Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Of note:

President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place….

Source: Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Documents used to assess asylum cases fail to account for Trump’s edicts, advocates say

Valid point:

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board is assessing refugee claims using outdated briefing documents about the U.S. that fail to mention President Donald Trump’s edicts on mass deportations and detention, as well as his orders rolling back the freedoms of non-binary and trans people. 

Lawyers representing refugee claimants and migrants facing deportation from Canada are calling for an urgent update for the official package of documents on conditions in the U.S. 

National documentation packages are used by the IRB, an independent body that considers asylum claims. 

The packages, which include briefing materials from a variety of sources about conditions in different countries, are also used by Immigration Department staff to help assess the risk posed to foreign nationals facing deportation. 

The U.S. package of documents was last updated in January, 2024, when Joe Biden was president. 

Lawyers warn that failure to update the U.S. file could lead to flawed decision and more challenges of decisions in court, leading to even bigger backlogs of immigration cases. 

Immigration lawyer Yameena Ansari, whose client, a young transgender American, filed an asylum claim with the IRB last month, warned that the outdated file creates a “dangerous blind spot” for adjudicators. She said claimants “are being assessed against an artificial version of the United States − one that no longer exists.”

“That can lead to wrongful decisions, and potentially life-threatening deportations,” she said. “The IRB’s documentation must reflect the current reality on the ground.”…

Source: Documents used to assess asylum cases fail to account for Trump’s edicts, advocates say

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban Faces New Peril: Class Actions

Of note:

When the Supreme Court ruled in President Trump’s favor two weeks ago in a case arising from his efforts to ban birthright citizenship, he called the decision “a monumental victory.”

But the victory may turn out to be short-lived.

To be sure, the 6-to-3 ruling severely limited a key tool federal trial judges had used in checking executive power — universal injunctions that applied not only to the plaintiffs but also to everyone else affected by the challenged program nationwide.

But the justices made clear that another important tool remained available — class actions, which let people facing a common problem band together in a single lawsuit to obtain nationwide relief.

The differences between the two procedures may at first blush seem technical. But universal injunctions have long been criticized across the ideological spectrum as a judicial power grab without a basis in law. Class actions, on the other hand, are an established mechanism whose requirements are set out in detail in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a federal judge in New Hampshire, embraced class actions on Thursday, opening a new front in the battle to deny Mr. Trump’s effort to redefine who can become a citizen. The move was also a new sign that Mr. Trump’s win at the Supreme Court may turn out to be less lasting than it at first appeared.

The judge provisionally certified a class of all children born to parents who are in the United States temporarily or without authorization. Then he entered a preliminary injunction in their favor barring the enforcement of Mr. Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship. It applied nationwide.

That means Mr. Trump’s executive order, which has never come into effect and may never will, remains blocked. The ban would upend the conventional understanding of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

A White House spokesman called Judge Laplante’s ruling “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”

But the court’s decision specifically contemplated the alternative, and it gave challengers 30 days to pursue it and other options….

Source: Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban Faces New Peril: Class Actions

Sullivan: Trump’s Deportation Stormtroopers

Accurate take:

….I cite all this not to diminish any of today’s awfulness, but to see it more clearly. We have been a brutal deportation nation long before our Trumpian 21st Century gambit. What’s different now, it seems to me, are four things: the sheer scale of it; the frantic pursuit of quantity over quality; the relative paucity of resources for courts and judges; and the fact that the enforcers are anonymous, masked, and unknowable — and will soon be on every street in America.

ICE will now have more resources than all but 15 countries’ military budgets, and is set to grow from an annual budget of $10 billion to $150 billion over four years. This is a ramp up of mind-boggling size and speed. Some of it will be helped by deputizing the military to some tasks, including, as we saw in Los Angeles this week, performative acts of intimidation. Garrett Graff notesthe inevitable result of such spurts;

“Hiring standards fall, training is cut short, field training officers end up being too inexperienced to do the right training, and supervisors are too green to know how to enforce policies and procedures well. … [We’ll likely see] a tidal wave of applicants who are specifically attracted by the rough-em-up, masked secret police tactics, no-holds-barred lawlessness that ICE has pursued since January.”

