Immediate deportation

Question

Because the discussion showed that some participants firmly believe the word "deport" only refers to people who are already residing in the land, or that it refers to a somewhat lengthy legal procedure, or both, I went looking for examples that show the contrary. I think these stand by themselves, showing the word means "sent back to one's former country" even on very short notice. I think you will agree that these writers are reasonable representatives of legal or journalistic circles; I did not settle for some kind of weirdo rant.

MICHELE R. PISTONE
Villanova University School of Law
PHILIP G. SCHRAG
Georgetown University Law Center,
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001

Under the expedited removal provisions, an individual who is detained at the United States border because he or she does not have the proper documentation to enter, may be immediately deported at the discretion of the INS inspector back to his or her home country without an administrative or judicial hearing.

http://www.visalaw.com/04apr2/15apr204.html
Siskin's Immigration Bulletin
Siskind Susser, Immigration Lawyers
According to policy, people seeking asylum at borders or ports of entry are either immediately deported or imprisoned until their case is decided. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection officers, most of whom have little or no experience in asylum issues, have the authority to make snap decisions to deport asylum seekers.

San Antonio Express-News
...advocates are extremely concerned about a recent U.S. immigration policy change called "expedited removal." It allows Border Patrol agents to decide if arrested migrants should be deported immediately or get a chance to have their case heard by a judge.
...Airport-based immigration officers typically have decided such accelerated deportations. But the government is training border agents to exercise the same power in the field, to avoid having to release detainees pending a court date and to relieve overcrowded jails.

Office of Migration & Refugee Services
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Since its creation in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), advocacy groups and others have reported abuses in the implementation of expedited removal, citing several incidents where aliens with valid asylum claims have been immediately deported upon their arrival in the U.S.
==

I can provide more examples, if need be. "Deport" doesn't (necessarily) describe the legal process, nor the legal status it describes the forced removal.

Respectfully submitted Donna Richoux

Usenet · Accepted Answer

I beg to disagree.
A law firm advertising its services, a newsletter, or a Catholic organization that helps refugees are not the best sources of law. Let's take a look at your first source, an article in a law school journal penned by a student who never practiced law:
[nq:1]MICHELE R. PISTONE Villanova University School of Law PHILIP G. SCHRAG Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. ... at the discretion of the INS inspector back to his or her home country without an administrative or judicial hearing.[/nq]
Now let's take a look at what the Department of Justice has to say on the same subject of expedited removal at
http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/expeditedremoval FS.htm

or
http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/pilot.htm

Did you see the word "deport" or "deportation" in that legal text? I didn't.

So much for law reviews...

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I beg to disagree. A law firm advertising its services, a newsletter, or a Catholic organization that helps refugees are ... look at your first source, an article in a law school journal penned by a student who never practiced law:[/nq]
[nq:2]MICHELE R. PISTONE Villanova University School of Law PHILIP G. ... or her home country without an administrative or judicial hearing.[/nq]
[nq:1]Now let's take a look at what the Department of Justice has to say on the same subject of expedited removal at http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/expeditedremoval FS.htm or http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/pilot.htm Did you see the word "deport" or "deportation" in that legal text? I didn't. So much for law reviews...[/nq]
The various forms of the word "deportation" appears many times in the US Code Title 8 Chapter 12 sections. I did not research the exact definition of the word and the similar ones (exclusion, removal, etc.) because of lack of time.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

