What percentage of detected entries were encounters, inadmissible entries, or estimated undetected crossings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
CBP defines “encounters” to include Border Patrol apprehensions, Office of Field Operations inadmissibles, and (historically) Title 42 expulsions; CBP dashboards present detected activity as these encounters [1] [2]. Independent analysts and DHS both note a sharp fall in recorded encounters and in CBP’s estimate of “gotaways” (undetected crossings), but exact percentage splits (encounters vs. inadmissibles vs. estimated undetected crossings) are not published as a single, consistent percentage table in these sources — available sources do not mention a consolidated percent breakdown of detected entries that separates encounters, inadmissibles, and estimated undetected crossings [1] [2] [3].
1. What CBP means by “encounters” — the agency’s definition and limits
CBP’s public dashboards treat “encounter” as a broad category that combines U.S. Border Patrol Title 8 apprehensions, Office of Field Operations Title 8 inadmissibles at ports, and historically Title 42 expulsions where applicable; the agency aggregates these different operational actions under “encounters” on both its Southwest Land Border and Nationwide pages [1] [2]. That aggregation means a single headline figure for “encounters” mixes distinct events: interdictions between ports (USBP apprehensions), noncitizens stopped at ports of entry (OFO inadmissibles), and expulsions applied under a public‑health authority during earlier periods [1] [2].
2. What public reporting does — and does not — provide on shares and percentages
CBP and DHS releases emphasize trends in total encounters and changes year‑over‑year but do not publish a one‑line percentage decomposition that answers “what percent of detected entries were encounters vs. inadmissibles vs. undetected crossings.” CBP’s portals and the Nationwide/Southwest dashboards document encounter counts and note the components of that count but stop short of producing a single percent split combining those categories with an estimate of undetected crossings [1] [2]. DHS fact sheets report percent changes in encounters and in estimates of “gotaways” (undetected crossings) over time — for example, claiming roughly a 60% decrease in estimated gotaways from FY2023 to FY2024 — but that is a trend statement, not a simultaneous percentage-of-total breakdown for a given period [3].
3. The government’s estimates of “gotaways” (undetected crossings): trend claims, not a direct share
DHS has publicized estimates of “gotaways” and reported large percentage declines across selected periods — e.g., an estimated ~60% decrease in migrant gotaways from FY2023 to FY2024 — but that figure is presented as a change over time, not as “X% of detected entries were undetected” in any single snapshot [3]. Migration Policy Institute and other analysts use CBP encounter data to show directional trends (sharp declines after mid‑2024 policies and increased Mexican enforcement), but they rely on encounter counts and do not convert DHS’s separate gotaway estimates into a standardized share of total attempted crossings in a way that the sources directly present [4] [3].
4. Why a clean percentage split is analytically difficult
Combining sources to compute a single percentage breakdown is complicated by differing denominators and definitions in the public data: CBP’s “encounters” already include inadmissibles at ports (OFO) alongside apprehensions between ports (USBP) [1] [2]; DHS’s “gotaways” are an estimated count of undetected entrants, not a reliable companion statistic published with the same frequency or methodology as encounters [3]. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics and BTS‑style port counts measure lawful inbound crossings (ports of entry) and thus are not comparable to USBP encounter metrics used for irregular migration [5] [6].
5. Competing narratives in public releases — what to watch for
DHS and CBP releases emphasize steep percentage declines in encounters and gotaways following policy and enforcement changes, framing that as evidence of increased control [3]. Independent analysts (e.g., Migration Policy) attribute much of the decline to a mix of U.S. policy and stepped‑up Mexican enforcement and caution that trends reflect both operational deterrence and shifting migration routes — an alternative explanation the government materials also acknowledge in part [4] [3].
6. Bottom line for your original query
If you seek “what percentage of detected entries were encounters, inadmissible entries, or estimated undetected crossings?” the documents provided do not publish a single, reconciled percentage breakdown across those three categories for a specific period; CBP shows that encounters include both USBP apprehensions and OFO inadmissibles [1] [2], and DHS reports percent changes in gotaways over time [3], but a consolidated percent‑of‑total decomposition is not provided in these sources — available sources do not mention that consolidated breakdown [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied documents; further numeric decomposition would require raw monthly counts from CBP’s public data portal plus DHS methodology details about gotaway estimates that are not combined into a single published table in the sources above [1] [2] [3].