Adam Isacson

Defense, security, borders, migration, and human rights in Latin America and the United States. May not reflect my employer’s consensus view.

Archives

February 2024

Latin America-Related Events in Washington and Online This Week

(Events that I know of, anyway. All times are U.S. Eastern.)

Monday, February 12, 2024

  • 2:00 at the Atlantic Council and online: Countering China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean (RSVP required).
  • 3:00-6:00 at Georgetown University and online: Seminar ‘Why does Latin America matter?’ (RSVP required).
  • 4:00-5:30 at Columbia University Zoom: Bukele’s El Salvador and its Regional Implications on Democracy and Security: A Post-electoral Discussion (RSVP required).

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

  • 10:00 at atlanticcouncil.org: A new era for US-Guatemala economic relations (RSVP required).
  • 1:00 at IBERO online: Presentación del libro “El negocio del crimen. El crecimiento del delito, los mercados ilegales y la violencia en América Latina” (RSVP required).
  • 3:00-4:00 at csis.org: Venezuela’s Deteriorating Electoral Conditions: A Conversation with María Corina Machado (RSVP required).

Thursday, February 15, 2024

  • 9:30-11:00 at the Wilson Center: A Conversation With Mexico City Mayoral Candidate Salomón Chertorivski (RSVP required).
  • 11:00-12:00 at wola.org: Mexico could elect its first female president. What would this mean for human rights and the feminist movement? (RSVP required).
  • 2:00 in Room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building and online: Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on The Agents of Antisemitism in Latin America.
  • 2:00 in Room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building and online: Hearing of the House Oversight National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on The Consequences of Catch and Release at the Border.
  • 3:00-4:00 at csis.org: Report Launch: China’s Role in Democratic Backsliding in Latin America and the Caribbean (RSVP required).

Friday, February 16, 2024

  • 10:00-11:30 at wola.org: From Barbados to Democratic Elections: Will Venezuela Meet the Challenge? (RSVP required).
  • 12:30-1:45 at the Inter-American Dialogue and online: Perspectives on Remittances in 2024 (RSVP required).
  • 4:15 at the Atlantic Council and online: The Bahamian foreign minister on shaping US-Caribbean ties (RSVP required).

Darién Gap Migration Through January

At some point last month, the 500,000th Venezuelan migrant of the 2020s crossed the Darién Gap. 61 percent of everyone who has migrated through this region in this decade has been a citizen of Venezuela.

Data table

The latest data from Panama show that 36,001 people migrated through the treacherous Darién Gap region in January. That’s an increase from December, reversing four months of declines. But it is still the fourth-smallest monthly total of the last twelve months.

At some point last month, the 500,000th Venezuelan migrant of the 2020s crossed the Darién Gap. 61 percent of everyone who has migrated through this region in this decade has been a citizen of Venezuela.

Actually, to be precise: the 500,000th Venezuelan migrant since 2022 crossed the Darién Gap last month. Out of 503,805 Venezuelan migrants between January 2000 and January 2024, 500,917 came in the last 25 months. There were about 30 million people living in Venezuela: so 1 out of every 60 has walked this nightmare jungle route. In 25 months.

The 30,000th Chinese citizen of the 2020s crossed the Darién last month. A year ago (after January 2023), the decade’s total migration from China was just 2,998 people.

Weekly Border Update Promo Video

I haven’t done one of these since October.

It’s a 43-second video, but it takes nearly two and a half hours to script, make graphics, film, edit, add subtitles, and export 16:9 and 9:16 versions.

I’m still not convinced these are the best use of my time, but as with the infographics and the podcasts, I think it’s important to experiment with formats other than text. (Even though my 1980s-90s liberal arts education barely equips me for it.)

Weekly U.S.-Mexico Border Update: February 9, 2024

With this series of weekly updates, WOLA seeks to cover the most important developments at the U.S.-Mexico border. See past weekly updates here.

Support ad-free, paywall-free Weekly Border Updates. Your donation to WOLA is crucial to sustain this effort. Please contribute now and support our work.

THIS WEEK IN BRIEF:

By a vote 0f 49-50, the Senate on February 7 refused to advance debate on a big spending package that included historic new limits on the right to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, among other measures. The limits were a response to Republican legislators’ demands and the product of two and a half months of negotiations. Most Republican senators walked away from the deal, arguing that the agreed migration limits do not go far enough. The Senate is now considering a bill with almost no border content, though there could be border-related amendments.

By a stunning 214-216 margin, the Republican-majority U.S. House of Representatives rejected an effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. While all Democrats voted “no,” House Republican leaders failed to convince enough of their members that what they regard to be Mayorkas’s mismanagement of the border constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They may try again.

Leaked data point to a 50 percent drop in Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants in January, after reaching record levels in December. January appears to have seen the third-smallest amount of migration of the Biden administration’s thirty-six full months. Reasons probably include rumors, seasonal patterns, and Mexican forces’ stepped-up migrant interdiction. In two busy Border Patrol sectors that report data, though, migration numbers started to increase again during the second half of January.

THE FULL UPDATE:

Read More

Daily Border Links: February 9, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

Following the Senate’s February 7 rejection of a spending bill with negotiated language limiting asylum access, the majority-Democratic Senate leadership introduced a new spending bill with no border or migration content at all, except for fentanyl-related provisions. The new bill contains just foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and other countries, without the earlier bill’s $20 billion in border spending and changes to immigration law.

