Proposal 3
Border Enforcement Predictability and Administrative Processing Demand
Processing capacity cannot be separated from entry behavior
Immigration administration is often discussed as if adjudication occurs independently from border conditions. In practice, they are inseparable. The volume, type, and urgency of immigration filings are directly shaped by expectations formed outside the courtroom — at the border itself. When entry conditions appear uncertain or inconsistent, filings surge regardless of eligibility outcomes. When entry rules appear stable and predictable, filings stabilize before the government ever conducts an interview.
Administrative efficiency therefore begins before adjudication. A predictable border environment does not replace humanitarian protection or lawful migration pathways; it determines whether those pathways are used in a structured manner or overwhelmed by precautionary filings driven by uncertainty.
1. The Behavioral Mechanics of Filing Surges
Migration decisions are rarely made after legal analysis. They are made after perceived opportunity signals.
Potential entrants evaluate three questions:
Will I be allowed to enter the United States territory?
Will I be allowed to remain while waiting for a decision?
Will the process take a long time?
If the answer to these questions appears inconsistent, individuals file defensively — even when eligibility is uncertain.
This produces a precautionary filing effect.
People apply not only because they qualify, but because the cost of not applying seems higher than the cost of applying. The asylum system then becomes a risk management tool rather than a protection request.
The result is predictable:
- Sudden increases in filings unrelated to world events
- High withdrawal and abandonment rates
- Large numbers of low-evidence applications
- Multi-year administrative congestion
These outcomes originate from expectation volatility rather than statutory eligibility.
2. Predictability vs Severity
Enforcement is often framed as a scale of strictness. Operationally, consistency matters more than severity.
A harsh rule inconsistently applied produces more filings than a moderate rule consistently applied.
When migrants cannot predict the outcome of entry, they maximize protection by entering quickly and filing immediately. When migrants can predict the outcome, they self-select before traveling.
Predictability therefore filters cases outside the administrative system. Unpredictability transfers filtering into the administrative system.
The difference determines whether officers review necessary claims or precautionary claims.
Unpredictable Entry
Screening happens inside the court.
Predictable Entry
Screening happens before arrival.
Administrative backlog is therefore a downstream symptom of upstream uncertainty.
3. Direct Administrative Consequences
The immigration system operates on time allocation.
Each filing requires:
- Identity verification
- Security checks
- Interview scheduling
- Legal analysis
- Decision issuance
Even a weak claim consumes the same intake resources as a strong claim.
When filings surge due to uncertainty, the agency cannot prioritize quality because intake volume consumes capacity. Officers then manage quantity instead of credibility.
This produces a structural shift: the system becomes a queue manager rather than a protection evaluator.
Backlogs grow not because eligibility standards change, but because intake exceeds review capacity.
Predictable entry conditions reduce intake volume without changing legal standards.
The law remains the same. The number of precautionary filings changes.
4. Interaction With Work Authorization Policy
Employment authorization policy often attempts to control filing incentives after entry. However, incentives primarily operate before entry.
If individuals believe entry guarantees prolonged presence regardless of outcome, filing occurs even without work eligibility. If individuals believe entry leads to prompt classification, filing becomes selective.
Therefore, changing conditions during the waiting period affects behavior less than changing expectations about the process itself.
Predictable Framework
- Reduces precautionary filings
- Improves interview scheduling timelines
- Allows officers to evaluate claims earlier
- Improves decision accuracy
Unpredictable Framework
- Increases filings
- Extends waiting periods
- Encourages additional filings due to delays
- Expands backlog independent of eligibility criteria
The administrative system reacts to expectations, not just statutes.
5. Administrative Resource Allocation
When intake volume stabilizes, agencies can redistribute resources from intake management to case resolution.
This produces cascading effects:
Shorter Interview Wait Times
Stabilized intake allows agencies to schedule interviews sooner, reducing years-long queues.
More Thorough Credibility Review
Officers can dedicate adequate time to each case rather than processing volume under pressure.
