Who did Obama use to deport illegals
Executive summary
The Obama administration relied chiefly on federal immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland Security—principally U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—augmented by information‑sharing programs with state and local law enforcement (notably Secure Communities and 287(g) agreements), to carry out removals and returns during 2009–2017 [1] [2]. Administration policy layered enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion memos (the so‑called Morton memos and 2014 guidance) that directed which noncitizens to target, even as advocates and civil liberties groups criticized fast‑track removals and the volume of deportations [3] [4] [5].
1. Federal agencies in the lead: ICE, CBP, and DHS command
Operationally, removals and returns under Obama were executed by agencies housed in the Department of Homeland Security, with ICE carrying out interior arrests, detention and deportation processing, and CBP handling border apprehensions and returns; DHS consolidated enforcement priorities and funding that enabled these actions [2] [1]. DHS yearbooks and Migration Policy Institute analysis show the administration oversaw millions of formal removals and voluntary returns across fiscal 2009–2016, a reality that reflects agency capacity and resource allocation as much as presidential will [6] [7].
2. Local law enforcement and information‑sharing: Secure Communities and 287(g)
To widen enforcement reach, the administration expanded programs that tied local policing to federal immigration enforcement—most prominently Secure Communities, which shared fingerprint data and helped identify removable individuals, and continued use of 287(g) agreements that deputized local officers for immigration tasks [1] [4]. These mechanisms meant many deportations began with local arrests for ordinary criminal or civil matters, a dynamic that critics warned turned community policing into de facto immigration enforcement [4].
3. Policy tools: Morton memos, priorities, and prosecutorial discretion
Rather than a blanket campaign to remove all unauthorized immigrants, the Obama administration adopted tiered enforcement priorities through memoranda beginning in 2010–11 and formalized in broader DHS guidance in 2014; those documents prioritized national security threats, serious criminal convictions and recent border crossers while authorizing discretion in lower‑risk cases [3] [4]. Proponents argue this targeted strategy acknowledged limited enforcement resources and sought humane focus; opponents contend it still produced large‑scale removals and left many vulnerable populations exposed [8] [2].
4. Numbers and process: volume, expedited removals, and criticisms
Across the administration, formal removals exceeded three million and—including returns—departures surpassed five million, figures compiled from DHS and summarized by multiple analysts, yet interpretations vary by source and year [6] [7]. Civil liberties organizations documented reliance on expedited or nonjudicial processes that fast‑tracked many people through removal without lawyers or meaningful appeals—criticisms that framed Obama as “deporter‑in‑chief” to immigrant advocates [5] [9]. Independent fact‑checks note that high percentages of people missing hearings reflect specific years and mechanisms like reinstatement of prior removal orders, not a uniform rate across all eight years [6].
5. A mixed legacy: actors, accountability, and political positioning
The administration’s ensemble of actors—DHS leadership setting priorities, ICE and CBP executing operations, and local partners supplying arrests—produced a mixed legacy: administrative relief for some groups (DACA, selective prosecutorial discretion) alongside record removal volumes and controversial enforcement practices [8] [10]. Analysts and policy centers stress that legal changes predating Obama (1996 statutes) and resource shifts under prior administrations shaped the toolbox he inherited, even as his memos and program choices materially determined who was targeted and how removals were carried out [2] [3].