Border Control Trends: A Shift in Numbers
“All Quiet on the Western Front” is a poignant title for a World War I novel, but as of July 2025, it seems to echo along the southern US border. Just how quiet, you might wonder?
In June, the Border Patrol recorded over 6,000 acceptable entries at ports of entry. This figure is starkly lower than the double that number seen daily during President Joe Biden’s administration. Overall, 25,243 unacceptable aliens encountered at both northern and southern borders marked a historical low for any month in US history.
Interestingly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported zero releases for two months in a row. In May, they did not release any individuals who had attempted illegal entry, a notable contrast to at least 62,000 released in May 2024. Thousands of “Gotaways,” or those who entered without detection, remain unaccounted for. Additionally, the administration has included more than 30,000 unacceptable aliens in monthly counts through immigrant parole, further complicating the numbers.
Border Crossings Reach Historical Lows
There’s a sense that the Biden administration has masked the entry of millions of unacceptable aliens into the US through various practices like catch-and-release. Individuals are often detained momentarily, data is hastily entered, and then they are relocated to areas that are difficult to track.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas revealed that December 2023 saw over 85% of the illegal entrants released. That month set an unprecedented record of 251,178 encounters at the borders, with around 213,500 released—about ten times the total for the previous month. The numbers are staggering; it’s like releasing more individuals than the population of Tallahassee, Florida, in a single month.
This strategy appears designed to complicate future administrations’ efforts to enforce immigration law. Meanwhile, mainstream media often depicts traditional law enforcement as excessively authoritarian.
The Impact of Policy Changes
Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the approach to handling illegal entries significantly shifted. Many illegal entrants faced immediate detention while undergoing legitimate immigration processes, leading to prompt removals in accordance with the Immigration Nationality Act. Complications arose when more individuals began to exploit a backlog in the asylum process, which slowed down proceedings.
Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) is said to have stopped allowing exempted individuals from requesting releases. The concern? Those detained generally attended hearings. It’s all about speed; if individuals are aware that there are no credible asylum claims, they tend to navigate through the system more quickly. Throughout Biden’s term, over half a million individuals failed to show up for their removal hearings.
Detaining individuals has the practical benefit of enabling quicker judicial decisions regarding removal orders. If individuals were released into the US, recovery and re-arrest would require additional resources and time.
Record Low Border Intersections Amid Policy Adjustments
Efficient processing benefits everyone, ideally making removal cases resolve in a matter of weeks. While asylum claims can extend timelines—especially during appeals—the overall goal should be to resolve these matters much more quickly.
However, recent years have brought a significant slowdown due to unprecedented illegal entries and unsubstantiated asylum claims, resulting in a backlogged system. On the flip side, the administration has increased resources, ramping up both immigration judges and detention capacity, which collectively aims to curb frivolous claims.
Trump’s policies dismantled catch-and-release as the mainstream method for managing unacceptable entries. He eliminated pathways that encouraged asylum claims and revived agreements with third countries to restrict entry, while also halting funding for non-governmental organizations that profited from facilitating illegal migration.
It’s critical that federal agents receive the support they need. Under Biden, ICE’s directives often downplayed illegal immigration, while police in major cities faced pressures to overlook crimes that degrade community well-being. In contrast, Trump’s administration fostered a stricter enforcement of federal laws.
While Biden appears to seek assistance through Congress or calls for aid beyond his control, Trump’s strategies were actionable and resulted in tangible changes. The flow of economic migrants was notably decreased.
As the media may overlook the connection between policy and its consequences, hopefully, the public will begin to recognize these patterns. It’s vital to ensure that future leaders—regardless of their political affiliation—commit to maintaining these protocols and avoid reopening the borders.
