How do “returns” and “removals” differ legally and operationally, and which countries accepted the largest shares of returnees under each administration?
Executive summary
“Returns” and “removals” are distinct legal categories in U.S. immigration practice: returns generally describe expedited or voluntary departures that do not produce a formal removal order, whereas removals are formal, adjudicated orders that carry continuing legal consequences; the operational toolkit and diplomatic choreography for each differ markedly, and administrations have shifted the mix between them to change enforcement impact and deterrence messaging [1] [2] [3]. Public reporting indicates recent administrations have both relied heavily on expulsions/returns at the border and on formal removals, but available sources do not provide a complete, comparable ranked list of “largest shares” of receiving countries for every administration in the required detail, so this analysis uses the reported patterns and examples in the sources and flags where data gaps remain [4] [5] [6].
1. Legal definitions: returns as non‑judicial departures, removals as formal orders
Under statutory and regulatory practice, removals are the product of the INA’s removal process—civil proceedings before immigration judges within DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review that can result in a formal order of removal and collateral immigration bars—whereas many “returns” occur through expedited administrative authorities (for example expedited removal, voluntary return, or Title 42 expulsions) that typically limit or bypass the full judicial removal docket and do not create the same long‑term legal record [2] [1]. The congressional research service and Migration Policy Project have long stressed that expedited removal and returns are treated differently from the “standard” removal process, with different avenues for review and consequences [1] [2].
2. Operational differences: who does what, where, and how fast
Operationally, returns are often executed at or near the border—CBP and related border authorities can use expedited removal or expulsions to send people back quickly, or secure “voluntary returns” that avoid protracted court cases—whereas removals usually require ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrests, detention or supervision, and the formal EOIR court process, with tracking and sometimes prolonged detention to effect deportation [7] [1]. Returns can be faster, diplomatically negotiated as mass expulsions or through informal repatriation flights, while removals typically demand bilateral acceptance of citizens and coordination to carry out a court‑ordered departure [3] [7].
3. Policy tradeoffs and intended effects: deterrence, permanence, and backlog management
Administrations choose mixes of returns and removals to produce different signals: formal removals impose longer‑lasting legal consequences and reduce recidivism more than voluntary returns, while rapid expulsions and returns can serve immediate deterrence and ease operational strain at the border but leave immigration courts and long‑term status questions unresolved—affecting the backlog of removal cases and future mobility choices [5] [4]. Migration Policy notes that after Title 42 ended the Biden administration used Title 8 enforcement to ramp up returns and removals, seeking deterrence while the CRS and other analysts have documented the shift over multiple presidencies toward formal removals to produce durable consequences [4] [5] [2].
4. Which countries have accepted the largest shares — what the sources show and what they don’t
Sources document broad patterns rather than a single consolidated ranking across administrations: Migration Policy’s recent reporting states the Biden administration “removed or returned 775,000 unauthorized migrants” in a 12‑month span and provides tables breaking down removals by citizenship, but the snippets do not reproduce a full ranked list here [4]. Historical CRS and MPI work show that Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have frequently been among the top destination countries for U.S. removals across multiple administrations, and the Obama and Bush years saw high formal removals to Mexico and other nearby countries [2] [8] [5]. Reporting and fact sheets also show that the second Trump administration pursued third‑country removals and bilateral accords—El Salvador was the recipient of regular deportation flights, for example—illustrating a shift in where and how returnees were placed even when not all home countries accepted them [6] [9] [10].
5. Gaps, competing views, and the diplomacy beneath the numbers
The publicly available sources outline trends and notable bilateral arrangements but do not give a single, fully comparable table in these excerpts that lists the largest shares by country for each administration side‑by‑side; Migration Policy and CRS offer country breakdowns in fuller reports, and independent observers warn that third‑country removal policies can mask coercive diplomacy and human‑rights risks [4] [1] [11]. Advocates and some legal analysts argue reliance on returns and third‑country agreements can short‑circuit due process and export vulnerability, while enforcement proponents emphasize operational necessity and deterrence—an implicit policy tension visible across the sources [11] [10].