By James Williams, Editor-in-Chief

In the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement, it’s common to see current administrations blamed for policies they did not create. One such case is the expedited removal of undocumented immigrants — a practice often criticized today but rooted in bipartisan legislation passed nearly three decades ago.

In 1996, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This sweeping immigration overhaul, enacted with bipartisan support, authorized the expedited removal of certain undocumented immigrants without the need for judicial hearings or traditional due process.

Specifically, the law empowered immigration officers — rather than immigration judges — to summarily deport individuals who arrived at U.S. ports of entry without valid documentation or who attempted to enter through fraud or misrepresentation. This process was codified under INA § 235(b)(1) and allows for removal without further hearing or review.

Importantly, the law also gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretion to apply expedited removal to undocumented immigrants already inside the U.S. who:

1. Were not formally admitted or paroled by immigration authorities; and

2. Could not demonstrate at least two years of continuous physical presence in the country.

While Clinton signed the law, its enforcement expanded under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In 2004, the Bush administration extended expedited removal to immigrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entry. The Obama administration further relied on this authority during efforts to manage high volumes of border crossings, especially during surges involving unaccompanied minors and families.

Bipartisanship in Action

Despite today’s politically polarized environment, IIRIRA is a reminder that some of the most consequential immigration policies were shaped through bipartisan cooperation — not unilateral action. The 1996 law was the product of concerns from both parties about border enforcement, visa overstays, and the growing backlog in immigration courts.

Why It Still Matters

Understanding the origins of immigration enforcement laws helps clarify today’s debate. When current administrations uphold expedited removal policies, they are not necessarily implementing new or extreme measures. They are, in fact, enforcing longstanding law created by previous bipartisan consensus.

Critics may argue about the morality or fairness of expedited removal, but its legality is firmly rooted in a Clinton-era law — supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The Town Crier,  is a Rapid Response news blog that is written by James Williams and created in collaboration with ChatGPT. For research assistance and content editing. The image of the Town Crier was created by ChatGPT