This new bill cleared an initial hurdle on February 8 despite the objections of some Republicans holding out for tough border and migration language: by a 67-32 vote, senators cleared it for debate. (That’s the stage at which the earlier bill with the “border deal” language failed on February 7, by a 49-50 vote.)

This may not be the end of the story for border legislation, though. Democratic and Republican Senate leaders are negotiating Republican amendments that may be brought to the chamber’s floor during the next few days’ debate. (The Senate is postponing the beginning of a two-week recess and working through the weekend.)

Those amendments could include some or all of the Senate negotiators’ “border deal” language limiting asylum access; some or all of H.R. 2, a hardline bill thoroughly gutting asylum that passed the Republican-majority House of Representatives last May without a single Democratic vote; or some hybrid of the “border deal” and H.R. 2.

Those amendments would be unlikely to pass: as they are not germane to what is now a bill with no border or migration content, they would need 60 votes to win approval.

Putting off the start of a two-week recess, the Senate convenes at mid-day today and could vote on a “motion to proceed” after 7:00pm. Amid a confusing set of possible paths guided by arcane procedural maneuvers, senators might find themselves in a heated floor debate during Sunday’s Super Bowl.

As preliminary numbers show a 50 percent drop in migration along the U.S.-Mexico border, CBS News noted that Arizona and California now make up 60 percent of recent weeks’ Border Patrol apprehensions. In fiscal year 2023 those states made up 41 percent of Border Patrol apprehensions.

The conservative Daily Caller reported on Border Patrol agents’ February 6 apprehension of a migrant from Colombia who was identified as having terrorist ties because of prior membership in the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) paramilitary group, which collaborated with the country’s U.S.-backed military, disbanded in 2006, and was removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2014.

CBP does not report the nationalities of apprehended migrants who show up on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Terrorist Screening Data Set, but recent years’ increase coincides with growth in migration from Colombia, a country that has had five groups on the terrorist list this century, of which the largest two have long since demobilized.

Analyses and Feature Stories

“Many people in Ciudad Juárez and other parts of the border have reported waiting up to three months to receive an appointment through the [CBP One] application, while others receive it in a matter of days or weeks,” reported Verónica Martínez of the Ciudad Juárez-based La Verdad. Martínez’s feature documented many challenges that asylum seekers face while trying to use the app.

A Semafor analysis examined whether hardline Trump-era policies, especially “Remain in Mexico,” succeeded in reducing migration, as their backers claim. Arrivals of asylum seekers did fall in the months after June 2019, when Trump ramped up “Remain in Mexico,” but that makes it one of many attempted crackdowns on asylum-seeking migration over the past 10 years that had only short-term effects. Whether “Remain in Mexico” would have joined that list of policies with temporary effects is unknown, as the pandemic and Title 42 policy came nine months after June 2019, shutting the U.S. border.

“Right now, with the patience of the American public running thin, both Republicans and Democrats seem more interested in pursuing policies that will help them look tough on the border in an election year, rather than a comprehensive approach to fixing the problem,” read a “seven questions” explainer at Vox.

“In 1996 and 2006, Congress passed the last significant border and immigration bills to date. Both were hawkish messages to voters in election years, and both have become infamous for their unintended consequences,” wrote Rafael Bernal and Saul Elbein at The Hill.

At the Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein looked at Republican candidate Donald Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard soldiers from Republican-leaning states into Democratic-leaning states to carry out what Trump calls “the Largest Domestic Deportation Operation in History.”

Covering last weekend’s right-wing “convoy” rally near Eagle Pass, Texas, the New Yorker’s Rachel Monroe concluded that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) “insurrection-adjacent rhetoric seems to have breathed new energy into a movement that was thrown off by the events of January 6th.”

On the Right

WOLA Podcast: A Tumultuous Presidential Inauguration Heralds a New Chapter in Guatemala’s Anti-Corruption Struggle

Here’s a podcast about Guatemala’s new president and the challenges he faces. I recorded it yesterday with Ana María and Jo-Marie from WOLA. This is a lively one, and I think I’m definitely getting better at sound editing. Here’s the text from the podcast landing page at wola.org:

After relentless attempts to block his inauguration and a nine-hour delay, Bernardo Arévalo, who ran for Guatemala’s presidency on an anti-corruption platform, was sworn into office minutes after midnight on January 14.

In this highly educational episode, WOLA Director for Central America Ana María Méndez Dardón is joined by WOLA Senior Fellow Jo-Marie Burt. Both were in Guatemala witnessing the high-tension event that was Arévalo’s inauguration. They cover the frustration, excitement, and symbolism that characterized the day, while also diving into a host of topics surrounding the state of Guatemala’s democracy.

They assess the main threats to Arevalo’s leadership and the goals of his party, Movimiento Semilla, particularly those related to addressing corruption and impunity. Ana Maria and Jo-Marie touch on the distinct roles of Guatemalan indigenous communities, the United States, and the private sector. They describe the hope that Arevalo represents for the Guatemalan people in terms of security, justice, and the rule of law, while identifying the harsh realities of deeply embedded corruption a recalcitrant high court and attorney general.

Read Ana María’s January 9 commentary, Ushering in a New Period: Bernardo Arévalo’s Opportunities and Challenges to Restoring Democracy in Guatemala, for a readable, in-depth analysis of these topics.

