The Right Way To Reduce Illegal Immigration

Whenever migration increases at the Southwest border, many members of Congress follow conventional wisdom and call for new enforcement measures. When those actions fail to reduce illegal migration, elected officials complain the policies weren’t harsh enough. However, it turns out the politicians have been mistaken. While enforcement can play a role, history shows ratcheting up immigration enforcement is an ineffective way to reduce unlawful entry into the United States.

The National Foundation for American Policy examined 100 years of Border Patrol apprehensions data for an upcoming report and found periods of reduced illegal entry occurred not because of enforcement but due to economic and demographic changes and the U.S. government opening legal pathways.

Apprehensions at the Southwest border are a proxy for illegal migration, with lower apprehension numbers generally meaning fewer migrants attempting to cross the border unlawfully. In 1954, INS Commissioner Joseph Swing liberalized rules for the Bracero program to encourage growers to use legal Mexican farmworkers rather than unauthorized migrants. The impact on illegal entry was extraordinary. Between 1953 and 1959, Border Patrol apprehensions declined by 96% (from 835,311 to 32,996), indicating relatively few people were crossing the border without authorization.

The Bracero program proved to be the most effective policy the U.S. government has ever established to reduce illegal entry. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Without question the Bracero program was . . . instrumental in ending the illegal alien problem of the mid-1940’s and 1950’s.”

Congress discontinued the Bracero program in 1964, primarily due to complaints from labor unions. The lack of reliable visa categories to replace Bracero for work on farms and in sectors like construction and hospitality contributed to the significant rise in illegal entry over the next three decades.

In 1994, in response to political pressure, the Clinton administration and the Border Patrol launched Operation Gatekeeper in the San Diego Sector and expanded it to other areas. The goal was to discourage illegal entry by building up agents and resources in high-travel areas for migrants.

The Border Patrol strategy of “prevention through deterrence” has continued in various forms up to the present and has produced unintended consequences. Increased enforcement encouraged unauthorized immigrants to stay in the United States long term rather than risk death or apprehension on frequent trips. The undocumented population increased from 3 million to 12 million between 1986 and 2008, while there was “a fivefold increase in the number of U.S. Border Patrol officers,” noted Princeton professor Douglas S. Massey. More unsettling, making traveling across the border more dangerous has contributed to over 9,000 deaths among migrants since 1998.

Beginning in the mid-2000s, the story of Mexican migration to the United States took a surprising turn. Between FY 2005 and FY 2015, apprehensions of Mexicans along the Southwest border declined by 82%, from 1,106,40 to 186,017. In other words, by the time Donald Trump came down an escalator in 2015 to warn Americans about immigrants from Mexico, Mexicans had, for the most part, stopped coming to the United States illegally in significant numbers. More Mexicans used legal H-2A visas (for farm work) and H-2B visas (nonagricultural seasonal work), with demographics and economics playing substantial roles. (The H-2A and H-2B categories were part of a 1986 law.)

Between 1960 and 2008, the average Mexican family size dropped from 6.8 to 2.1 children, reducing the pool of young men migrating to the United States. Also, the demand for Mexican labor fell in construction and other sectors in the United States, leading to “lower rates of migration for Mexican men,” according to UCLA professor Andres Villarreal, who conducted an analysis of the migration decline.

Central Americans, driven by violence and economic desperation, replaced some of the Mexican flow. That began during the Obama administration and has continued up to the present. The Trump administration did not prevent Central Americans from coming to the United States. One telling indicator: Pending asylum cases rose 300% between FY 2016 and FY 2020 (from 163,451 to 614,751), according to Syracuse University’s TRAC. If Trump’s immigration policies deterred people from coming to America, asylum applications would have fallen, not risen significantly.

Border Patrol data show the Trump administration’s use of more punitive immigration enforcement policies did not reduce illegal entry. Southwest border apprehensions rose over 100% between FY 2016 and FY 2019 (from 408,870 to 851,508).

After the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, Border Patrol encounters at first declined. But that didn’t last: Encounters on the Southwest border increased from 16,182 in April 2020 to 69,032 by October 2020, a 327% increase. (The Border Patrol reported encounters rather than apprehensions starting in March 2020 because of the Title 42 health authority.)

The Western Hemisphere has seen a historic refugee crisis, even though much public discussion has labeled it a border issue. Experts note the Biden administration lost the “framing” debate by failing to define what has happened as primarily an unprecedented flow of refugees, even if many of the refugees are also seeking work to support their families. The increase of people coming from countries that have experienced significant political and economic upheaval, notably Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua, continued from the Trump years into the Biden administration. “Mounting violent crime and political upheaval” have also prompted people from Peru, Ecuador and Colombia to leave their countries, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The winding down of the Covid-19 pandemic and an improving U.S. economy have encouraged the flow of people north since 2021. The Biden administration maintained the Trump administration’s Title 42 health restrictions that largely blocked people from applying for asylum at ports of entry. That caused more individuals and families to enter unlawfully and turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents to apply for asylum, driving up “encounter” numbers and giving Biden bad press.

In January 2023, the Biden administration hit upon a way to reduce illegal entry by opening up legal pathways. The president announced parole programs for up to 30,000 individuals a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter the United States with a U.S. sponsor. The parole programs have produced dramatic results.

The number of Border Patrol encounters at the Southwest border declined by 95% for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela as a group between December 2022 and March 2023, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis. Border Patrol encounters for all other countries not in the parole programs increased by 15% during this period. Despite this success in reducing illegal entry, Republican state attorneys general, who have decried illegal immigration, have filed a lawsuit to end the parole programs, arguing they exceed DHS authority. Republican members of Congress also want to stop the parole programs.

The Biden administration announced it would “establish immigration processing centers throughout Latin America to help slow down the number of migrants coming to the U.S.,” reported Politico. Expanded refugee processing in the region would discourage illegal entry, though greater use of parole to reunite Central American families and allowing more appointments for asylum via the CBP One app, both mentioned in the DHS-State Department plan, would help.

Analysts agree some level of enforcement is needed to deter illegal immigration, but the history of the past 100 years provides two lessons. The first lesson is that increased enforcement is unlikely to be effective in reducing illegal entry, but opening pathways to enter and work legally, along with economic and demographic changes, are likely to succeed. The second lesson is we should anticipate that many members of Congress will ignore the first lesson and continue to see increased enforcement as the way to reduce illegal immigration.