How do encounter totals compare to estimates of unique individuals and illegal entries (repeat encounters) for 2021–2024?

1. Why the headline totals mislead: repeated crossings and expulsions inflate counts

Border “encounters” are operational events, not unique-person counts; CBP encounter totals therefore combine first-time apprehensions, repeat apprehensions, port-of-entry denials, expulsions under Title 42, and removals, producing a higher headline number than the number of different people involved. CBP reported nearly 11 million encounters from October 2019 through June 2024, but analysts note that a large share of those were repeat attempts—recidivism spiked to about 26–27% in FY2020–FY2021 and has trended down since Title 42 ended ^[3]. The distinction matters because some political claims add encounters plus gotaways and present them as unique migrants, which double-counts people who were apprehended multiple times or later removed ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Reconciling encounter totals with unique individuals and gotaways: ranges, not point estimates

Published analyses converge on ranges because of methodological differences: one synthesis reports 6.5 million encounters with about 2.5 million released and 2.8 million removed, plus an estimated 1.6 million gotaways, yielding roughly 4.2 million people who either entered or were released during the studied interval ^[1]. Other fact sheets that count broader timeframes list 8.7 million southwest encounters and over 10.8 million nationwide since 2021, with roughly 2 million known gotaways; these higher totals reflect different cutoffs and inclusion of port-of-entry encounters ^{[2] [4]}. The disparity underscores that unique-individual estimates require de-duplicated biometric tracking and credible gotaway estimates, both of which vary across reports.

3. The role of Title 42 and policy shifts in changing recidivism and encounter composition

Policy shifts shaped repeat-crossing behavior: analyses attribute elevated repeat apprehensions during the pandemic to Title 42 expulsions, which imposed no long-term reentry penalties and thereby encouraged multiple attempts, pushing recidivism into the mid-20s percentage range in FY2020–FY2021 ^[3]. After the May 2023 end of Title 42 and a return to Title 8 enforcement, penalties for reentry tightened, and reported recidivism rates generally declined—a structural reason why encounter totals can fall even if migration pressures remain ^[3]. Observers caution that CBP’s year-limited recidivism metric undercounts multi-year repeaters; GAO-style adjustments suggest true repeat-crossing rates may be materially higher than single-fiscal-year figures imply ^[5].

4. Methodological blind spots: gotaways, port-of-entry encounters, and data consistency

Estimates of “gotaways”—people who enter without being encountered—are necessarily indirect and range widely (estimates cited from about 660,000 in FY2021 to ~2 million across multiple years), affecting total unique-person estimates ^{[4] [1]}. Port-of-entry encounters (inspections and denials) account for a meaningful share of FY2024 encounters, complicating interpretations because many port encounters are lawful denials or repeat travelers, not illegal crossers ^[2]. CBP’s reporting conventions and differing temporal windows (fiscal vs. calendar year) produce inconsistent aggregates; analysts therefore present ranges rather than precise point estimates and emphasize that encounter totals should not be equated to unique migrants without de-duplication ^{[6] [7]}.

5. What to watch—and what political actors emphasize—going forward

Political claims that “8 million” or “10 million” people have crossed into the U.S. typically sum encounters and gotaways without accounting for removals or repeat apprehensions, producing a higher, misleading figure; major fact-check and congressional analyses warn against that aggregation ^{[1] [2]}. For policymakers and the public, the most useful metrics are de-duplicated unique-person counts, credible gotaway estimates, and the share released versus removed, because those drive on-the-ground resource needs and legal consequences. Analysts advise using recent CBP enforcement statistics alongside independent audits of recidivism methodology to refine estimates; absent standardization, expect continued variance across reports and room for partisan framing ^{[6] [5]}.