Sourcing the Immigration Debate:

Is President Obama the Deporter in Chief?

Examine the following excerpts from major publications throughout 2014.
Read the sources one at a time.
Please fill out your graphic organizer for each source before moving on.

#1 Politico 3/2014

By April, Obama will have overseen more than 2

million deportations, activists say, far more than any
previous president. Obama has insisted including
when he was interrupted by a protester that
Congress has tied his hands and he cannot reduce the
number of people being deported unilaterally. Latino
groups are planning a series of mass
demonstrations April 5 to protest the deportations
and force lawmakers to choose between criticizing
Obama or facing a populist wrath.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-
obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217

#2 The Economist- 2/2014

America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times

the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under
Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous
president.
Source: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595902-expelling-record-numbers-
immigrants-costly-way-make-america-less-dynamic-barack-obama

1
#3 LA Times 4/2014

A closer examination shows that immigrants living

illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely
to be deported today than before Obama came to
office, according to immigration data. Expulsions of
people who are settled and working in the United
States have fallen steadily since his first year in office,
and are down more than 40% since 2009.
Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-
story.html#axzz2zA2BkKbZ

#4- Public Radio International 4/10/14

Source: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-10/obama-really-deporter-chief-depends-who-you-
ask

2
#5 Washington Post 4/2014
This is a guest post from Anna O. Law, the Herbert Kurz Associate Professor of Constitutional
Law and Civil Liberties at CUNY Brooklyn College. She is the author of The Immigration Battle
in American Courts.

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the

highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation.
What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology
and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of deportation in virtually all media

reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since
1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who
were excluded, or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and
those who were deported, or expelled from the United States after they had
made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation
were rolled into one procedure called removal. At that point, the term
deportation no longer had any meaning within the official immigration
statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

The large number of immigrants who are apprehended, usually but not
exclusively along the southwestern border, and prevented from entering the
country were part of a category called voluntary departure before 2006. Now
that is called return, which also includes the subcategory
of reinstatement. There is also a large category of expedited removals of
persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure
carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance
before an immigration judge because formal removal in which the U.S.
government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to
their home country would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their
eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy as catch
and release. The consequences of a return are much less harsh than a formal
removal because the returned immigrant could come back legally, and
presumably illegally, at any time.

Meanwhile, many media reports continue to use the term deportation when
they mean either return or removal or some subset of those. The Department of
Homeland Security that issues official statistics must now try to retrofit new legal
categories to old data, and even it cannot excise the term deportation altogether
because pre-1996, there were, in fact, deportations.

3
Confusion about terminology helps explain the conflicting accounts cited
above. The aforementioned New York Times article focuses on return numbers.
But the Economist is also right, because if you combine the Obamas return and
removal numbers, he is well over the controversial 2 million mark.

This confusion enables political spin, too. If you want to portray Obama as weak
on enforcement, use the removal numbers, which, compared to his predecessors,
are lower. If you want to make Obama look tougher on enforcement, combine the
return and removal numbers (like George W. Bush apparently did) or use the
now meaningless deportation; both moves would conflate return and removal
and boost the overall number of expulsions.

But dont expect these nuances to make it into political discourse anytime
soon. Way back in 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit described
immigration law as second in complexity only to the internal revenue code. It
would appear little has changed.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statisti

#6 Politifact 3/17/14

Fiscal Total Average

President years deportations deportations/year

Ronald 1981-
168,364 21,046
Reagan 1988

1989-
George Bush 141,326 35,332
1992

1993-
Bill Clinton 869,646 108,706
2000

George W. 2001-
2,012,539 251,567
Bush 2008

Barack 2009-
1,582,756 395,689
Obama 2012
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/17/janet-
murguia/activist-janet-murguia-calls-obama-deporter-chief-/

4
Note any key terms
Removal Sourcing: Context: Corroboration:
Return What does the source What additional Can we believe this
Exclusion say about information is this source?
Reinstatement deportation? source missing? After reading this
Deportation Who is saying it & What do you need to source, can you say
why? know about it to Pres. Obama is the
Is it believable? evaluate its claims? Deporter in Chief
Why or Why not?

SOURCE R#1 Activists say Obama is Who said what and I think we can believe
deporting more when! Need to know what the source is
people than ever what activists are saying, that activists
before but Obama says saying things and believe he is deporting
his hands are tied by what their agenda and more and that
congress. Not sure motivation for saying Obamas hands are
who is saying it! it! Need more context tied, but that isnt
Article doesnt say. around the debate. enough info. We
I think so, b/c it Need to know what probably need some
implies Obama other presidents have number to compare.
responded and done. Wouldnt be able to
suggests he took the say yes or no, yet.
allegations seriously.
SOURCE #2 Obama is expelling Need to know who is We probably cant
more people than ever saying it and need to believe this source.
before! 9 x rate of 20 see the numbers from Maybe with the rest of
years ago, more than 20 yrs ago and the article or with
any other pres. numbers from other citations or data
Not sure who is saying presidents. What is backing up claims.
it! Cant tell if it the publications bias? Still cant accurately
believable w out say yes/no, still need
numbers. more information b/c
claims are
unsupported.
SOURCE # 3 People are less likely Need to know where Seems believable, but
to be deported. the data comes from, to be sure we should
Expulsions down 40% and probably need to verify the data, esp.
under Obama. see the data itself. b/c it contradicts
LA Times says but Sources are vague. other sources.
doesnt cite specifics, Now I def. cant
cites immigration answer question, too
data so maybe it is many claims, not
believable. enough evidence.

5
SOURCE #4 PRI Chart from DHS. Maybe corresponding Yes. I might say
Deportations have numbers of Obama was not, b/c
gone waaay up since immigrants for the increase started way
96. same years? If before him. Also, slight
A reputable source immigration went up dips in his numbers in
complied data from a and deportations did 2010 and 2011.
reputable source. Very too, maybe things just
believable. stayed the same and
the scale changed.

SOURCE #5 Deportation isnt a Believable, but terms Yes, expert. I might

thing since 96. Said are still confusing and not say Obama was
by expert on seem vague. Too many deporter in chief
immigration law. agencies involved w/ because that is not a
old numbers. valid term anymore.
SOURCE # 6 Lots of deportations Yes, except for the fact Yes, just b/c the
under Obama. Lots! that it deals in dated source seems reliable,
terminology across even though it
two time periods. probably shouldnt
Need to compare because it uses
things in like terms. outdated terms.

After reading and evaluating the sources presented, how would you respond to the
question Is Pres. Obama the Deporter in Chief?

Deportation is not a term in use anymore, so wouldnt use it. But I would say
that Obama has not helped put together a meaningful solution to the challenges of
immigration and documentation in this country. If he wants to cement his
reputation, he should clarify the language and terms used and work to put a plan
together that makes sense instead of allowing for the kind of confusion that has
persisted since 1987. This is a political framing debate at this point, not a
substantive one about immigration since everyone is using different numbers. Also,
it totally leaves out the numbers of people coming into this country. So, hes not the
deporter in chief, but he has failed to solve a problem that continues to worsen
under his watch. And since he campaigned on a platform of immigration reform, he
probably should have done something by now.
Also, to combat the problem, I would clarify the language used. I would make
sure everyone knows about the changes in terminology and try to make it easier for
people to have the conversation in a meaningful way without using loaded
terminology that is pretty much meaningless.