Fact check: Were deportees under clinton obama and biden given due process

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, deportees under Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations frequently did not receive adequate due process. The most striking finding reveals that during the Obama administration, 75% to 83% of deportees did not see a judge or have the opportunity to plead their case ^[1]. This practice was not unique to Obama, as it also occurred under the Clinton and Bush administrations ^[1].

The Biden administration has continued using expedited removals and reinstatements of prior removal orders, which can result in deportations without a hearing before an immigration judge ^[2]. The administration has focused on removing recent border arrivals and has negotiated with countries to accept their nationals who have been issued U.S. removal orders ^[2].

Summary removal processes account for a significant percentage of deportations and deny individuals their due process rights, as illustrated by cases like Nydia, a transgender woman from Mexico who was deported twice without a hearing despite having asylum in the United States ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• The constitutional framework: Due process is a constitutional right that applies to all people in the United States, regardless of immigration status ^[4], yet this fundamental principle has been systematically bypassed across multiple administrations.
• Administrative priorities and prosecutorial discretion: Different administrations have used varying approaches to immigration enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion ^[5], which affects how due process is applied in practice.
• Systemic nature of the problem: The analyses reveal that the denial of due process in deportation cases is not limited to any single administration but represents a systemic issue spanning Clinton, Bush, Obama, and continuing through Biden ^[1].
• Power dynamics: The summary removal process gives immigration enforcement officers excessive power and discretion, which can have devastating consequences for individuals seeking protection ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

• False premise of adequate due process: By asking whether deportees were "given due process," the question implies that due process protections were generally provided, when the evidence shows that the majority of deportees across these administrations did not receive proper judicial review ^[1].
• Omission of systemic issues: The question frames due process as an administration-specific issue rather than acknowledging the systemic nature of due process violations in immigration enforcement that has persisted across multiple Democratic and Republican administrations.
• Missing scale of impact: The question fails to convey that over 3 million people were deported during the Obama presidency alone, with the vast majority not receiving proper judicial review ^[1].

The evidence suggests that immigration advocacy organizations, civil rights groups like the ACLU, and legal reform advocates would benefit from highlighting these due process violations to push for comprehensive immigration reform and stronger judicial protections ^{[3] [6] [7]}.