CBP DATA — After analyzing monthly data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from 2012 to present, Tom K. Wong, Gabriel De Roche and Jesus Rojas Venzor of The Washington Post "found no crisis or surge that can be attributed to Biden administration policies." Instead, data show that "the current increase in apprehensions fits a predictable pattern of seasonal changes in undocumented immigration combined with a backlog of demand because of 2020’s coronavirus border closure." In fact, the seasonal increase under the Trump administration in fiscal year 2019 was 31%, "a bigger jump than we’re seeing now." They end on a crucial note: "Focusing on month-to-month differences in apprehensions is misleading; given seasonal patterns, each month should be considered in relation to the same month in previous years. Knowing those patterns, policymakers may be better able to plan, prepare and to manage the border." 

DEFINING THREATS — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s October 2020 release of its inaugural Homeland Threat Assessment identifies "illegal immigration" as one of the seven major security threats facing the U.S. — an incorrect assessment, Elizabeth Neumann writes in an op-ed for The Dispatch. In a nutshell, "DHS failed to provide facts to back up this assertion and instead focused on why increased migration flows, like what we see currently at the U.S. southern border, happen," she writes. "The agency did not make the case that migration actually leads to harm." Identifying ‘illegal immigration’ as a threat "implies an undocumented immigrant poses security concerns on par with North Korea, ISIS, or the Sinaloa Cartel. This kind of false narrative is a distraction and will only get in the way of Congress passing meaningful and necessary immigration reforms this session." (For more on this, see Elizabeth’s recent paper on the subject, "Immigration is Not a Security Threat." 

ASYLUM IN JAPAN — A new amendment "would make Japan’s strict immigration policies even stricter" by removing an existing provision that suspends deportation orders for asylum-seekers who are appealing a decision or reapplying for recognition, reports Jesse Chase-Lubitz of Foreign Policy. Chase-Lubitz notes that despite having the third-largest economy in the world, Japan has only granted asylum to fewer than 1% of refugees and asylum-seekers who applied in 2019. "With the law’s revisions, asylum-seekers could apply only twice before receiving a deportation order, with penalties imposed upon refusal," and the new amendment "does not add a limit to the indefinite period of detention for asylum-seekers who have been issued deportation orders, despite condemnation from the United Nations and from human rights groups." A group of Japanese immigration lawyers told Foreign Policy that the changes "would in effect criminalize refugees for their otherwise lawful execution of their rights to apply for refugee asylum. It would criminalize their effort to avoid being returned to the site of deadly persecution."