And indeed the evidence of such recruits exists. From a recent ICE jobs fair:

“I spoke to a gregarious New York police officer who was fed up with patrolling Times Square and all “the savages” there. Another applicant said he was sick of installing office furniture in properties subleased by the United States Marines.”

And the order is now a simple one: arrest and detain as many as you can: old, young, criminal, lawful, children, those who have lived here for decades with no incident — alongside drug traffickers. Child rapists alongside landscapers. Gang members alongside church regulars. And the percentage of violent criminals is quickly dwindling — only 8 percent of all detainees this year, according to CBS.

Miller is demanding that ICE beat Obama’s record of 438,421 removals in one year, by any means necessary. In fact, he wants Operation Wetback’s numbers in one year rather than ten. Trump’s daily quota was initially 1,800; then Miller pushed it to 3,000; and now Tom Homan says, “Do the math, we have to arrest 7,000 every single day for the remainder of this administration just to catch the ones Biden released into the nation.” And that’s a sky-high goal made much, much, much harder when there are so few deportations at the Southern border. No wonder ICE officers are drained.

Resources to speed up trials and shorten detentions by adding more immigration courts and judges? A mere $3.3 billion. A 2023 analysis by the Congressional Research Service found we need more than 1,300 judges to make progress on the backlog of cases. But the bill actually caps the numberat 800. You mean we could process deportations too quickly? E-Verify is off the table. So what this policy represents is actually a dramatic increase in the backlog of cases, meaning ever-more arrests, and ever-more people in custody, for ever-more years. Why, one wonders? Why not make real progress on the backlog in the courts, and leave less need for mass detention?

And those tasked with enforcing all this will be anonymous. That is utterly new — and a deeply authoritarian and un-American development. Thousands of men and women with the power to seize anyone off the street will have no faces, no badges, no identification, and often no uniform. We are told the reason for this is that the families of the “brave” ICE officers can be doxxed by enraged citizens and potentially harassed or threatened. In the words of one officer:

“We wear masks not to scare people, but to protect our families. If our faces are known, our children and spouses could be threatened at school, at church, or even at the grocery store.”

But this logic applies to every single law enforcement officer anywhere — to anyone in public anywhere — and yet only the ICE officers get to look like Putin’s thugs. If cops can’t wear masks, and must have ID, neither should ICE cops. Threats to and assaults of them — 79 incidents this year out of a workforce of 20,000, we’re told — can and should be strongly prosecuted. But masks have to go. If we’re going to call ICE officers brave, then showing their faces in public is the least they can do. …

America not as a shining city on a hill, nor as a republic diligently enforcing its immigration laws as humanely as possible. But as a potential gulag for the ages. 

Source: Trump’s Deportation Stormtroopers

Attorneys Say They Can’t See Immigration Clients At Alligator Alcatraz

Of note:

Immigration attorneys say they have been unable to see their clients sent to the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility in Florida. Donald Trump toured the state-run camp with Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and implied immigrants would be deterred from escaping because nearby alligators would eat them. In the haste to build and promote the facility, including by selling online merchandise, Florida and Trump officials neglected to provide access to attorneys and ensure detained immigrants could be located and meet with legal representatives to guarantee due process.

Attorneys with clients at Alligator Alcatraz, built in the Florida Everglades, criticize the lack of due process and access to counsel, and express concerns about the conditions. The Miami Herald described detainees suffering from mosquito bites, days without showers and “scant sunlight coming through the heavy-duty tents, making it difficult for them to know whether it is day or night.”

Two weeks have passed since a Florida Highway Patrol officer arrested the Honduran immigrant client of Magdalena Cuprys of Cuprys & Associates. “He was stopped at a weigh station in Tampa because he owns a construction company, and he was required to stop for his truck to be weighed,” Cuprys told me. “The client had a valid Florida driver’s license. The patrol officer called Customs and Border Protection on him. The client called me, and the officer took the phone from him and spoke with me.”

She asked why CBP was alerted. “I was advised that the client looked Hispanic, had a Hispanic name, and now they are collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP, and their orders are to call CBP any time they encounter anyone they suspect is an immigrant,” said Cuprys. “I asked if they would have followed the same process if it had been me driving, and the response was it depends if you look Hispanic.”…

Source: Attorneys Say They Can’t See Immigration Clients At Alligator Alcatraz

DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship

One thing if crimes etc before becoming a citizen, another if it is post-citizenship crime etc:

The Justice Department is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.

