How much do repeat crossings and expulsions affect public perceptions of immigration scale?
Executive summary
Repeat crossings and expulsions matter a lot to how the public perceives the scale of immigration because official “encounter” tallies often count the same person multiple times and because policy choices that enable expulsions amplify visible counts at the border, inflating impressions of mass inflow even when net migration falls [1] [2] [3]. That inflation interacts with partisan narratives and media coverage to produce outsized public concern in periods of high recidivism and to reduce concern when enforcement visibly suppresses encounters [4] [5] [6].
1. How the numbers are produced — and why that matters
The baseline data the public sees are CBP “encounters,” a category that blends Title 8 apprehensions, inadmissibles at ports, and Title 42 expulsions, and does not by itself distinguish unique individuals from repeat attempts, a technicality that can produce much higher headline counts than the number of distinct migrants involved [7] [1].
2. Repeat crossings are not a marginal effect — they can materially inflate totals
Research and agency commentary show recidivism rose sharply in the pandemic era, with the rate of multiple attempts per person nearly quadrupling compared with pre-pandemic levels, meaning encounter tallies in some years overstated unique arrivals by a substantial margin [2]; advocacy and policy groups have long warned that expelled or rapidly returned migrants often attempt re-entry, further multiplying recorded encounters [4].
3. Expulsions and policy choices change incentives and the visible scale
Policies that allow rapid expulsions or parole without long-term processing — from Title 42-era practices to changes in parole and detention — alter incentives for migrants and smugglers and therefore the number of recorded tries, while enforcement-heavy approaches that increase removals can reduce visible encounters even if sizable populations remain in the country or migrate through other routes [2] [8] [3].
4. The politics of the tally: how inflated counts feed public angst
When encounter numbers spike, analysts and partisan actors amplify those figures to argue for dramatic policy responses, and when encounters fall — as during enforcement push periods that reported record-low monthly crossings or zero releases — the political narrative shifts toward “success,” shaping public concern independent of longer-term migration or population trends [9] [6] [10].
5. Public opinion moves with the visible flow — and with political framing
Polling shows concern about immigration rose with surges in crossings and softened when high-profile enforcement reduced encounters; Gallup found the earlier surge generated heightened demand for strict enforcement, and that sharp drops in crossings corresponded with declining support for some hard-line measures [5]. Independent analyses and think tanks also show that reductions in detected crossings and changes in parole rules contributed materially to lower headline counts, which the public experienced as lower migration pressure [11] [8].
6. Bottom line — scale perception vs. underlying reality and the policy implications
Repeat crossings and expulsions substantially distort headline measures and therefore public perception: encounter tallies can overstate “how many people are coming” when recidivism is high, and conversely, visible enforcement that cuts encounters can create the impression migration has abated even when net flows, interior removals, or prior arrivals matter for population and services [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and policymaking should distinguish unique individuals and net migration from raw encounters to ground public debate in the actual scale and effects of migration; the available sources document the distortion but do not provide a single, comprehensive estimate of exactly how much public perception is shifted in numerical terms [1] [2].