INA 235 www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

I'm not seeing the requirement you reference, which subsection is it in?

as you've mentioned, the number of people in question made it impractical to process them immediately so either they would get deported without the required inspection or, I suppose, imprisoned without any consideration. I believe you said it was "fucked up" not to do that to people

otoh, the relevant regulations make repeated mention of the legal capacity for deferment of consideration and release of people whose cases have yet to be reviewed. this seems contrary to your claim that it was a violation of law to do that

If they get a positive screening, yeah - I think those regs are flatly contrary to the statute, but whatever. If they don't request asylum, or if they're waiting for an interview, the regs call for them to be detained. Eg 8 CFR 235.3 (b)(2)(iii).

you also think the statute says something it plainly does not say the CFR you reference, if you follow all of it, explicitly states they can be released at the discretion of various leaders

so there is not statutory requirement for immediate inspection, and the regulatory authority you point to doesn't say what you claim you may desire the cruelest possible imposition of the law, and for the imprisonment of people without any process, but your desire is not law

the thing is - elsewhere, you endorse the Trump process because the law may permit it (even as you make excuses for where they intentionally violate the law). but here you are insisting that what the law permits is illegal if you don't like it

so I ask, outside of illegal deportations or indefinite imprisonment without due process - what is your proposed solution in light of overwhelming numbers?

Expedited removal is (b)(1) - applicants for entry without authorization to do so are removed without review. The point is to make it a quick process, thus "expedited removal."

ok, but you claimed that the statute requires inspection at the border. the statute lists no such requirement that the *intent* was to make for an unworkable process does not constitute a requirement

From (a): "All aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers."

indeed, the statute clearly does not require immediate inspection at the border