74% no due process under Obama immigration
Executive summary
The claim that “74% no due process under Obama immigration” refers to an average share of formal removals during 2009–2016 that were summary procedures (like expedited removal and reinstatement of removal) which do not involve a hearing before an immigration judge; independent fact‑checks report that these two categories averaged about 74% of formal removals in that period [1]. That statistical finding is supported by multiple sources showing high volumes of formal removals under Obama and a shift toward faster, administrative removal mechanisms even as the administration emphasized criminal‑alien priorities [1] [2] [3].
1. What the “74%” figure actually measures
The 74% figure cited by fact‑checking work refers to the share of formal removals from 2009–2016 that were handled through summary, nonjudicial procedures—primarily expedited removal and reinstatement of removal—rather than removal after a hearing before an immigration judge [1]. These are legal processes administered by DHS components rather than immigration courts, and the 74% is an average across years in the Obama era reported by DHS statistics and summarized by Snopes [1].
2. The raw scale: millions removed and many by summary processes
DHS and secondary analyses show the Obama years produced historically large formal removal totals—about 3.1 million formal removals over 2009–2016 according to DHS‑based tallies, and several policy analyses put cumulative figures in the 2.7–3.1 million range—so a large absolute number of those removals flowed through summary procedures [1] [2] [4]. Migration Policy Institute and government releases document the administration’s shift toward removals (formal removals) and away from returns, with interior removals declining while border removals remained high [3].
3. Why the Obama administration used summary mechanisms: policy and priorities
Administrations prioritized speed and deterrence, aiming to remove recent border crossers and criminal noncitizens quickly; DHS under Obama formalized enforcement priorities and promoted prosecutorial discretion for who to target while also using administrative tools to process large volumes of cases [3] [5]. Officials touted record removal numbers and emphasized removing convicts and recent crossers, arguing that faster administrative processes were part of managing caseloads and implementing priorities [5] [3].
4. Due‑process critiques and alternative readings
Civil‑liberties groups argued that routing roughly three‑quarters of formal removals through DHS‑controlled, fast‑track procedures sacrificed individualized due process because expedited and reinstatement removals typically occur without an immigration‑court hearing, counsel, or appeal rights in practice, prompting ACLU and others to say the system prioritized speed over fairness [6]. Conversely, defenders point to policy memos restricting enforcement to higher‑priority cases (felons, recent entrants) as evidence the administration used discretion to limit harm even while relying on summary mechanisms to effect removals [3] [5].
5. Bottom line, caveats, and limits of the claim
The core empirical element of the claim—an average near 74% of formal removals being summary, nonjudicial removals in 2009–2016—is supported by DHS data as summarized by independent fact‑checking (Snopes) and by migration researchers, so the numeric claim is mostly accurate as stated [1]. That said, “no due process” is a normative judgment: summary removals lack immigration‑court hearings and many of the procedural protections that occur before judges (which critics describe as diminished due process), but the Obama administration framed those tools as lawful administrative authorities applied to enforce priorities—sources document both the procedural reality and the policy justification [6] [3] [5]. Available reporting does not settle broader constitutional or moral evaluations beyond documenting the procedures and their scale [1] [6].