I'm sure it does, but not in connection with expedited removal.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Now let's take a look at what the Department of Justice has to say on the same subject of expedited removal at http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/expeditedremoval FS.htm or http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/pilot.htm Did you see the word "deport" or "deportation" in that legal text? I didn't.[/nq]
A government is not necessarily the best source to judge its own attempts at euphemizing, sugarcoating and obfuscating the public. Also, even if lawyers' specialized jargon intended "deportation" only as referring to some technical situation only, what is that to us? It's been used for centuries in just the sense indicated by Richoux.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I beg to disagree. A law firm advertising its services, a newsletter, or a Catholic organization that helps refugees are not the best sources of law.[/nq]
I'm sorry, I see I failed again to make my point. I was not trying to provide "the best sources of law" obviously for that, one goes to the actual laws.
My point is English usage, and that this word is used by qualified, knowledgeable users of English in ways that some people here appear to be ignorant of. It is not in any way a mistake for the articles I quoted to use the word "deport" as they did it is good English. I could easily quote here another hundred such.
Once you realize what I was trying to do, I hope you'll see that what you say is beside the point. Whether the immigration lawyer was advertising (actually, at that point he was merely providing info, not soliciting business) or whether the bishops were Catholic, does not disqualify them as careful, informed speakers of English.
[nq:1]Let's take a look at your first source, an article in a law school journal penned by a student who never practiced law:[/nq]
Now you'e saying only people who have practiced law may utter the word d-e-p-o-r-t correctly? Are lawyers the only ones who can utter d-r-i-v-e because there are laws about driving?
No, I know you thought I was discussing how the laws were written. I wasn't.
[nq:2]MICHELE R. PISTONE Villanova University School of Law PHILIP G. ... or her home country without an administrative or judicial hearing.[/nq]
[nq:1]Now let's take a look at what the Department of Justice has to say on the same subject of expedited removal at http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/expeditedremoval FS.htm or http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/pilot.htm Did you see the word "deport" or "deportation" in that legal text? I didn't.[/nq]
Then you missed it. It's Line Two, of both of them.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created a new, formal process for deportation
Your point, that "deportation" is not the term of choice in the US laws, is one I established in my first post on the subject. My current point is up top.
[nq:1]So much for law reviews...[/nq]
Yeah, much.

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

Proper or improper, usage is usage, no one has the power to stop it.
[nq:1]Once you realize what I was trying to do, I hope you'll see that what you say is beside the point. Whether the immigration lawyer was advertising (actually, at that point he was merely providing info, not soliciting business)[/nq]
Law firms are not in the business of educating on law issues. Sometimes they provide some info on new laws for the ultimate purpose of getting new clients. I know this is beside your original point, but speaking of proper usage, you'd be surprised of the language used by some publishing companies who sell law books, especially when they try to make it sound academic. Their purpose is to sell books, not to debate the philosophy of a new law.
[nq:1]or whether the bishops were Catholic, does not disqualify them as careful, informed speakers of English.[/nq]
Even the most careful and informed speakers sometimes cannot avoid the pitfalls of improper usage in a specialized field. I would not equate improper usage with carelesness. Also, improper usage, as we all know, it's an important source of language development.
My point was that all but one of the sources you quoted don't qualify as examples of proper legal usage. Those sources address a certain audience, i.e. the illegal immigrants, so they need to make themselves understood by their audience. The word "deportation" rings a bell louder than the fancy "exclusion" or "removal".

OK, we are both wrong, or right.
I missed on Line Two on the first one, you "saw" it on Line Two of the second one:
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created a new, formal process for removal of illegal aliens called expedited removal. This process was established by Congress to more promptly remove certain inadmissible aliens from the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began implementing the expedited removal provisions of IIRIRA on April 1, 1997 for those arriving at U.S. ports of entry who illegally attempt to gain admission with out documents or by using counterfeit, altered or otherwise fraudulent or improper documents.
[nq:1]Your point, that "deportation" is not the term of choice in the US laws, is one I established in my first post on the subject. My current point is up top.[/nq]
Actually that was not my point. I was only questioning the sources on which you based your point. Initially I expressed my disagreement with equating "removal" with "deportation", or "expedited removal" with "immediate deportation". But now I see that it's a matter of usage (proper or improper) and my opinion counts as much as that of a scholar in deportation, an academic linguist, an illegal immigrant or a police officer.

Immediate deportation

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions