What proportion of Obama‑era removals were classified as expedited removal or reinstatement by DHS?
Executive summary
Across the Obama presidency, a very large share of formal removals were carried out through DHS administrative, out‑of‑court processes—primarily expedited removal and reinstatement of prior removal orders—with multiple sources reporting that roughly three‑quarters of removals fell into those categories on average, while annual shares varied widely and reached as high as about 80–84 percent in peak years [1] [2] [3].
1. What the question is asking and why it matters
The user seeks the proportion of Obama‑era removals that DHS classified as expedited removal or reinstatement—two nonjudicial channels that allow DHS to order removal without an immigration‑court hearing—because that proportion speaks to how many people were processed outside the immigration‑court system and helps evaluate claims about “not seeing a judge” during mass removals [4] [5].
2. The headline numbers: overall average and annual peaks
DHS data interpreted by independent fact‑checkers and analysts indicate that, on average across the Obama years, expedited removal plus reinstatement accounted for roughly 74 percent of formal removals, and DHS reported year‑to‑year ranges of roughly 58 to 84 percent for these summary removals, meaning approximately three out of four removals were nonjudicial on average [1].
3. The commonly cited FY2013 snapshot and why it’s often invoked
Fiscal Year 2013 is frequently used as the emblematic example: Pew reported that 363,000 of 438,421 deportations (about 83 percent) were carried out without a judge—either expedited removal or reinstatement—while ICE and other analyses show slightly differing FY2013 splits such as about 27 percent via expedited removal and 43 percent via reinstatement for ICE totals (combined roughly 70 percent in that ICE breakdown), illustrating how different data frames produce somewhat different percentages for the same year [2] [4].
4. Data differences and interpretive pitfalls
Discrepancies arise because analysts use different DHS sub‑reports and definitions—DHSwide removals versus ICE‑only removals, inclusion or exclusion of returns (voluntary departures), and border versus interior enforcement—which can change the share attributed to expedited removal and reinstatement; for example, analyses focused on border removals find that a large majority (circa 84 percent over a decade at the border) used nonjudicial mechanisms, while national aggregates and ICE‑specific tallies produce other percentages [3] [4].
5. Context: volume of removals and policy emphasis
The Obama administration carried out roughly 3 million formal removals over its two terms per DHS totals cited by multiple outlets, and the administration concentrated resources on border processing and on rapidly adjudicating recent crossers and certain priority groups—moves that pushed a large fraction of removals into expedited and reinstatement categories [6] [7] [3].
6. Balance, limitations and competing narratives
Civil‑liberties advocates and some analysts emphasize the due‑process implications of the high share of nonjudicial removals—arguing that “speed over fairness” left many without counsel or judicial review—while DHS and some policy briefs frame the use of expedited channels as necessary to manage high border caseloads; the reporting is consistent that the share was substantial (often ~70–80% in high‑volume years) but exact percentages depend on which DHS table and which year are used [5] [3] [1].