Why are there illegal entries into the US?

1. The immediate drivers people cite for risking an illegal crossing

Many migrants who attempt unauthorized entry cite threats, economic collapse, or family reunification as reasons to leave their countries, and federal messaging acknowledges the desperation and danger of the journey even while warning against illegal crossings; DHS explicitly warns migrants that smugglers, cartels and other bad actors prey on the vulnerable during the trip, underscoring the hazardous motivations behind attempts to cross outside ports of entry ^[1].

2. Enforcement, policy and deterrence shape flows — but not always predictably

Agency data and administration statements show enforcement posture and new rules can reduce crossings: CBP and DHS reported sharp declines in encounters under recent policy changes and aggressive operations, citing record-low monthly encounters and months with zero Border Patrol releases as evidence of tightened control ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Yet independent fact-checking underlines that short-term drops can be temporary and that comparisons across administrations or timeframes are often misleading without context, indicating policy is a powerful but imperfect lever ^[7].

3. Smugglers, repeat attempts and the mechanics of clandestine movement

Smuggling networks and the operational reality of “recidivism” — individuals attempting to cross more than once — affect counts and behavior at the border; a Congressional Research Service analysis highlighted that policies like Title 42 (March 2020–May 2023) influenced repeat crossing rates because it made expulsions easier without necessarily deterring subsequent attempts, complicating both enforcement and the ability to count unique individuals ^[3].

4. Data limitations: encounters are not the same as total crossings

Government encounter numbers are useful but incomplete indicators: CBP clarifies its statistics capture apprehensions, inadmissibles and expulsions, and notes categories such as “at large” for those who evade capture or overstay, while external analysts warn the true number of illegal crossings is unknowable because successful clandestine crossings leave no trace ^{[8] [9] [2]}.

5. Political narratives amplify incentives and obscure causes

Different political actors frame the phenomenon to advance policy goals: the White House and DHS release dramatic claims about drops in specific channels like the Darien Gap or months of historic lows to tout effectiveness ^{[10] [11]}, while congressional committees and watchdogs emphasize large totals and systemic strain to press for more enforcement or legislative change ^[12]. Fact-checkers caution that both sides sometimes use selective comparisons or framing that obscure underlying trends ^[7].

6. International cooperation and logistical capacity matter

DHS documents and press releases describe partnerships, repatriation programs, and enhanced maritime deployments intended to disrupt routes and increase removals, signaling that bilateral and multilateral logistics — not just U.S. border posture — influence illegal entry dynamics by changing access and return pathways ^{[13] [11]}.

7. What reporting cannot confidently tell readers

Available sources explain enforcement actions, declines in recorded encounters, and the role of smugglers, but they do not provide a full accounting of individual motives across millions of cases or a precise count of undetected crossings; where reporting lacks private testimony, independent field studies, or comprehensive international socioeconomic data, definitive causal claims beyond the documented policy effects would exceed the evidence in these sources ^{[2] [3]}.