Reduced Reliance on Emergency Staffing
Predictable workloads allow agencies to plan staffing rather than react to surges.
Fewer Court Referrals
Earlier, more accurate decisions reduce the number of cases escalated to immigration courts.
More Consistent Decisions
Uniform processing conditions produce more uniform outcomes across officers and offices.
The goal is not to restrict humanitarian access. The goal is to align filing volume with adjudication capacity.
A stable border environment functions as an external intake regulator.
Instead of filtering claims through years of processing, the system filters through expectation clarity. The administrative burden decreases before the first form is filed.
Border Encounters by Administration
CBP encounter data by fiscal year — southwest border and nationwide.
Biden Administration (FY2021–FY2024)
| Fiscal Year | SWB Encounters | Nationwide |
|---|---|---|
| FY2021 | ~1.73M | ~1.96M |
| FY2022 | ~2.38M | ~2.77M |
| FY2023 | ~2.48M | ~3.20M |
| FY2024 | ~2.13M | ~2.90M |
Trump Administration (FY2017–FY2020 & FY2025)
| Fiscal Year | SWB Encounters | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| FY2017 | ~415K–527K | Pre-Title 42 |
| FY2018 | ~520K | Slight increase |
| FY2019 | ~977K | Family unit spike |
| FY2020 | ~458K | COVID / Title 42 began |
| FY2025 | 237,538 | Lowest since 1970 |
10.8M
Biden-era nationwide encounters (FY21–24)
237K
FY2025 total (lowest since 1970)
94%
Decrease: Feb 2025 vs Feb 2024
Enforcement Outcomes Comparison
ICE ERO removals, gotaway estimates, and Title 42 impact.
ICE ERO Removals
| FY | Removals | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| FY2022 | ~72,000 | Low point |
| FY2023 | ~142,580 | Recovery |
| FY2024 | 271,484 | +90.4% over FY2023 |
| FY2025 (est.) | ~340,000 | +25% over FY2024 (MPI est.) |
Estimated Gotaways
| Period | Estimate |
|---|---|
| FY2017–FY2020 | ~500,000 |
| FY2021 | ~389,515 |
| FY2022 | ~600,000 |
| FY2023 | ~860,000 |
| FY2024 | ~344,000 |
Title 42 Expulsions (Mar 2020 – May 2023)
~2.8–3M total expulsions (>2.5M single adults, ~320K family units)
Recidivism surged from 7% (FY2019) to 27% (FY2021), and 49% for Mexicans/Northern Central Americans (May 2022)
Note: Title 42 inflated encounter numbers via high recidivism — encounters ≠ unique individuals.
Why Current Conditions Favor Reform
Record-low border numbers create political and operational space for legislative action.
Record Low
FY2025 SWB encounters lowest since 1970; March 2025 was lowest month in recorded history
7 Months
Consecutive months of zero illegal alien releases into the interior by Border Patrol
Net Negative
Brookings estimated negative net migration in 2025 for the first time in decades
Key Executive Actions (January 2025 onward)
- National emergency declaration at the southern border
- Termination of CBP One app
- Reinstatement of Migrant Protection Protocols ("Remain in Mexico")
- End of catch-and-release
- Expanded expedited removal (applied to interior encounters)
- Laken Riley Act signed January 29, 2025
- $46.5B for border wall (One Big Beautiful Bill Act, July 2025)
85%
of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for those brought to the U.S. as children — Harvard Harris Poll, December 2025
Immigration adjudication does not begin with paperwork. It begins with perception. When potential applicants can predict how entry and processing will occur, they decide whether to file before entering the system. When they cannot predict, they file first and allow the government to decide years later.
Administrative efficiency therefore depends on consistent operational signals at the border, not only procedural changes within adjudication. Stability at entry produces order in processing. Uncertainty at entry produces backlog in adjudication.
The immigration system's workload is ultimately shaped less by legal definitions than by the expectations those definitions create in practice.