Department leadership is directing its attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes — and giving district attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue this tactic, according to a June 11 memo published online. The move is aimed at U.S. citizens who were not born in the country; according to data from 2023, close to 25 million immigrants were naturalized citizens.

At least one person has already been denaturalized in recent weeks. On June 13, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke, who uses they/them pronouns. Duke is an American military veteran originally from the U.K. who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material — something they later admitted they were doing prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940’s and the early 1950’s and one that was expanded during the Obama administration and grew further during President Trump’s first term. It’s meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in the memo that pursuing denaturalization will be among the agency’s top five enforcement priorities for the civil rights division.

“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” he said.

The focus on denaturalization is just the latest step by the Trump administration to reshape the nation’s immigration system across all levels of government, turning it into a major focus across multiple federal agencies. That has come with redefining who is let into the United States or has the right to be an American. Since his return to office, the president has sought to end birthright citizenship and scale back refugee programs.

But immigration law experts expressed serious concerns about the effort’s constitutionality, and how this could impact families of naturalized citizens.

Source: DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship

Rioux: Une odeur de guerre civile

Mix of both side-ism and overly rigid perspective of “strong-borderism:”

….Certes, à 18 mois des élections de mi-mandat, l’envoi des gardes nationaux et des marines pour mater les émeutiers relève probablement d’un calcul politique. Mais le gouverneur de la Californie, Gavin Newsom, n’est pas non plus dénué d’ambition à un moment où les démocrates se cherchent un sauveur. Rappelons aussi que les rafles sauvages de la police de l’immigration (ICE) sont en partie dues au refus de la Ville de Los Angeles, une ville « refuge », de fournir, par exemple, les informations sur la sortie de prison d’illégaux condamnés par les tribunaux. C’est ce qu’a rappelé la journaliste du Wall Street Journal Allysia Finley, qui évalue leur nombre à quelques centaines de milliers sur tout le territoire américain.

On doit certes reprocher à Donald Trump et tout particulièrement à son chef adjoint de cabinet, Stephen Miller, leur acharnement sur ces illégaux qui travaillent et vivent pacifiquement depuis longtemps aux États-Unis. Mais certainement pas de combattre une immigration illégale devenue endémique, puisque le président a justement été élu pour ça. Et encore moins de renvoyer ceux qui ont été condamnés par la justice, comme ont souhaité le faire tous les ministres de l’Intérieur qui se sont succédé depuis dix ans en France. Dans ces combats — qu’il a d’ailleurs en partie déjà gagnés puisque les entrées à la frontière mexicaine ont chuté de manière spectaculaire —, Trump a le soutien d’une majorité d’Américains.

« L’indécence de l’époque ne provient pas d’un excès, mais d’un déficit de frontières », a écrit Régis Debray. Frontières que l’écrivain définissait comme « le bouclier des humbles ». Cette odeur de poudre, en France comme aux États-Unis, est le fruit de longues années qui ont vu triompher l’idéologie du sans-frontiérisme. Pas plus que les hommes ne peuvent vivre sans famille, les nations ne peuvent vivre sans frontières. Si celles du pays s’effondrent, des murs s’élèveront dans chaque région, des clôtures dans chaque quartier et autour de chaque maison. À terme, les citoyens décideront de se défendre eux-mêmes. C’est ainsi que l’on crée le terreau d’une guerre civile dont les symptômes avant-coureurs sont déjà sous nos yeux.

Source: Une odeur de guerre civile

…. Certainly, 18 months before the mid-term elections, the sending of national guards and the navies to control the rioters is probably a matter of a political calculation. But California Governor Gavin Newsom is also not without ambition at a time when Democrats are looking for a savior. Recall also that the savage round-ups of the immigration police (ICE) are partly due to the refusal of the City of Los Angeles, a “refuge” city, to provide, for example, information on the release from prison of illegals convicted by the courts. This is what Wall Street Journal journalist Allysia Finley, who estimates their number at a few hundred thousand throughout the American territory.

