Originally Posted by
Deeg
I'm afraid that's not really the case. It really is more the place in which they work. At the risk of boring most of the forum with the details of immigration law, of over-simplifying a bit, and of not knowing your background in immigration law...there are two types of removals from the United States as you mentioned: inadmissible aliens are removed under Section 212 of the INA, and deportable aliens are removed under Section 237 of the INA.
Thus, a person who has not been admitted to the United States is subject to the 212 grounds when they are encountered. Such a person includes not only those encountered at the ports of entry, but also a typical EWI (Entry Without Inspection) who crossed the border illegally. The vast majority of BP apprehensions are for EWI's and thus utilize the same set of laws. Additionally, the BP is also now executing Expedited Removals (as Inspections has done for years) so that they can remove aliens administratively without requiring an Immigration Judge.
While this is technically correct, and BP agents are using more ERs these days, the core of BP work is deportation oriented rather than using exclusions.
The Deportation grounds are mostly used by ICE's Investigations and Detention & Removal branches.
You're forgetting OTMs, BORCAP, 1326s, etc.
I do agree with your premise, however, that the BP uses VR's and Inspections does not. Inspections does have a very similar tool (in some situations) in which a person withdraws their application for admission and agrees to return from whence they came.
This is correct, IMO. I should correct my earlier post to say that BPAs are more likely to utilize deportations in practice but, bottom line, you're correct.