Rapid Expulsion of Migrant Offenders who Violate and Evade (REMOVE) Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 5, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to drastically accelerate the timeline for immigration removal proceedings, especially for aliens with criminal convictions, by imposing a strict 15-day completion deadline.
What it actually does
The bill mandates that the Attorney General initiate removal proceedings as swiftly as possible after an alien is served a Notice to Appear, particularly for those convicted of deportable offenses. Crucially, it requires all immigration court proceedings for such aliens to be completed within 15 days of their commencement, overriding other provisions of law, including those related to asylum claims.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential for enhancing national security and border integrity by ensuring the rapid removal of individuals who have violated immigration laws, particularly those with criminal records. They contend that current removal processes are too slow, allowing individuals to remain in the country for extended periods, and that this bill introduces necessary efficiency and accountability to the immigration system.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the 15-day deadline is an unrealistic and unworkable timeframe that would severely undermine due process rights for aliens, including legitimate asylum seekers. They might contend that such a rapid process would prevent adequate legal representation, proper evidence presentation, and fair hearings, leading to wrongful removals and violating international human rights standards.
The bill text is very short and straightforward to read, but its implications are profound and require significant consideration beyond the brief reading time.
Section 2, amending Section 239(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
Mandated 15-Day Completion for Removal Proceedings
This provision requires the Attorney General to start removal proceedings as quickly as possible once an immigrant is served with a Notice to Appear. For immigrants convicted of crimes that make them deportable, proceedings must start even faster after their conviction. Most significantly, it mandates that all immigration court proceedings for these individuals must be finished within 15 days of starting, overriding other laws, including those pertaining to asylum claims.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is crucial for restoring order and efficiency to the immigration system, preventing prolonged stays by individuals who have no legal right to remain, and deterring future illegal immigration. They believe it will reduce backlogs and ensure that those who pose a risk are removed swiftly.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that a 15-day deadline is logistically impossible for complex cases, especially those involving asylum claims or criminal convictions requiring detailed evidence. They argue it would lead to a breakdown of due process, deny individuals a fair chance to present their case, and could result in the deportation of individuals with valid claims to protection.
Tradeoffs
The bill attempts to balance the desire for rapid enforcement and border security with fundamental principles of due process and the right to a fair hearing. It prioritizes speed and efficiency in removals over the time typically afforded for legal preparation and adjudication, creating tension between these competing values.
This clause explicitly states that the 15-day completion deadline for removal proceedings applies 'notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 208(d)(5)(A)'. Section 208(d)(5)(A) of the INA generally requires that asylum applications be decided within 180 days of filing, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Section 2(2), new paragraph (2), 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 208(d)(5)(A)...'
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting for overriding existing statutes, but its inclusion here is highly consequential and could be seen as an attempt to streamline proceedings by explicitly curtailing a key protection.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this override is necessary to prevent asylum claims from being used as a tactic to delay removal, especially for individuals who have committed deportable offenses. They would assert that the current system is exploited, and this provision ensures that the 15-day deadline is truly enforceable.
Case against: Opponents would argue that explicitly overriding the 180-day guideline for asylum claims effectively eliminates any meaningful opportunity for asylum seekers to prepare and present their cases, potentially violating international and domestic protections against refoulement. They would contend it is a direct attack on due process for vulnerable populations.
Estimated impact: This provision would drastically reduce the time available for asylum seekers to prepare their cases, potentially leading to a significant increase in denied asylum claims and expedited removals, including for individuals who might otherwise qualify for protection.