We must certainly blame Donald Trump and especially his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, for their fierceness on these illegals who have been working and living peacefully in the United States for a long time. But certainly not to fight illegal immigration that has become endemic, since the president was precisely elected for that. And even less to dismiss those who have been convicted by justice, as all the interior ministers who have succeeded each other for ten years in France have wished to do. In these fights – which he has already partly won since entrances to the Mexican border have fallen dramatically – Trump has the support of a majority of Americans.

“The indecency of the time does not come from an excess, but from a deficit of borders,” wrote Régis Debray. Borders that the writer defined as “the shield of the humble”. This smell of powder, in France as in the United States, is the result of long years that have seen the ideology of borderlessism triumph. Just as men cannot live without a family, nations cannot live without borders. If those of the country collapse, walls will rise in each region, fences in each neighborhood and around each house. Eventually, citizens will decide to defend themselves. This is how we create the soil of a civil war whose harbingering symptoms are already before our eyes.

Nicolas: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

Discomforting possible parallel. We will see this upcoming weekend:

….Ce qui se passe à Los Angeles représente un tournant, sur deux principaux aspects.

Premièrement, sur le fond, soit la violence politique envers les personnes immigrantes. Les agents de contrôle de l’immigration (ICE) arrêtent des parents sur leurs lieux de travail pendant que leurs enfants sont à l’école et tentent de se déployer dans des écoles primaires pour y interroger des enfants. On a vu d’autres enfants être privés de leur droit à être représentés par un avocat et être interrogés seuls par les autorités. On a déjà vu aussi, un peu partout au pays, des gens être « déportés » vers des prisons du Salvador et à Guantánamo. J’utilise le mot « déportés » entre guillemets, puisqu’il n’est pas question de retourner les gens vers leur pays d’origine : il s’agit plus de kidnappings. Dans une ville comme Los Angeles, s’en prendre à la population immigrante au statut irrégulier, c’est s’en prendre au tissu social, économique et communautaire de la métropole. La population résiste, parce que les personnes qui sont ciblées par ICE sont indissociables de la population même.

Si l’on considère que les personnes qui ne possèdent pas la citoyenneté d’un pays n’ont pas de droits fondamentaux, la démocratie est déjà mise à mal.

Deuxièmement, sur la résistance politique qui se déploie face à ICE. Lorsque des citoyens décident de dénoncer le fait que des parents soient séparés brutalement de leurs enfants, ou que des enfants soient séparés brutalement de leurs parents, ils exercent leur liberté de conscience politique, leur liberté d’expression et leurs droits civiques. En déployant des agents militaires sans le consentement du gouverneur de l’État, et sans que la situation le justifie, Trump franchit encore une autre ligne. La question grave qui se pose désormais, c’est : existe-t-il dorénavant une possibilité que les élections de mi-mandat ne soient pas des élections libres ? Parce que lorsqu’on commence à gérer le débat politique par l’intimidation armée, où et quand s’arrête-t-on, et pourquoi ?

Revenons au Canada, et à la tentation, qui remonte par soubresauts, de « normaliser » nos relations avec États-Unis. Bien sûr, vu que notre économie est en jeu, ça se comprend tout à fait. Mais il existe un risque sérieux, vu le rythme où Washington s’enfonce, que nos liens avec nos voisins nous entraînent aussi vers l’abysse avec eux. Et par abysse, j’entends ici une forme d’abysse morale. Si la démocratie est précieuse pour les Canadiens, on ne peut s’attacher aussi intimement à un régime déterminé à la fragiliser, chez nous comme chez eux.

Alors que le G7 s’ouvre à Kananaskis, en Alberta, j’ai certaines appréhensions. L’Histoire ne se répète jamais, mais je crois que l’on peut tout de même tirer certaines leçons de l’échec monumental des Accords de Munich de 1938. J’espère que les chefs d’État seront plus rapides, cette fois-ci, à reconnaître en leur sein l’acteur qui affiche un mépris ouvert pour la règle de droit.

Source: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

…. What is happening in Los Angeles represents a turning point, on two main aspects.

First, on the substance, either political violence against immigrants. Immigration Control Officers (ICE) arrest parents at their workplaces while their children are in school and try to deploy to primary schools to interview children. Other children have been deprived of their right to be represented by a lawyer and questioned alone by the authorities. We have also seen, all over the country, people being “deported” to prisons in El Salvador and Guantánamo. I use the word “deported” in quotation marks, since there is no question of returning people to their country of origin: it is more about kidnappings. In a city like Los Angeles, attacking the irregular immigrant population is attacking the social, economic and community fabric of the metropolis. The population resists, because the people who are targeted by ICE are inseparable from the population itself.

