What role did international factors (e.g., regional violence, climate, economy) play in spikes of border crossings during specific administrations?
Executive summary
International "push" factors — regional violence, state failure, and climate-driven economic shocks — combined with "pull" signals such as U.S. labor demand and perceived enforcement gaps to drive major spikes in irregular border crossings across recent administrations, while policy responses and international cooperation shaped the timing and magnitude of those surges rather than fully determining them [1] [2]. Analysts and government agencies diverge on how much U.S. policy versus external conditions mattered: some argue enforcement changes reshaped migrant behavior, while others emphasize enduring transnational drivers that predate any single presidency [3] [4].
1. How regional violence and state failure forced people northward
Interstate and internal armed conflict, gang violence, and collapsing state capacity in places across the Western Hemisphere are repeatedly cited by researchers as primary "push" drivers of migration increases since 2019, with Penn Wharton linking spikes in crossings to these dynamics rather than to short-term phenomena alone [1]; the American Immigration Council likewise documents asylum seekers and families fleeing insecurity and being funneled into repeated crossings when expulsions and unstable reception conditions leave them with few alternatives [5].
2. Climate and the economy: slow-burning drivers that compound crises
Economic distress tied to climate shocks — crop losses, lost livelihoods, and disrupted local markets — operates as an undercurrent that raises baseline migration pressure, while stronger U.S. labor markets and the presence of smuggling networks create clear "pull" incentives; USAFacts frames this as classic push–pull logic where a strong economy and the market for smugglers amplify movement when push drivers intensify [2].
3. Policy, enforcement and the paradox of deterrence
Aggressive border enforcement can change how and when people migrate without necessarily stopping the underlying flows: academic work shows enforcement often increases reliance on smugglers and alters crossing locations and costs, producing unintended consequences that can sustain or even increase the number of migrants who attempt irregular entry over time [3]. Administrations that tightened expulsions or expanded removals saw immediate declines in recorded encounters, but scholars and some agencies caution that those tactical shifts do not erase the root causes driving people to depart [1] [4].
4. The Biden years: regional diplomacy, legal pathways and mixed outcomes
The Biden administration coupled international engagement — opening regional processing centers, expanding CBP One scheduling, and pressing partners to crack down on transit — with new rules narrowing asylum eligibility; DHS and Migration Policy credit this "carrot-and-stick" and multilateral enforcement for recent declines in encounters, while acknowledging expulsions and deportation volumes changed compared with prior years [6] [4] [7]. Independent actors note that reduced removals by ICE and the legacy effects of Title 42 complicate simple cause-and-effect narratives [6] [1].
5. Political narratives, selective data, and competing agendas
Congressional committees, advocacy groups, and agency fact sheets advance sharply different interpretations: House Homeland Security materials emphasize national-security risks and dramatic increases in certain nationalities under recent administrations, a framing that can serve political oversight aims [8], while DHS fact sheets and Migration Policy stress coordinated international actions and policy mixes that drove declines in FY2024 encounters [7] [4]. Wikipedia and media trackers compile these trends but also show how emphasis on enforcement successes or crisis framing reflects institutional priorities as much as migration science [6] [9].
Conclusion: international factors set the tempo; policy adjusts the volume
The evidence in scholarly analyses, government reports, and policy trackers indicates that regional violence, state failure, climate-linked economic shocks and transnational smuggling networks largely set migration pressure and produce spikes across administrations, while U.S. policy — from restrictive asylum rules to multilateral enforcement and expanded legal channels — alters the form, timing, and measured size of those spikes without erasing the underlying drive to migrate [1] [3] [4]. Remaining gaps in public data and partisan interpretation mean firm attribution of any single spike to one cause is limited by the available reporting and competing agendas among sources [2] [8].