Thread by @MatthewSoerens

Lots of news today about the very higher number of apprehensions at the US-Mexico border

But some of the tweets sharing this news are imprecise or inaccurate

It's untrue that there "for the first time ever, 2 million people crossed the border illegally"

Here's why... [thread]

There have been 2 million "encounters" at the US-Mexico border this fiscal year, with a month still to go

But:

- an "encounter" is not a "crossing"
- an "encounter" does not necessarily mean a violation of US law
- the # of "encounters" is not equal to # of people encountered

First, an encounter is not a crossing

Technically, of course, there were way more than 2 million crossings this year: 8 million cars & 3.5 million pedestrians crossed the US border lawfully just in August (& that's just those crossing in, not leaving) cbp.gov/newsroom/natio…

But that's nothing new & not what people are upset about

They're upset about people crossing the border illegally, entering the U.S. in violation of our laws, particularly when the presumption is that those are unvetted people making their way to communities throughout the US

But an "encounter" means the US Department of Homeland Security interacted with an individual without pre-existing permission to enter

The number of "crossings" would include those who were NOT encountered, who snuck in successfully or got away from Border Patrol's pursuits

We don't know for sure how many successful unlawful crossings there've been this year but there's good reason to think the number is low relative to our history

In recent years, only between 13%-21% of unlawful entrants have not been caught or forced back dhs.gov/sites/default/…

We don't have FY22 data on interdiction rates (the share of unlawful crossings that were stopped or prevented), but suppose it goes down slightly to 75%

If 2 million end up being caught, that'd mean an estimated 665K who successfully crossed unlawfully & weren't encountered

That's not an insignificant number, but it's not historically high

Back in 2000, when the US had far fewer Border Patrol agents & less infrastructure, an estimated 2.1 million individuals successfully crossed unlawfully, far more than WERE encountered
dhs.gov/sites/default/…

How did our government manage to increase the interdiction rate so significantly?

First, there have been a lot more tax dollars focused on Border Patrol agents & border infrastructure, so it's just a lot harder to cross unlawfully now

But, also, the number of people seeking to evade Border Patrol is way down, because many who cross unlawfully are actually TRYING to get caught, to find the Border Patrol in order to request asylum, professing a credible fear of persecution in their country of origin

US law explicitly allows someone to request asylum if they can reach the US & they can prove they fled a credible fear of persecution on account of specific reasons enumerated in US law

Those who reach the border can request asylum, even if they cross the border unlawfully

But why cross unlawfully, which is dangerous & often means employing a criminal smuggler, rather than just approaching the port of entry to request asylum, without needing to break any law?

Since 2016 (beginning under Obama, on a limited basis), Ports of Entry have employed a policy of "metering," basically sending those who walk up to the formal border crossing & request asylum away, to wait weeks or months in Mexico to apply oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/…

Given dangerous conditions in border towns for migrants, particularly for children & women (see this disturbing @HRW report hrw.org/report/2021/01…), word spread quickly (probably with help of profit-motivated smugglers) that asylum could also be requested after an unlawful entry

That brings us to this point: "Encounters" do not necessarily require a violation of law

While most encounters were by Border Patrol—whose mission is to stop those who cross illegally between ports of entry—about 153K encounters in FY 22 YTD were by Office of Field Operations

What's the Office of Field Operations?

It's basically the part of the government (also under Homeland Security, but distinct from the Border Patrol) that is responsible for Ports of Entry. They handle the tens of millions of lawful crossings each month

Theoretically, asylum seekers—who profess a credible fear of persecution—should be able to approach the port of entry, present their situation to the Office of Field Operations officer (which is an "encounter") & begin a legal process to request asylum without breaking any law

Between the metering policy & now— under a public health emergency rule called Title 42, which is still in effect—many people are turned away at Ports of Entry, so their only option to request asylum is to go find the Border Patrol after crossing illegally

But certain categories of individuals have been allowed to present asylum requests at Ports of Entry, without ever violating a US law (&, to their credit, @CBP Commissioner Magnus says they're trying to ramp this port-of-entry asylum processing back up cbsnews.com/news/customs-a…)

Importantly, the Title 42 policy is also in effect for many of those who find Border Patrol after crossing unlawfully: just about half of the roughly 2 million encounters thus far this fiscal year have been individuals who have been expelled without being allowed to seek asylum

That goes to the third point: the number of "encounters" does not mean the number of people encountered, because many of these individuals expelled under Title 42 (the public health rule) simply try again, get encountered again & get sent back again

Last month, 22% of those "encountered" had already been encountered at least once in the previous year. Some have tried over & over again

Under normal immigration laws (Title 8), many would be deported back to countries of origin, not just released across the border into Mexico

So who are the people being released into the US, in some high-profile cases being bused to NYC, DC or Chicago or flown to Martha's Vineyard?

They're individuals who cannot be returned under Title 42, largely because Mexico refuses to take back individuals from beyond its region

Many are from Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua, fleeing what @CBP calls "failing communist regimes." Since Mexico will not take them back, They're being processed under non-pandemic immigration laws, which means they have the right to request asylum cbp.gov/newsroom/natio…

They will not all win their cases, which requires documentary evidence with a burden of proof on the applicant, but many will. Per @TRACReports, for example, 77% of Venezuelan asylum cases decided by immigration judges this year have been granted trac.syr.edu/phptools/immig…

They're not allowed to work until at least 6 months after filing their asylum application (& that can take time, to find an attorney, etc ), so asylum seekers are often forced to rely upon friends & family, on churches or non-profits like @WorldRelief, or on unauthorized work

They do need some short-term help, & we certainly do need more functional, orderly border & asylum policies

But we don't need political stunts that use vulnerable asylum seekers to score political points

An additional note: it was probably inevitable that more Venezuelans would eventually come to the US

6 million people have fled Venezuela, per @Refugees. Most are in Colombia & Peru, many in dire situations

The US resettled just 102 Venezuelan refugees this year

@Refugees While it's vital that we ensure due process for those who do seek asylum (which requires getting to the US border), far fewer people would make the last-hope, desperate journey if there were a reasonable chance of those who stay closer to home being selected for resettlement

And once they arrive as refugees, since they'd have been thoroughly processed & vetted abroad, they'd be authorized to work & eligible for some basic resettlement assistance from the day they land

Asylum seekers are ineligible for these supports when they arrive