Fact check: How did the Obama administration's approach to expedited removal differ from Bush's policies?

1. Summary of the results

While both administrations utilized expedited removal, there were notable differences in implementation and strategy. The Bush administration laid the groundwork by expanding expedited removal authority to include new entrants near the southern border in 2004 ^[1]. Under Obama, the process became more streamlined, with 75-83% of deportations being nonjudicial, resulting in approximately 313,000 of 419,000 deportations occurring without a judge's review in 2012 ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial contextual elements are missing from a simple Bush-Obama comparison:

• The Obama administration made two significant strategic shifts ^[3]:
• Moved away from "voluntary" returns to formal removal proceedings
• Shifted focus to high-priority targets (by 2016, 94% of deportees were high-priority cases, up from 69% in 2009)
• The Obama-era changes had measurable impacts:
• Border recidivism dropped from 29% to 14% ^[3]
• The administration developed a "formidable immigration machinery" capable of processing up to 434,000 removals annually ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself oversimplifies a complex evolution of immigration policy:

• It suggests a stark difference between administrations when there was actually significant continuity - both administrations prioritized efficient deportation over due process ^[2]
• The changes were more evolutionary than revolutionary - Obama inherited and built upon Bush's expanded authority rather than creating entirely new policies ^[1]
• The focus on just Bush and Obama omits important context about how these policies continued under subsequent administrations - for example, under Trump, 64% of deportations in 2019 were still nonjudicial ^[2]

Those benefiting from oversimplifying these differences might include:

• Political parties seeking to draw stark contrasts between administrations
• Immigration advocacy groups highlighting specific aspects of either administration's approach
• Law enforcement agencies justifying current practices by referring to past precedents