2. Parole. The United States can offer
immigration “parole,” which allows people to temporarily reside in or enter the country. This can be for an emergency or disaster in their country. Recently, the Biden administration has applied this to specific large groups, including Ukranians, some Afghans, Venezuelans, Cubans and others. Republicans would like to end the use of this for large groups and potentially end it almost entirely.
3. A transit ban. Republicans also want to ban people from applying for U.S. asylum if they have traveled through a third country where they could have sought that protection. The idea is that the person should apply for asylum in those other countries. The Biden administration has also moved to limit these kinds of applications but does allow them, especially if the person applies for an appointment through "CBP One," a Customs and Border Protection mobile app. (Though the
administration has been sued over the app, and it is being litigated in courts.)
4. The expedited removal process. Conservatives are pushing to massively expand a policy created in 1996 whereby undocumented people who are found by lower-level immigration officers within 14 days of arrival and within 100 miles of the Mexican or Canadian border are subject to faster removal from the country. Republicans want to make that process
apply to the entire country. Critics argue that this process does not give people a chance to make their case, through things like a regular hearing before an immigration judge. Expedited removal, additionally, means that officers can ask for documents on the spot and if someone is unable to prove their status, they can immediately go into a removal process. This is something that would dramatically change the nature of immigration enforcement and detention, making it more focused on the interior of the country.
But advocates and Democrats say these proposed changes do not address an overarching problem — a backlog of
more than 2 million cases pending in the U.S. immigration court system. They assert these changes would likely not work to stop migrants from arriving and that they would lead to dangerous types of enforcement across the country, some of them prone to error, which could cause documented immigrants and people with legitimate claims to be swept up into dragnets of deportation.
Why border numbers are a big part of this debate
Republicans have
pointed to the southern border as a major security concern. High border numbers are being cited repeatedly in this debate, but a closer look at the data
tells a more complex story.
We noticed that a main statistic used to describe the flow of migrants is rarely put in proper context.
So let’s take a look.
The statistic is called “encounters.” Headlines and stories often tout the record increase in migrant encounters with the U.S. Border Patrol.
In the past few years, CBP has created a data hub online. You can
find that here. (There is also a different webpage for this data
here.)
Let’s look at the portal central to current debate, where CBP
puts data for encounters at the southwest border.
The most recent data, for October of this year, shows a total of
240,988 encounters at the southern border. (For those following along, scroll down to the table that reads, “U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations Encounters FY2022.”)
But notice that it is divided into categories.
More than 52,000 encounters were by the Office of Field Operations, or “OFO.” Those reflect people who come through legal ports of entry, including those applying using the CBPOne app.
A different number — 188,778 — shows those who are crossing the border and are found somewhere
other than a legal entry point. That figure is generally known as “apprehensions,” and it shows the number of migrants handled by border patrol agents.
The New York Times also
pointed out in October that the number of migrant arrests made outside official ports is down by about 200,000 compared to last year’s figures.
Thus “encounters” do not always mean “apprehensions.”
The U.S. immigration system is overwhelmed with migrant entries — encounters — but, as the Official of Field Operations data shows, the system is processing tens of thousands of people
through legal means.
Still, Republicans argue that the issue goes beyond these statistics because some migrants can access temporary entry to the country for years while immigration courts consider their status and possible asylum claims.
Regardless, as stories abound about the surging numbers of the border, make sure to take a closer look. Border “encounters” are very different than border “apprehensions.”