Download the podcast episode’s .mp3 file here. Listen to WOLA’s Latin America Today podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, or wherever you subscribe to podcasts. The main feed is here.

Daily Border Links: February 8, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

A deal that took nearly three months to negotiate went down in defeat yesterday in the U.S. Senate, just three days after its text became public. In a vote that needed 60 senators to agree to begin consideration of the Biden administration’s $118 billion request for spending on Ukraine and Israel aid, border items, and other priorities, only 49 voted in favor, with 50 opposed.

In October, congressional Republicans refused to allow the spending measure to move forward unless it included language changing U.S. law to make it harder for migrants to access asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. A group of senators launched negotiations before Thanksgiving, coming up with a set of measures that outraged both migrants’ rights defenders and progressive Democrats who feared people would be harmed, and conservative Republicans who wanted it to go further.

In the end, only four Republicans voted to begin debating the bill: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and the Republicans’ chief negotiator, James Lankford of Oklahoma. Even Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who had vocally backed Lankford’s negotiating effort, voted “no.” Five Democrats voted “no.” (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) had to change his vote to “no” for procedural reasons allowing a reconsideration of the bill.) They were Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Alex Padilla of California, and Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont, who opposed the unconditional Israel aid in the bill.

As it nears a two-week recess, the Senate is paralyzed as Republicans are divided about whether to consider a spending bill without the asylum-restrictions deal attached to it, which is what Democrats had initially sought. One possible outcome for considering such a “clean” bill might be a debate process that allows votes on Republican-sponsored amendments seeking to limit asylum and perhaps other legal migration pathways.

Senate Republicans plan to meet this morning “to plot a path forward,” the Associated Press reported.

News analyses indicate that President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign will make the border deal’s failure a central point of attack against Donald Trump and the Republican Party this year, or at least a way to blunt Republican attacks on Biden’s border and migration policies.

Following the border deal’s legislative failure, the Biden administration is considering “executive action to deter illegal migration across the southern border” before migration inevitably rises again, two U.S. officials told NBC News. The article does not specify what these actions might be, though they “have been under consideration for months” and “might upset some progressives in Congress.”

The likelihood of migration rising again, after a sharp reduction in January, is strong. In Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector, the sector chief tweeted that agents apprehended 8,659 migrants during the week of January 31-February 6. That is more than any week’s apprehensions in the sector during December 2023, which was a record-setting month for the entire border.

Recent years’ immigration increases will add over $7 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next ten years, raising U.S. government tax revenues by $1 trillion, according to projections published by the Congressional Budget Office.

As the Biden administration reinstates some sanctions on Venezuela, two scheduled flights deporting Venezuelan migrants back to Caracas have been canceled since last week, the New York Times reported.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel interviewed migrants in the Darién Gap alongside Panamanian authorities in December, and “not one claimed fear of political persecution,” according to agency communications leaked to conservative reporter Ali Bradley.

Analyses and Feature Stories

The American Immigration Council published a thorough analysis of the now-defunct Senate border deal. “What we have seen, time and time again, is that adding additional penalties or complications to the process for asylum seekers once they arrive in the U.S. immiserates those asylum seekers without having a lasting impact on overall border arrivals.”

If President Biden were to confront Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) by federalizing the state’s National Guard, he would have to invoke the Insurrection Act, explains Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice at Just Security. While doing so “would almost certainly pass legal muster,” Nunn counsels against it for now, as it “should be a tool of last resort.”

Fentanyl addiction and overdoses have reached crisis levels in Tijuana and some other Mexican border cities, Will Grant reported at the BBC.

Pour One Out for the Senate Border Compromise

Republican senators refused to consider a big Ukraine-Israel-border funding bill unless it included language changing U.S. law to make it harder for migrants to access asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. A group of senators negotiated for two and a half months, coming up with a set of measures three days ago that outraged both migrants’ rights defenders who feared people would be harmed, and far-right Republicans who wanted it to go further.

The bill with the compromise language just failed on the Senate floor, by a vote of 49-50. (It was a procedural vote that needed 60 votes to allow debate to begin.)

Republicans demanded that the border-migration language be included, but in the end only four voted for it (Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and the Republicans’ chief negotiator, James Lankford of Oklahoma). Even Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who had vocally backed Lankford’s negotiating effort, voted “no.”

Five Democrats voted “no.” (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) had to change his vote to “no” for procedural reasons allowing a reconsideration of the bill.) They were Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Alex Padilla of California, and Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont, who opposed the unconditional Israel aid in the bill.

I hope that the senators move soon to approve aid to Ukraine, this time without weakening the right to asylum.

See also:

Daily Border Links: February 7, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

The Senate will hold a procedural vote at 1:00pm today on whether to proceed with debate on a $118 billion spending bill, which includes—in response to Republican demands—negotiated compromise language that would reduce migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The vote is expected to fail, falling well short of the 60-vote threshold that it needs, as conservative Republicans have lined up against the compromise language, arguing that it doesn’t go far enough. Some Democrats, concerned by the harm to migrants, will also vote “no.”

“We have no real chance here to make a law,” said Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

This concludes a two-and-a-half-month negotiation process. Media coverage is broadly portraying this as a Republican flip-flop and last-minute caving in to pressure from Donald Trump, with Democrats “setting a trap” for Republicans by calling their bluff and making concessions on tough border measures.

