Trump Expands Fast-Track Deportation Authority Across US

Speaker 1: 00:00 Last week, the Trump administration announced a new rule that would bar most asylum seekers arriving at the u s border from being able to declare asylum. And today another unexpected rule goes into effect. KPBS reporter Max Rivlin Adler says it expands a policy known as expedited removal nationwide. He joins me now with more Max. Welcome. Hi Max. What does the new rule say? Speaker 2: 00:25 The new role says that expedited removal, which previously had only been narrowly applied for individuals, a apprehended along the border who had only been in the United States for less than 14 days, is now going to be, um, expanded to be nationwide. So anywhere that you are, uh, taken into custody by immigrations and Customs Enforcement Officer and ice officer or a customs and border protections officer, border patrol officer, uh, you can be subject to expedited removal. And uh, that would be the 14 days would now be extended to less than two years. So if you have been in the country for less than two years, you are now subject to this new process. How else does this change the existing policy? So currently when an immigrant or somebody who is in the country without authorization is picked up by these agencies, they go through a process that similar in many ways to our court system where you go to a judge, you file motions, you talk with your lawyer, and this an expedited removal. Speaker 2: 01:26 Very little of that happens. First off, you definitely don't have to see a lawyer before a year removed from the country. You have a right to see one, but you don't get provided with one. You could be removed without ever getting to plead your case in front of a judge. And really the only defense that you have from being removed is to claim a credible fear of returning back to your home country or to prove somehow that you've been in this country for longer than two years, which is really difficult for people dealing with language barriers. Also people who don't have status. And on top of that, even sometimes you know people here illegally and the u s citizens, it's not something you necessarily walk around with. Speaker 1: 02:04 How are immigrants and asylum seekers reacting to this news Speaker 2: 02:09 taken with last week's asylum row, which you mentioned up top. Basically this is a kind of a one two punch to try to instill fear in immigrant communities. I spoke with an immigration attorney, Andrew Nature, who's based in San Diego yesterday. And here's what he had to say about the impact this will have on the relationship between immigration and law enforcement. Speaker 3: 02:29 I think one of the, the harshest consequences and the serious consequences is really the amount of fear and distrust it's placing between the immigrant community, both documented and undocumented and law enforcement generally. And we have seen an increase in the number of victims, um, of immigration scams of trafficking and of other non immigration crimes where noncitizens are now afraid to even go to law enforcement to report being victims because they're afraid by reporting Speaker 1: 03:00 and coming forward, they themselves may face consequences. There's also concern being raised about whether this new policy could lead to racial profiling and to the deportations of US citizens. And that's actually already happened. Right? Speaker 2: 03:14 Right. So just today was reported that a Dallas born citizen was picked up by border patrol three weeks ago and has been detained ever since. His mother in fact even went down to the border patrol and said, here's his birth certificate. I birthed him in the u s this is his name, this is where he was born and he's still in detention and what this shows is basically kind of how little oversight there is for when people are arrested and you know what recourse they have. He wasn't allowed to make phone calls during those three weeks when he was in custody. So if you were to expand expedited removal nationwide as is the case today, you will have instances where people are being picked up, who do have legal status, who are unable to prove at the time of arrest to asylum to ice agents, that they are indeed here longer than two years or are here legally or in fact were even born in the u s or naturalized citizens. This isn't hypothetical, this has happened in the past. It's happened even before this Dallas born citizen. It's something that is allowed to happen because there's very little oversight once people are put in these proceedings as he's still in custody, he's still in custody. Speaker 1: 04:25 Hmm. And as you mentioned, this policy removes due process rights for immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years. What have the court said about who has the right to due process? Speaker 2: 04:36 Many of the rulings regarding immigrants conflict with one another. These are from whether they have the right to a bail hearing, what counts as access to legal counsel, how much they're able to appeal their removals and things of that nature. When it comes to expedited removal, it's been challenged in courts before. I'm sure that um, because it was only so narrowly applied, those rulings might not have standing when it comes to this nationwide expansion of expedited removal. But the courts have not been very clear at all what counts as due process for immigrants. Speaker 1: 05:11 The ACLU has said it intends to sue the administration over this policy. What do we know at this point about the ACL use position? Speaker 2: 05:18 The ACLA his position is that the expansion of expedited removal nationwide is illegal. And this has been their argument for many cases involving the Trump administration, where basically if you cut down on people's due process rights, which are enshrined to citizen and non-citizen alike, you're flagrantly violating the constitution. Courts have been extremely sympathetic to that point of view, and they feel as if they're going to be able to strike this new rule down. That being said, I did speak with some immigration advocates and lawyers who have said, you know, there's probably should have been a lot more interest and lawsuits paid to the practice as it was narrowly applied, so it wouldn't be able to be, um, expanded. As such. Speaker 1: 06:01 I've been speaking to KPBS reporter, Max Rivlin Nadler Max. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: 06:08 [inaudible].