This bill expands the scope of expedited removal procedures by streamlining the inspection process for applicants seeking admission to the United States.
Nancy Mace
Representative
SC-1
The Expedited Removal Expansion Act of 2025 modifies immigration inspection procedures by streamlining references to inadmissibility grounds under Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This legislation removes specific exceptions related to misrepresentation and documentation requirements during initial entry screenings. The bill simplifies the language officers use when determining inadmissibility for applicants seeking admission to the U.S.
New Act Expands Expedited Removal, Cutting Required Two-Year Presence Checks for Entry Applicants
The aptly named Expedited Removal Expansion Act of 2025 is aiming to change how immigration officers perform initial inspections for people seeking entry into the U.S. Think of this as a major administrative streamlining effort that removes several procedural speed bumps, which in turn significantly expands the reach of the government’s ability to quickly remove individuals at the border.
The Fine Print: Less Paperwork, Faster Removal
Under current law, when an officer decides if someone is inadmissible—meaning they can’t legally enter—they look at a few specific sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This bill simplifies that process. Instead of referencing specific grounds for inadmissibility (like those concerning fraud or lack of proper documents, sections 212(a)(6)(C) and 212(a)(7)), the bill replaces them with a blanket reference to the entire “section 212.” This is a technical change, but it means officers now have a broader, less defined authority during the initial inspection that could lead to expedited removal under more circumstances.
Removing the Two-Year Check-Up
The most impactful change for individuals seeking entry is the removal of a specific procedural check. Previously, for certain inadmissibility findings, an officer had to verify if the applicant had been physically present in the U.S. continuously for the two years immediately preceding the determination. This verification step was a small but important procedural safeguard that required officers to slow down and verify continuous presence requirements before making a final inadmissibility decision. The bill strikes this language entirely, effectively removing a check that could have prevented immediate, expedited removal for some individuals.
What This Means in the Real World
For the officers working the border, this bill is all about efficiency. It cleans up the statutes, removes a specific exception group (subparagraph (F)), and eliminates a procedural requirement that slowed down the process. For government agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), this means a faster path to removing non-citizens, which is a clear benefit to their operational goals.
However, for people seeking admission—especially asylum seekers or those with complex cases—this shift is concerning. Expedited removal is a process that limits judicial review and due process. By removing the requirement to verify continuous presence and simplifying the legal grounds for inadmissibility during the initial inspection, the bill significantly reduces the procedural safeguards available at the border. Essentially, the margin for error shrinks, increasing the risk that someone might be quickly removed without adequate review of their case simply because the administrative process has been drastically streamlined.