Migrant Crossings at U.S.-Mexico Border Drop to Historic Lows in June

• Migrant crossings fall to record lows
• Trump touts border policy success
• Debate over multi-billion-dollar bill

Migrant crossings along the US Southwest border fell to just 6,070 in June, marking the lowest figure since record-keeping began.

This drop surpasses the previous low set in March, according to an announcement Wednesday from the administration of President Donald Trump.

The White House said in a statement that these “historic low apprehension numbers underscore the effectiveness” of Trump’s strict border security measures and aggressive deportation policies.

The 6,070 migrants detained in June represent a 15% drop compared to March, when 7,180 apprehensions were recorded.

Migrant Crossings Plummet

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) noted that on June 28, the Border Patrol recorded only 137 apprehensions across the entire southwest US-Mexico border—the lowest single-day total in 25 years.

Nationwide, Border Patrol apprehended 8,039 individuals at all borders, also marking a historic low.

For the second consecutive month, border authorities released none of the migrants they detained, including asylum seekers.

Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported the lowest number of nationwide encounters in its history, totaling 25,243.

It remains unclear whether those figures include arrests of migrants already residing illegally in the US.

“The numbers don’t lie: under President Trump’s leadership, DHS and CBP have shattered records and achieved the safest border in US history,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in a statement.

You may also like: ICE Tackles Protester Suffering Seizure During Demonstration

This announcement came amid heated legislative debate.

The data was released as the House of Representatives was voting on a new fiscal bill injecting billions of dollars into Trump’s border security project.

Specifically, the legislation allocates more than $64 billion for constructing the border wall between the US and Mexico.

An additional $70 billion is earmarked for migrant detention, including building and maintaining detention centers and transporting deportees.

The government plans to hire over 20,000 new agents for CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Trump administration insists these measures are necessary to ensure national security and decisively control irregular migration.

However, human rights organizations and pro-immigrant groups have criticized the approach for prioritizing mass detentions and rapid deportations.

Opponents warn of poor conditions in detention facilities and the impact on families and asylum seekers.

Meanwhile, the White House defends the results as a victory for its “zero tolerance” policy aimed at deterring future crossings.

The debate over migration at the southern border continues to polarize public opinion and remains a key issue on the political agenda heading into the elections.

Border Defense and Political Impact

June’s numbers provide Trump with fresh ammunition to reinforce his narrative of strong security and border control.

The federal government maintains that building the wall and expanding the border force are essential to keeping crossing numbers low.

DHS and CBP view the strategy as a success in managing migration.

However, activists and migrant advocates argue that more humane and comprehensive solutions are urgently needed.

The tension between security enforcement and human rights continues to shape the debate on US immigration policy.

The challenge for authorities will be to maintain these historically low figures without increasing rights violations or overburdening the immigration court and detention systems.

June’s data could significantly influence the tone of discussions in Congress and the presidential campaigns.

Immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues in US politics, and June’s figures reignite debate over the effectiveness and costs of border security measures.

What do you think about these border security measures: essential for national safety or excessively strict?

SOURCE: EFE