How did Obama determine who was deported
Executive summary
The Obama administration determined who was deported by adopting a tiered enforcement-priority system—crafted through internal ICE memoranda and DHS executive actions—that focused federal resources on national-security risks, people convicted of serious crimes, and recent border crossers while claiming to deprioritize others [1] [2]. That framework was implemented through programs and tools such as Secure Communities, 287(g) agreements, supervisory review rules, and expedited removal practices, producing both record removal numbers and sustained criticism from civil‑rights advocates and congressional Republicans [3] [4] [5].
1. The stated policy: prioritization, not blanket removal
Faced with roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants and limited enforcement resources, the Obama White House publicly framed its approach as prioritizing removals of threats to public safety and recent entrants rather than attempting to remove everyone, a strategy explained in DHS and White House statements and in the 2014 executive actions that formalized enforcement priorities [6] [7] [1].
2. The mechanics: memos, Morton guidance, and the 2014 enforcement categories
Enforcement was operationalized through a set of ICE memoranda issued during Obama’s first term—often called the Morton memos—and later DHS implementation guidance in 2014 that created a strict hierarchy of priorities emphasizing national‑security threats, convicted serious criminals, and recent border crossers while allowing discretionary relief for others, with supervisory review required for deviations [2] [1].
3. The tools used: Secure Communities, 287(g), and expedited processes
Those priorities were enforced using programs that linked local arrest records to federal immigration databases—Secure Communities—and by expanding deputization pacts with state and local police under 287(g), while ICE increasingly used fast‑track administrative removals and case‑clearing tactics to focus resources on priority cases [3] [4] [7].
4. Exceptions and relief: DACA and prosecutorial discretion
At the same time, the administration created avenues of relief for selected groups—most notably DACA for certain childhood arrivals—and endorsed case‑by‑case prosecutorial discretion to shield some non‑priority individuals from removal, measures the White House touted as balancing enforcement with humanitarian considerations [8] [7].
5. Results: record removals, shifting numbers, and disputed impact
The combined effect of these priorities and tools produced historically high cumulative removals during Obama’s two terms—often cited as about three million deportations overall, with a peak in annual removals around 2012—followed by declines after 2012 as executive relief and shifting enforcement practices took hold [4] [9] [3].
6. Critiques from the left: speed, fairness, and harmed populations
Civil‑liberties groups argued that the emphasis on quickly clearing cases and using streamlined removal procedures sacrificed individualized due process and funneled vulnerable people—families, asylum seekers, and children—into hasty deportations despite stated priorities, charging that speed often trumped fairness in the removal system [5] [6].
7. Critiques from the right and oversight claims: laxity and inconsistency
Republicans in Congress and some oversight reports countered that prioritization was either too lax or inconsistently applied—accusing the administration of undermining enforcement with de‑facto “catch and release” and of creating loopholes that let dangerous offenders remain—positions advanced in House GOP oversight materials [10] [11].
8. The messier reality: priorities, discretion, and local actors
Implementation depended heavily on local law enforcement choices, ICE field offices, and prosecutorial discretion, meaning who got deported often turned on the interaction of national priorities with local policing, database matching, and supervisory decisions—so the policy’s hierarchy mattered, but so did uneven execution on the ground [3] [2] [4].
9. Bottom line: policy intent versus contested practice
In sum, Obama’s answer to “who gets deported” was a formal prioritization scheme aimed at concentrating removals on criminals, national‑security risks, and recent border crossers while offering relief to select groups, but the realities of enforcement programs, fast‑track removals, local cooperation, and competing political pressures produced results that satisfied neither advocates who wanted fewer deportations nor critics demanding tougher enforcement [1] [7] [5].