Some coverage portrays the fiasco as a setback for less Trump-aligned conservatives like McConnell, who supported the compromise. Asked whether he felt like he’d been thrown under the bus, the Republicans’ chief negotiator on the deal, Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), said “and backed up.”

In a mid-day address from the White House, President Joe Biden voiced strong support for the bill, despite some very conservative limits on asylum and migration that contradict his earlier policy positions. He blamed Donald Trump, and Republicans’ failure to stand up to him, for the bill’s likely failure, calling on GOP members to “show some spine.”

Once today’s vote fails as expected, Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is likely to seek a procedural vote on a version of the spending bill—which includes aid to Ukraine and Israel, and $20 billion for numerous border and migration items—with the border compromise language removed. This “cleaner” bill may have more Republican support. The Senate departs after this week for a two-week recess.

Republicans’ bad day on Capitol Hill was punctuated in the House of Representatives by a stunning 214-216 rejection of articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Surprisingly, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) went ahead with the vote even though all Democrats were opposed and House Republican leaders did not have certainty over their side’s vote count.

The Secretary, whom House Republicans claim has mismanaged the border to the extent that it constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors,” will keep his job for now thanks to the votes of three Republican members: Reps. Ken Buck (R-eastern Colorado), Tom McClintock (R-San Joaquín Valley, California), and Mike Gallagher (R-Green Bay, Wisconsin). A fourth Republican, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), changed his vote to “no” for procedural reasons, allowing a motion to reconsider.

House Republican leaders vow to bring the impeachment up again when one more member of their caucus is present: Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), who is receiving treatments for blood cancer. Scalise is not expected to return to the House today.

Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens tweeted that the agency has apprehended “+160 undocumented subjects with gang affiliations” during the first four months of fiscal year 2024. If sustained all year, this rate—about 40 allegedly gang-tied migrants per month—would be the fewest since fiscal 2021 and the 3rd-fewest in the 8 years since fiscal year 2017.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operated 130 removal flights in January, up a bit from 128 in December and down from 140 in November, according to Tom Cartwright’s latest monthly report for Witness at the Border. Top destinations were Guatemala (53 flights), Honduras (37), El Salvador (11), Colombia (6), Ecuador (5), and Venezuela (4). One flight each went to Mauritania, India, and Romania.

Border Report went to Jacume, Mexico, just south of Jacumba Springs, California, where Mexico’s National Guard has set up a camp in an effort to block migrants at a point where asylum seekers have been arriving for months seeking to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities.

Analyses and Feature Stories

At the New York Times, Cesar Cuauhtémoc Garcia Hernandez of Ohio State University recalled that the Title 42 expulsion authority did not deter migration, and it would be wrong to expect the expulsion authority in the failing Senate bill to do so.

At the New Republic, James North pushed back against the fiction that migrants are introducing fentanyl across the border into the United States.

In an interview at the Border Chronicle, WOLA’s Adam Isacson (this post’s author) walked through some of the current migration trends and data at the border and along the migration route right now.

At the Border Chronicle: Fight Corruption and Invest in Asylum: A Q&A with Adam Isacson

I enjoyed this conversation last week with journalist Melissa del Bosque at the Border Chronicle, a newsletter and outlet she runs with fellow border-based author Todd Miller. She did an amazing job of condensing and simplifying what was a much longer conversation full of policy-nerd-speak.

I would invest a lot more in our asylum system. And I’d get rid of the 1990-era caps on who can come from which country to get residency here. I’d also vastly expand the temporary work permits. So, people can come work, and not just for farm labor but also for other skilled work. I’d also end corruption, which is a huge part of why people migrate. If I were doing foreign policy, we can certainly do more to uphold and give resources to the people fighting corruption and fighting impunity, and justice systems and NGOs and even the reformers inside the military. They should have our most high-profile backing, but so often they don’t.

Read the whole thing here.

Email Update is Out

Here’s a new “weekly” e-mail about stuff I’ve been working on, for those who’ve signed up to receive them.

This one has a weekly Border Update, two explainers about the Senate border deal (which may be dead anyway), some recommended Latin America security long-reads, two posts with charts illustrating migration trends and the futility of deterrence policies, a radio interview about Texas, and a TV interview about El Salvador. And of course, upcoming events and some recommended readings.

If you visit this site a lot, you probably don’t need an e-mail, too. But if you’d like to get more-or-less regular e-mail updates, scroll to the bottom of this page or click here.

Daily Border Links: February 6, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

The Senate is to hold a procedural vote tomorrow (Wednesday) on a $118 billion spending package for Ukraine, Israel, border items, and other priorities. In response to Republican demands and after two and a half months of negotiations, the package includes a host of changes to immigration law that would, among other things, make asylum harder to attain at the U.S.-Mexico border. The text of those changes became public Sunday night.

Wednesday’s vote will test whether 60 senators are willing to end debate on the package and move to a vote. Right now, all signs indicate that the bill will fall short of 60 votes. It might not even be close.

More conservative senators—along with the House Republican leadership—are lining up against the compromise migration language on which they had initially insisted, arguing that it is not restrictive enough on migration. “Less than 24 hours after the text of the deal was released, nearly half of the Republican conference immediately panned it, leading to internal finger pointing, frustration and resistance,” wrote Leigh Ann Caldwell and Theodoric Meyer at the Washington Post.

Though they may favor Ukraine aid, some progressive senators are also inclined to vote “no,” because of the bill’s erosion of asylum.

Those favoring the bill include moderate Democrats and some top Senate Republican leaders—though Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did not forcefully encourage his caucus to vote for it on Wednesday. Notably, the National Border Patrol Council, the union comprising a large majority of Border Patrol agents, broke with Donald Trump and supported the bill’s border language.

If the procedural vote fails, it is not clear what will happen next: whether Senate leadership will withdraw the bill, or give senators more time to read its 370 pages and keep debating. The Senate will be out of session next week and the following week.

The full House of Representatives will vote today to impeach Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” based on what House Republicans regard to be poor handling of border security and migration.

If all 212 Democrats in the chamber are present and vote “no,” House Republicans will need 216 members of their 219-member delegation to vote “yes”—and a handful of Republican holdouts remain. One moderate, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colorado), published a column in The Hill yesterday laying out his “no” vote, arguing that while he disapproves of Mayorkas’s performance at DHS, it does not constitute high crimes or misdemeanors.

Even if the House votes to impeach—only the second impeachment of a cabinet member, and the first since 1876—the two-thirds vote necessary to convict will be unattainable in the Democratic-majority Senate.

Organized-crime violence has broken out into open firefights this week in the Mexican border cities of Reynosa, Tamaulipas and Tecate, Baja California.

Analyses and Feature Stories

Joe Biden has shifted to the right on border and migration issues due to “a realization that immigration has become one of his greatest vulnerabilities,” according to an analysis from Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa. Throughout his term, the analysis reveals, Biden has closely followed the latest migration numbers, even asking about specific ports of entry.

A column from Isabela Dias at Mother Jones also explored Biden’s “radical U-turn.”

A commentary from the Center for American Progress broadly supported the bill currently before the Senate, but voiced misgivings about the asylum limitations. It calls for more investment and reform to the U.S. asylum system and for more assistance to “stabilize” and support migrant integration in the Americas.

Associated Press reporters Elliot Spagat and Javier Arciga combined an analysis of the Senate bill’s asylum provisions with an on-the-ground report from Jacumba Springs, California, where asylum seekers arriving at a gap in the border wall wait for hours or days to turn themselves in to Border Patrol.

“Why not let states decide how many foreign workers they need and give each participating state an allocation of work visas or waivers to issue in industries with labor shortages?” asked author D.W. Gibson at the Los Angeles Times.

At the Nation, Arizona-based journalist John Washington published an essay based on his new book, The Case for Open Borders.

On the Right

Daily Border Links: February 5, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

Senate leadership published the text of a $118 billion supplemental appropriation bill, complying with a Biden administration request, that would provide additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, among other priorities including $20 billion for border and migration management. It is the product of about two and a half months of negotiations between a small bipartisan group of senators.

Republican senators’ price for allowing this bill to go forward was new restrictions on migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. But Republicans who insist on an even tougher crackdown on migration—including Donald Trump and leaders of the House of Representatives’ GOP majority—are lining up against the bill. Prospects for its passage are poor.

Of the legislative text’s 370 pages, 281 comprise the “Border Act,” a series of border security, immigration, and fentanyl-interdiction policy changes and spending items.

The text includes many of the controversial limits on access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border that had already been reported in media coverage. Among the bill’s many key provisions are:

  • Allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose a Title 42-like expulsion authority, “summarily removing” asylum-seekers from the United States (except for hard-to-prove Convention Against Torture appeals), when unauthorized migrant encounters reach a daily threshold.
    • This “Border Emergency Authority” would kick in when DHS encounters a seven-day average of 5,000 migrants per day or 8,500 in a single day; at its discretion DHS could start expelling people when the average hits 4,000.
    • As this threshold includes about 1,400 per day who approach ports of entry, expulsions would be mandatory when Border Patrol apprehends 3,600 or more people per day between ports of entry. Encounters have crossed that threshold in 34 of the Biden administration’s first 36 months.
    • It is not clear whether Mexico would agree to take back expelled migrants across the land border. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not have the capacity to carry out aerial deportations on this scale to countries beyond Mexico.
    • This Border Emergency Authority would “sunset,” or automatically be repealed, after three years. For each of the three years, DHS would have fewer days in which it could use it to expel asylum seekers.
  • Requiring asylum seekers placed in “expedited removal”—usually 20-25,000 per month right now, but likely to expand—to meet a much higher standard of “credible fear” in screening interviews with asylum officers.
  • Changes to the asylum system that would have asylum officers handing down most decisions in months, while making it rare for cases to be heard in immigration courts.
  • No substantive changes to the presidential authority to grant humanitarian parole.

President Biden called for the bill’s immediate passage and said he would sign it.

The bill quickly came under fire from Democrats who favor immigration reform and upholding migrants’ rights, and from Republicans who want a return to Donald Trump’s policies at the border.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) said that it was “dead on arrival” and would not come to a vote in their chamber. The House has instead scheduled a vote on a $17.6 billion standalone bill with aid for Israel and nothing else that was in the administration’s request.

Many Republicans have targeted the 5,000-encounter threshold in the “Border Emergency Authority,” incorrectly portraying it as allowing 5,000 migrants to be released into the United States (the 5,000 could just as likely be deported or detained).

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has scheduled a vote for Wednesday to “test” whether the bill has the 60 out of 100 votes necessary to end debate and vote on it.

Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) “are counting on a center-right plus center-left supermajority of the Senate to vote for this measure,” wrote Andrew Desiderio, Jake Sherman, and John Bresnahan at Punchbowl News. “There’s no guarantee of enough support there.”

Thirteen Republican state governors joined Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in the border town of Eagle Pass. It was another show of conservative support as Texas challenges federal authority over border and migration policy, insisting that migrants are an “invasion” and blocking Border Patrol from full access to Eagle Pass’s sprawling riverfront park.

Abbott claimed, without evidence, that Texas’s policies are behind January’s drop in migration at the border, even though sectors in Arizona and California also saw reductions.

Abbott’s event somewhat overshadowed a right-wing gathering nearby, outside Eagle Pass; much coverage of this “convoy” focused on its participants’ religious fervor.

A deportation flight to Morelia, Mexico on January 30 was the first such flight to Mexico’s interior since May 2022, the New York Times reported.

Analyses and Feature Stories

The Guardian accompanied volunteers in the wilderness of California’s central border zone, more than an hour’s drive east of San Diego, where they hike through hostile territory looking for people in territory where migrant deaths are frequent.

CBS News’s “60 Minutes” program visited this region and reported on asylum seekers turning themselves in to Border Patrol in difficult outdoor conditions, including a big increase in citizens of China.

Across the border from this region, in Mexico’s state of Baja California, INewsource reported that Mexico’s government “significantly escalated enforcement” this week, installing a camp at a point where asylum seekers frequently cross.

First Look at the Senate Negotiators’ Asylum-Limits-For-Ukraine-Aid Bill Language

The Senate’s leadership has just dropped the text of a $118 billion supplemental appropriation, complying with a Biden administration request, which would provide additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, among other priorities including $20 billion for border and migration needs.

Republican senators’ price for allowing this bill to go forward in the Senate—where Democrats have a majority but most legislation requires 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote—was new restrictions on migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

This 370-page legislative text has been out for less than 2 hours as I write this, so my reading this Sunday evening has not been thorough. But it appears to include a lot of the controversial limits on access to asylum that had already been reported in media. (I summarized those last week in a Q&A document and in our weekly Border Update.)

Provisions include:

  • Requiring asylum seekers placed in “expedited removal”—usually 20-25,000 per month right now, but likely to expand—to meet a much higher standard of “credible fear” in screening interviews with asylum officers. The goal is to thin out asylum applications and make it unnecessary for as many cases as possible to go to immigration court.
  • Reducing the time for a large number of asylum seekers’ cases from years to a few months, often while in tightly controlled, costly alternatives-to-detention programs.
  • It does not appear to tighten the presidential use of humanitarian parole authority to permit some classes of migrants to enter the United States, though it adds a detailed reporting requirement.

Plus, the big one:

  • As expected, the bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose a Title 42-like expulsion authority, “summarily removing” asylum-seekers from the United States (except for hard-to-prove Convention Against Torture appeals), when unauthorized migrant encounters reach a daily threshold.
  • That threshold is:
    • An average of 4,000 migrant encounters per day over 7 days, which would allow DHS to start expelling people at the Secretary’s discretion.
    • Expulsions become mandatory once the average hits 5,000 per day, or if encounters hit 8,500 in a single day.
    • “Encounters” means people who come to the border and end up in Customs and Border Protection (CBP, which includes Border Patrol) custody without documents or authorization. Even if all 5,000 of them are deported or detained, the expulsions authority would still kick in.
    • “Encounters” includes people who come to ports of entry with appointments made using the CBP One smartphone app; the bill requires DHS to maintain the capacity to keep receiving at least 1,400 of these people each day (nearly the current number of daily CBP One appointments), even when it is expelling people.
      • While these 1,400 would not be in danger of expulsion, they do count toward the daily “encounter” threshold. If CBP takes 1,400 per day at ports of entry, then the expulsions could kick in if Border Patrol apprehends 2,600 or 3,600 more per day between ports of entry (for the 4,000 and 5,000 thresholds).
      • Border Patrol apprehensions between ports of entry have averaged less than 3,600 per day during only 2 of the Biden administration’s first 36 full months. They have never averaged less than 2,600 per day.

  • It is not clear whether Mexico would agree to take back expelled migrants, and if so from which countries.
  • The expulsions would stop if the past week’s daily average dropped to 75 percent of the amount that triggered it (3,000 per day if the 4,000-encounter threshold was used; 3,750 per day if the 5,000-encounter threshold kicked in).
  • A previously undisclosed element of the new Title 42-style authority: it would automatically “sunset,” or repeal, after three years. And DHS would have fewer days per year to employ it during each of those three years. (It would take an act of Congress to renew the authority or make it permanent—which is certainly not impossible.)

What do I make of this?

  • Just as we pointed out in our Q&A last week, if this became law it would send thousands of people back to likely danger. The expulsion authority will ensnare many people with legitimate and urgent asylum claims, denying them due process. It will place many at the mercy of organized crime along the migration route and in Mexican border cities. And it wouldn’t even be justified with a thin “public health” reasoning, like Title 42 was: asylum seekers would be kicked out just because too many other people were fleeing. “The United States cannot deny someone the right to seek safety and protection just because they are number 5,001 in line that day,” a statement tonight from Human Rights First put it.
  • And again, as the Q&A and another post from last week made clear, it won’t reduce migration, except perhaps for an initial few months. We seem to forget that the Title 42 era (March 2020-May 2023) was one of the busiest times ever for migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. The experience of Title 42 should have made clear for everyone the futility of deterring protection-seeking migrants.

