In Arizona, 72% of undocumented immigrants have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade. Trump’s expedited removal policy allowed immigration officers to deport any undocumented person anywhere in the U.S. without a hearing, unless they could immediately prove two years of continuous presence. The legality of Trump’s expedited removal process is tied to the likelihood of unjustified deportations and a violation of immigrants rights. In order to not be subjected to expedited removal, undocumented immigrants must prove their uninterrupted and continuous presence in the U.S. for at least two years. This burden of proof is extremely high.Therefore many undocumented immigrants who have been present for more than two years are not even able to prove it. This means the right to a trial is being violated for many undocumented immigrants. Due to the fact that immigration detention is classified as civil rather than criminal, the Supreme Court has consistently allowed forms of detention and restricted access to courts that would be unconstitutional in a criminal context. In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Suspension Clause effectively redefined Habeas Corpus in the context of immigration proceedings from a constitutional safeguard of liberty into a procedural formality. When compared with earlier cases, the Court’s reasoning and rationale reveals a doctrinal shift away from judicial oversight over executive detention powers. 

Read More