How do DHS counting methods for 'returns' and 'removals' differ across the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations?
Executive summary
DHS distinguishes "removals" — compulsory departures based on an order of removal with administrative consequences — from "returns" — confirmed movements out of the United States not based on an order and without administrative penalties [1] [2]. Over five administrations the underlying legal definitions stayed largely stable in official DHS tables, but counting practices, which components report what, and policy incentives that favor one outcome over another have shifted, producing different mixes of removals versus returns under Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Clinton era: returns as the routine practice
In the Clinton years, DHS reporting traditions and historical practice emphasized returning inadmissible or deportable aliens informally at or near the border rather than formal removal proceedings, so returns comprised a larger share of repatriations in historical compilations like Yearbook tables that track removals and returns back to the 19th century [2]. DHS definitions that distinguish returns (movement not based on a removal order) from removals already existed in DHS yearbook materials, so the difference was less a definitional change than an operational preference for voluntary or administrative departures [2].
2. Bush era: programmatic shifts and formal removals rise
Under George W. Bush, enforcement programs such as Secure Communities and an expanded interior enforcement posture contributed to higher counts of formal removals, culminating in a peak of formal removals in FY2008, as Migration Policy notes, reflecting a shift toward processing more people through removal orders rather than informal returns [4]. The DHS Yearbook continued to classify outcomes as removals or returns by the same technical definitions, but interagency programs and data consolidation increased the number of events recorded as removals [2] [4].
3. Obama era: counting aligned to a policy of formal removals
The Obama administration explicitly shifted enforcement priorities and counting emphasis toward formal removals — treating more apprehensions as cases meriting removal orders rather than voluntary returns — a change captured in DHS statistics showing removals outpacing returns and discussed in Migration Policy analysis [4]. DHS also revised counting practices at points (for example administrative arrest counting alignment in 2016) to better match ICE ERO reporting, which affects how events are tallied across fiscal years and components [2].
4. Trump era: enforcement intensity, expulsions and interagency reporting
The Trump administration ramped up both removals and expedited procedures, and DHS repatriation metrics expanded to include expulsions under public health and other authorities when applicable; DHS KHSM materials make clear repatriations include removals, returns, and expulsions such as Title 42-era expulsions (March 2020–May 2023) when those policies were used [3]. While the legal distinction between a removal order and a return remained, accelerated processes like expedited removal and operational priorities influenced whether an encounter was recorded as a removal, return, or expulsion in public tables [3] [1].
5. Biden era: returns reasserted and reporting nuance returns vs removals
A defining feature of the Biden administration’s statistics is that enforcement returns — events where migrants acknowledge unlawful entry and depart without a formal removal order — became the majority of repatriations for the first time since the early Obama years, with enforcement returns reaching high levels in FY2023, a trend documented by Migration Policy using DHS monthly tables [5]. DHS monthly tables and KHSM continue to use the same core definitions, but component reporting (CBP at the border versus ICE in the interior) and policy tools that encourage returns over formal removals have substantially altered the ratio of returns to removals in recent years [6] [5].
6. Methodology quirks, reporting units and limits of public records
DHS counts “immigration events” and can count the same person more than once during a reporting period, and component-level reporting differences (CBP vs ICE) and discrete methodological revisions — such as the 2016 alignment for administrative arrests — change tallies without altering statutory definitions of removal versus return, which complicates cross-administration comparisons [6] [2]. Public sources document the definitional baseline and some counting changes and policy effects, but do not provide a single, continuously applied method manual spanning all administrations, so any comparison must account for programmatic incentives and discrete methodological updates disclosed in DHS tables and analyses [2] [6].