Either way, though, this legislation is probably not going to pass. Though I’m complaining here about some of these provisions’ cruelty, I don’t see enough red meat here to satisfy far-right and rabidly pro-Trump Republicans, especially in the GOP-majority House of Representatives. Even those who were willing to live without a full return to Trump’s policies were demanding a lower threshold number for expulsions, and curbs on the presidential humanitarian parole authority. Since they didn’t get those, they may obstruct the bill.

So the negotiators of this text added language that may endanger people. They took great pains, though, to minimize the harm it might do to asylum seekers. It is good that they tried to do so—but it means that it will be rough going in the MAGA-heavy, election-year House of Representatives.

On PRX’s “The World”: Who’s in control of the US-Mexico border?

Click here for audio of a 5:40 segment on PRX’s The World program, recorded Friday. Host Carol Hills and I talk about the very troubling standoff in Texas between federal and state border forces. “You have this very strange tableau now,” I point out, “of armed National Guard—their patches say ‘U.S. Army’ on them—telling Border Patrol that they cannot enter an area that is actually within the U.S. border on U.S. territory.”

At VOA’s Foro Interamericano: El Salvador define su futuro político

Here (en español) is a panel discussion, recorded Friday, on Voice of America. I joined Salvadoran analyst Napoleón Campos to talk about the implications of authoritarian-trending leader Nayib Bukele’s likely blowout re-election victory in today’s election in El Salvador.

Latin America-Related Events in Washington and Online This Week

(Events that I know of, anyway. All times are U.S. Eastern.)

Monday, February 5, 2024

  • 9:30-11:00 at wilsoncenter.org: A Conversation with Mexican Presidential Candidate Xóchitl Gálvez (RSVP required).

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Thursday, February 8, 2024

Friday, February 9, 2024

  • 12:00 at UCSD online: Will Immigration be Biden’s Poisoned Apple in 2024? (RSVP required).

January Migration Lull Seems to be Ending

After dipping sharply after the holidays, the number of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border appears to be increasing again.

That, at least, is the trend that we can discern from the weekly updates that the Border Patrol chiefs in Tucson and San Diego, two of the busiest of the agency’s nine U.S.-Mexico border sectors, have been posting to their Twitter accounts.

Weekly U.S.-Mexico Border Update: February 2, 2024

With this series of weekly updates, WOLA seeks to cover the most important developments at the U.S.-Mexico border. See past weekly updates here.

Support ad-free, paywall-free Weekly Border Updates. Your donation to WOLA is crucial to sustain this effort. Please contribute now and support our work.

THIS WEEK IN BRIEF:

Senators negotiating a deal that would restrict access to asylum at the border, as a Republican pre-condition for Ukraine aid and other spending, continue to insist that they are on the verge of making public the text of their agreement. Prospects for passage are growing ever dimmer, though. Donald Trump, House Republicans, and the rightmost wing of Republican senators are lining up against the deal because they don’t believe it goes far enough.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) updated its dataset of migration through December, showing a record 302,034 migrant encounters border-wide in December. The top nationalities were Mexico, Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, and Colombia. Encounters with members of family units rose to their second-highest level ever.

Among a variety of updates: A horrific number of sexual assaults recorded in the Darién Gap. Venezuela is halting U.S. deportation flights. ICE ran its first deportation flight to Mexico’s interior since May 2022. A “caravan” has almost completely dwindled in southern Mexico.

In addition to nearly throttling the Senate border deal, U.S. ultraconservatives have generated an avalanche of media coverage and political discussion around Texas’s challenge to federal authority at the border, and House Republicans’ effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

THE FULL UPDATE:

Read More

Daily Border Links: February 2, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said that as early as today, and “no later than Sunday,” the chamber’s leadership will post the full text of a spending bill including aid to Ukraine and Israel, border spending, and other priorities—plus a new section changing U.S. law making asylum—and perhaps other legal migration pathways—more difficult to attain at the U.S.-Mexico border.

This section is the product of more than two months of talks between a small group of senators. Even yesterday, Schumer said, “Conversations are ongoing, and some issues still need resolution, but we are getting very close.”

Schumer expects to hold a cloture vote (to end debate on the bill and move to a vote) next Wednesday. The Senate is scheduled to go on a two-week recess after next week.

While the bill may pass the Senate, legislators and analysts say that its prospects of becoming law are growing dimmer. It may fail to win a majority of Republican votes in the Democratic-majority Senate, which would weaken it as it goes to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and other GOP leaders have been voicing opposition.

A letter from 22 Congressional Hispanic Caucus members prods the Biden administration’s Justice and Homeland Security Departments to investigate the state of Texas for impeding Border Patrol’s access to a broad swath of riverfront in Eagle Pass.

“He forgets that Texas used to belong to Mexico and puts up barbed wire fences and has an anti-immigrant policy against those who, out of necessity, have to go to the United States to make a living,” said Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R).

“What makes Abbott’s recent actions most bizarre, though, is his target: Border Patrol,” reads an analysis from Texas Monthly’s Jack Herrera.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is sending a battalion of the Florida State Guard to the border. This force is different from a National Guard, which sometimes can come under federal control: several states also have (usually tiny) paramilitary forces, commanded by their governors, and funded entirely with state budgets. It is likely that the U.S. Code does not authorize their use outside their home states.

