omits the procedural roadmaps and eligibility thresholds—for example, whether an LPR has a qualifying family member, the timing of convictions, or past immigration conduct that can block relief. The denser statutory exclusions and complex waiver rules mean identical facts can produce different outcomes depending on counsel and judge ^[1].

5. Human impact and public perception — why detained LPR stories resonate differently than citizen cases

Stories of long-resident LPRs detained—parents, breadwinners, community members—underscore the human costs of removal: family separation, loss of employment, and sudden displacement after decades in the U.S. These human narratives drive public scrutiny because they contrast apparent social integration with statutory removability, and they reveal discretionary choices by enforcement agencies. Reporting of specific cases shows both legal vulnerability and public sympathy, creating a dynamic where policy debates about enforcement priorities and humanitarian considerations intersect with individual adjudications ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Enforcement discretion and the political frame — different actors, different agendas

Enforcement outcomes reflect priorities set by elected officials and agency leadership: ICE and DHS decide who to detain and charge, while DOJ and immigration courts resolve claims; these agencies’ directives and resource choices influence case selection and timing. Coverage of repeated detentions of LPRs signals an enforcement agenda focused on certain criminal or immigration categories, while advocacy groups emphasize community harm and calls for restraint. Both reportage and agency statements can serve agendas—either supporting tougher removal as law enforcement or highlighting overreach and humanitarian costs ^[2].

7. What the reporting collectively establishes — consistent facts and important caveats

Taken together, the pieces consistently establish three concrete facts: citizens are not subject to removal proceedings; LPRs can be placed in removal proceedings for many statutory reasons; and DHS initiates removal while immigration judges adjudicate removability and relief. The important caveat is that statutory removability does not guarantee deportation—relief, prosecutorial discretion, and case-specific facts matter—yet recent reporting documents numerous instances where long-term LPRs nonetheless faced detention and removal processes ^{[1] [2]}.

8. Bottom line for readers trying to understand the difference right now

The bottom line is legally straightforward but practically consequential: citizenship confers protection from deportation that LPR status does not, and recent case reporting makes clear that long residency and family ties do not eliminate statutory grounds for removal. Readers should recognize both the bright-line legal distinction and the gray realities of enforcement, detention, and relief eligibility shown across the cases summarized in the coverage ^{[1] [2]}.