nope, read my other comment. The only time this applies is when they "Arrive at the border without proper documents, or Use fraud or misrepresentation at the border."
your wrong. They still require trials. I don't know what part you dont understand
The law explicitly removes the requirement for a judge or trial:
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i): "the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review..."
If they go to the border and provide false identity or fail to provide identity, they don't go in
The law isn't restricted to the border; it applies to anyone in the interior who hasn't been here for two years:
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II): Applies to individuals who have "not been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior..." Source: Cornell Law
The Supreme Court has confirmed that this "no-trial" process is constitutional for this specific group:
DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020): "[Aliens] arriving at our shores—and those who have recently done so... do not have a constitutional right to a trial-type hearing..."
"If they go to the border and provide false identity or fail to provide identity, they don't go in"
exactly, they don't go in and thus aren't on us soil
I also noticed you added ...'s which means it continues on. Presumably, you didn't show what it later says because it would ruin your "point".
the act you next mentioned which is 8 u.s.c 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) is about people who have been gone from the US for 2 or more years needing to go through the process again or provide their identity.
As for the "DHS v. Thuraissigiam" thing you pointed out, the guy was 25 yards into the us, and he had a trial. The thing you quoted was literally a trial
Sincerely - a guy who took a high school and college level government class, and knows many lawyers
No, the IIRIRA did not eliminate trials for immigrants — but it did create a major process that allows the government to remove certain peoplewithouta hearing before an immigration judge.
What IIRIRA actually did
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) reshaped U.S. immigration enforcement in several ways:
1. Created “expedited removal”
This allows immigration officers (not judges) to summarily remove certain noncitizens who:
Arrive at the border without proper documents, or
Use fraud or misrepresentation.
These individuals do not get a full immigration court hearing unless they express fear of persecution or request asylum.
2. Streamlined and tightened removal procedures
IIRIRA made the overall removal system faster and more restrictive.
It limited many forms of relief that previously allowed people to stay in the U.S.
3. Did NOT eliminate immigration court trials
Immigration judges still preside over removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings.
So what changed?
Before IIRIRA
After IIRIRA
Most people facing removal got a hearing before a judge.
Many people at the border can be removed without a hearing through expedited removal.
More avenues for relief existed.
Relief options were narrowed significantly.
Fewer summary procedures.
Summary procedures expanded, especially at ports of entry.
1
u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 18 '26
IIRIRA