Analyses and Feature Stories

The New York Times’s Carl Hulse wrote an overview of past 21st-century attempts to push bipartisan border and immigration reforms through Congress. All failed, despite majority support, due to far-right opposition.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler and CBS News’s Camilo Montoya-Galvez recall that—contrary to what Speaker Johnson has been arguing—the law does not permit President Biden to ban migrants once, like asylum seekers, they have arrived on U.S. soil.

Politico reports that Republicans are making the border and migration their main campaign issue in a special election to replace expelled Rep. George Santos in Long Island, New York.

The outcome of this February 13 vote could be important for House Republicans’ effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They need a majority of the House to send it to the Senate, will get no Democratic votes, and Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck yesterday said he opposes impeachment.

At the Los Angeles Times, David Savage looked at a 2012 dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that today forms the basis for Republican governors’ claims that they can pursue their own immigration policies independent of the federal government.

At Just Security, Houston lawyer Kate Huddleston explained the far-right and white-supremacist history of what is now a mainstream Republican push to justify state border crackdowns using the Constitution’s “invasion” clause. El Paso Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) and others told the Houston Chronicle that “invasion” rhetoric incites violence.

About 400 remaining members of a migrant “caravan” that began near Mexico’s border at Christmas are making their way on foot through Mexico’s southern state of Veracruz. That’s a walk of over 500 miles.

Senate Border Deal Language Incoming

Going to be a busy weekend for border and migration policy.

After more than two months of internal discussions, we’re about to see the text of the “asylum restrictions for Ukraine aid” deal that Senate Democratic and Republican negotiators have drawn up.

From Majority Leader Chuck Schumer:

Next, as I said, discussions are going well, so I want members to be aware that we plan to post the full text of the national security supplemental as early as tomorrow, no later than Sunday.

That will give members plenty of time to read the bill before voting on it.

As for the timing of the vote, I plan to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the vehicle on Monday, leading to the first vote on the national security supplemental no later than Wednesday.

Daily Border Links: February 1, 2024

Get daily links in your email

Developments

Congress will adjourn for the weekend later today. And after next week, the Democratic-majority Senate is scheduled to take a two-week Presidents’ Day recess. (The Republican-majority House of Representatives will take a one-week recess after February 16.)

Meanwhile, there is no bill language yet from a small group of senators negotiating a deal that would restrict asylum access, to satisfy Republican demands to pass a package of Ukraine aid and other spending. The agreement is teetering as pathways to becoming law close off. “It’s not dead yet, but the writing’s on the wall,” a Republican senator told Punchbowl News’s Andrew Desiderio.

As discussed in a new WOLA commentary, media reports indicate that the deal would create a new Title 42-like authority to expel asylum seekers from the United States, with little to no chance to seek protection, when a daily average of migrant encounters exceeds a specific number (reportedly 5,000).

Lead Republican negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) said that the group was “whisper-close” to releasing language, but that they were not ready to share it Wednesday. (Lankford is taking a lot of criticism from pro-Trump elements of his party for negotiating with Democrats.)

Another negotiator, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona), offered some new details about what the agreement contains as she sought to debunk rumors.

One of the main misconceptions is that the new expulsion authority would be triggered after 5,000 migrants per day were allowed into the U.S. interior: it would instead apply whenever Border Patrol apprehended that many people under any circumstances, even if most ended up deported or detained.

In the House, Republicans opposed to the deal are digging in. They include Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who criticized elements believed to be in the Senate agreement, along with a broader attack on the Biden administration’s border and migration policies, in his first floor speech as speaker.

The rightmost contingent of the Senate’s Republicans also attacked the deal at what The Hill called “a contentious lunch meeting in the Capitol Wednesday.” Reporter Alexander Bolton concluded, “the prospect of mustering 25 Senate GOP votes for the bill is dimming, raising the possibility that Republicans will abandon the effort altogether.”

Politico reported that progressive Democrats, too, are beginning to line up against the Senate border deal.

The House passed a bill, with 56 Democratic votes, that would mandate life sentences on migrant smugglers involved in high-speed pursuits near the border if anyone is killed during the chase.

The chief of Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector tweeted that agents there apprehended 7,889 migrants in the week ending January 30. That is the fourth weekly increase she has reported in a row, up from 3,598 during the week ending January 9.

A San Diego Border Patrol agent is under investigation after engaging in lewd behavior in a YouTube video while on duty near Jacumba Springs, California, near where hundreds of asylum seekers wait outdoors each day to turn themselves in to agents.

Analyses and Feature Stories

The disorder and neglect of the U.S. asylum and immigration-court systems are a big reason why migration is increasing at the U.S.-Mexico border, reads an analysis from Miriam Jordan at the New York Times.

The New York Times’s Karoun Demerjian and The Atlantic’s David Graham poked holes in House Republicans’ case for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In an interview at Slate, the American Immigration Council’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick explains why there is no such thing as a presidential ability to “shut down” the border.

At the Washington Post, data journalist Philip Bump unpacked the new Republican talking point of referring to adult male migrants as “military-age males.”

At The Atlantic, Fernanda Santos positively reviewed an upcoming book about migration from New Yorker staff writer Jonathan Blitzer.

On the Right

Newer Posts
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.