How did Title 42, Title 8 expulsions, and asylum policy changes affect encounter counts during Biden's terms?
Executive summary
Title 42 expulsions accounted for millions of rapid removals during the pandemic period and were a major component of the encounter totals early in Biden’s term; CBP and advocates report roughly 1–2.8 million expulsions or removals tied to Title 42 during the period it was used [1] [2]. After May 11, 2023, the U.S. formally shifted back to Title 8 processing and the administration layered new restrictions — a “circumvention” rule, parole programs, and a Presidential Proclamation with an Interim Final Rule — that together drove large shifts in where and how encounters were recorded and, according to DHS, helped cut encounters sharply in mid‑2024 [3] [4] [5].
1. Title 42 became the default sink for encounters early in Biden’s term
The public‑health order known as Title 42 let CBP expel many people immediately, blocking access to asylum and counting as “encounters” in CBP’s statistics; advocacy groups and legal trackers report that the U.S. carried out over a million Title 42 expulsions and potentially as many as 2.3–2.8 million during the Biden continuation of the policy through early 2023 [1] [6] [2]. CBP’s encounter reporting explicitly includes Title 42 expulsions alongside Title 8 apprehensions and inadmissibles, so when Title 42 was widely used it materially increased the total encounter tally [7].
2. Ending Title 42 changed the counting regime and the policy incentives
When the public‑health emergency ended on May 11, 2023, the government said it would return to Title 8 immigration law, which requires different intake procedures and asylum screenings; analysts warned that ending Title 42 would likely increase visible arrivals and “chaos” in the short term because people previously expelled under public‑health authority could seek asylum instead [3] [8]. Migration Policy and other observers note that the transition also created incentives for the administration to design alternative controls — parole programs, CBP One scheduling and a circumvention rule — to channel migrants away from irregular crossings and toward ports of entry, which changes where encounters get logged [9] [10].
3. New asylum‑eligibility limits and parole programs reoriented encounters toward ports of entry
The DHS–DOJ “circumvention of lawful pathways” rule and related proclamations made many who cross irregularly generally ineligible for asylum and raised the screening threshold, while creating parole and legal channels for select nationalities; federal materials say these measures were meant to deter irregular crossings and to move processing into ports of entry [4] [11] [12]. Migration Policy and the administration report that this produced a higher share of encounters at ports of entry (OFO inadmissibles) and increased use of CBP One appointments — shifting encounter composition even if overall volumes remained high [10] [7].
4. The encounter totals reflect policy choices, operational constraints and counting rules
CBP’s encounter figures mix multiple categories — USBP Title 8 apprehensions between ports of entry, OFO inadmissibles at ports of entry, and Title 42 expulsions when in effect — so policy changes that expand expulsions or move people to ports of entry change the headline numbers without necessarily signaling a proportional change in underlying migratory drivers [7]. FactCheck.org and other analysts note that releases, removals/expulsions and multiple attempts by the same people inflate encounter tallies; government summaries show millions removed or expelled and millions released during Biden’s term, underscoring that encounters are an imperfect proxy for unique arrivals [2].
5. Policy shifts produced measurable declines in some periods but raise attribution questions
DHS credited the June 2024 Presidential Proclamation and Interim Final Rule with sharp drops — a 29% month‑to‑month fall in Border Patrol encounters in June 2024 and broader claims of a 40–55% reduction in southwest border encounters in the weeks after implementation [5] [13]. Independent analysts caution attribution is complex: weather, Mexican cooperation, backlogs clearing, and the shift of processing to ports of entry all interact; Migration Policy notes that some reductions reflected negotiated Mexican enforcement and changes in how migrants were processed rather than a simple fall in willingness to migrate [14] [10].
6. Competing narratives: enforcement success vs. erosion of asylum access
DHS frames the post‑Title 42 rules as restoring Title 8 while imposing consequences that reduced encounters and increased removals [4] [13]. Immigration advocates and legal groups argue the continuation or expansion of expulsions and circumvention rules erode asylum access and produced millions of people turned away without asylum hearings, a human‑rights critique explicitly documented by advocacy reporting [15] [9]. Both perspectives are present in the record and both descriptions explain parts of the encounter data.
Limitations: Sources provided do not include disaggregated monthly unique‑individual counts that would definitively separate repeat crossings from new arrivals; available sources do not mention precise net migration figures distinct from CBP encounter totals (not found in current reporting).