If we consider that people who do not have the citizenship of a country do not have fundamental rights, democracy is already being damaged.

Secondly, on the political resistance that is unfolding against ICE. When citizens decide to denounce the fact that parents are abruptly separated from their children, or that children are abruptly separated from their parents, they exercise their freedom of political conscience, their freedom of expression and their civil rights. By deploying military agents without the consent of the governor of the state, and without the situation justifying it, Trump crosses yet another line. The serious question that now arises is: is there now a possibility that midterm elections are not free elections? Because when we begin to manage the political debate through armed intimidation, where and when do we stop, and why?

Let’s go back to Canada, and to the temptation, which is rising by ups, to “normalize” our relations with the United States. Of course, since our economy is at stake, it is quite understandable. But there is a serious risk, given the pace at which Washington is sinking, that our links with our neighbors also lead us to the abyss with them. And by abyss, I mean here a form of moral abyss. If democracy is valuable to Canadians, we cannot be so intimately attached to a regime determined to weaken it, both at home and at home.

As the G7 opens in Kananaskis, Alberta, I have some apprehensions. History never repeats itself, but I believe that we can still learn some lessons from the monumental failure of the 1938 Munich Agreements. I hope that the Heads of State will be quicker, this time, to recognize within them the actor who displays an open contempt for the rule of law.

More Americans Are Giving Up U.S. Citizenship, New Report Finds

To date, more for economic reasons (avoiding need to file US taxes) than for political ones. We shall see how that changes as this data is four years old, dating from Trump 1:

Once considered a rare and symbolic act, renouncing U.S. citizenship has become increasingly common — and, for many Americans living abroad, a practical decision. A new Boundless report reveals that annual renunciations have surged from an average of just 200–400 cases before 2009 to a record high of 6,705 in 2020, with numbers remaining elevated ever since.

The primary drivers of rising U.S. citizenship renunciations are complex international tax laws and foreign banking restrictions, but other factors also play a role in the growing trend.

Here are the key findings:

  • Trends: While still relatively rare overall, the consistent rise in citizenship renunciations since 2009 indicates a long-term shift rather than a short-term anomaly.
  • Motivations: The trend is primarily driven by a mix of legal, financial, and logistical challenges related to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) — enacted in 2010 but fully implemented beginning in 2014. Growing disillusionment with U.S. policy and politics also plays a role in recent renunciation trends.
  • Demographic Insights: Most individuals giving up their citizenship are long-term expats living abroad, middle-income earners, and dual nationals who already possess citizenship in another country. A notable and expanding group includes “accidental Americans,” people unaware of their U.S. citizenship until flagged by overseas financial institutions
  • Global Context: Among other developed countries, the U.S. ranks sixth in renunciation rates relative to population and second in total renunciations. Unlike other countries — where military service or lack of emotional ties to the country drive renunciations — U.S. renunciations are largely driven by complex tax and banking rules applied to U.S. citizens living abroad.
  • Broader Implications: The ongoing rise in citizenship renunciations highlights major policy concerns, especially in areas like tax enforcement, foreign banking compliance, and the changing value proposition of American citizenship in a globalized world.
  • Renunciation Data Delays: Official U.S. renunciation statistics are typically published 12 to 18 months after the fact due to administrative processing and agency cross-referencing. This means data released in 2025 will mostly reflect renunciations from 2023 or early 2024. As a result, any shift in renunciation numbers during Trump’s first year back in office likely won’t be visible in the public record until 2026.

For many Americans living abroad, renouncing U.S. citizenship is less about politics and more about avoiding burdensome tax and banking rules. As more people live and work across borders, the U.S. may need to reevaluate whether its policies support or hinder the lives of its citizens overseas.

Source: More Americans Are Giving Up U.S. Citizenship, New Report Finds

Can Near-Historic Low Migrant Encounter Levels at the U.S.-Mexico Border Be Sustained?

Good question, force only or with other migration management measures that started under the Biden administration:

Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to lows not seen since the 1960s. In April, the U.S. Border Patrol reported intercepting fewer than 8,400 irregular crossers—a stark contrast from the record high of nearly 250,000 encounters witnessed in December 2023. And data picked up elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere suggest unauthorized migration headed northward is slowing across the region: Reporting from the Darien Gap, the treacherous jungle that divides Panama and Colombia, shows there were just 200 crossings in March, compared to more than 37,000 the same month a year earlier.

With these near-historic lows, the Trump administration can rightfully claim that it has secured the border at this time, building on declines that began in early 2024 and accelerated in the second half of the year. The longer-term test, however, is whether this success can be sustained through the administration’s new show of force alone, without the less visible migration management ingredients that led to the quieting border the administration inherited.

A Year-Long Story of Reduced Migrant Flows 

The current lows build on a pattern of reduced irregular arrivals that started with changes in Biden administration policies in early 2024. Amid the record level of Southwest border arrivals witnessed in December 2023, which came on the heels of two years of record border encounters during the Biden administration, the U.S. and Mexican governments negotiated increased Mexican enforcement at Mexico’s northern border and throughout the country, including checkpoints throughout well-traveled interior routes.

With this ongoing additional enforcement from Mexico, irregular arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased by 53 percent between December 2023 and May 2024 (see Figure 1). The impact of Mexican enforcement cannot be overstated: Mexican authorities recorded more encounters than did the U.S. Border Patrol  every single month between May 2024 and March 2025 (the most recent month for which Mexican enforcement data are available).

Figure 1. Irregular Migrant Encounters by U.S. Border Patrol at U.S.-Mexico Border, 2023–25

Note: The data here reflect encounters recorded by the U.S. Border Patrol of migrants crossing the border without authorization; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations encounters of migrants arriving at a U.S. port of entry without prior authorization to enter are not included here.
Source: CBP, “CBP Nationwide Encounters,” accessed May 29, 2025.

Following implementation of the Biden administration’s June 2024 Secure the Border rule,  irregular encounters continued to drop, with the ongoing aid offered by increased Mexican enforcement. This rule sought to disincentivize illegal entries and incentivize arrivals at a port of entry by further limiting access to asylum for those who crossed between ports of entry and permitting an appointment, through use of the CBP One app, to be screened at an official port of entry. Those who entered through the CBP One app could later go on to apply for asylum.

Irregular crossings dropped from 84,000 that June to 47,000 in December, a 43 percent decrease. Notably, encounters in December 2024 were 81 percent lower than the same month a year earlier. Proof that the carrot-and-stick approach was beginning to turn the tide was seen in November 2024, when for the first time more migrants arrived at ports of entry than between (see Figure 2). Though by a small margin, this shift established a pattern of more migrants seeking to enter lawfully via CBP One rather than risk entering irregularly.

Figure 2. Migrant Encounters At and Between Ports of Entry at U.S.-Mexico Border, 2024

Note: Office of Field Operations (OFO) encounters occur at ports of entry; U.S. Border Patrol encounters occur between ports of entry.
Source: CBP, “CBP Nationwide Encounters.”

Inheriting an Increasingly Quiet Border

Thus, the current lows seen under the Trump administration represent a continuation of trends established during the prior administration—and momentum the Biden team put in place by increasing migration management cooperation with Mexico and other countries in the Western Hemisphere as well as further narrowing access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. However, upon taking office, the Trump administration shuttered many of the programs that had become the basis for dramatic reductions in irregular arrivals.

During his first days in office, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the border and a migrant “invasion.” By cancelling use of the CBP One app while leaving the Secure the Border rule restrictions in place, the Trump administration made asylum inaccessible at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Most notably, the administration terminated access to Biden-era humanitarian pathways that had helped reduce chaotic arrivals at the Southwest border. The Trump administration swiftly ended admissions under the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program, which reduced irregular encounters of those nationalities at the border by 92 percent between October 2022 and December 2024. Nearly 532,000 individuals were admitted through the CHNV program, allowing them access to work permits and temporary relief from deportation. The administration also closed the Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs) that had been set up in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala to consider migrants for refugee resettlement or other lawful pathways before they reached the U.S. border. More than 40,000 people were approved for U.S. refugee status through the SMOs.

Source: Can Near-Historic Low Migrant Encounter Levels at the U.S.-Mexico Border Be Sustained?