Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: June 2024


Mary Trump slammed her uncle, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, as the “death candidate” in a blistering new edition of her newsletter, “The Good In Us.”

The former president’s niece noted the irony of the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the Donald Trump-era ban on bump stocks and her uncle’s response that he actually “respected” the decision. Trump has taken the opposite approach with recent legal judgments against him, from his hush money trial conviction to the fines he has been slapped with in civil fraud and defamation cases.

Oh, and she also called out his subsequent boast about being endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

The court’s decision “horrified” Mary Trump, she said. But it also made “so clear what the election in November is all about: life or death” and that her uncle is “the death candidate,” she added.

The ex-POTUS’ ambivalence to gun violence and his kowtowing to the gun lobby wasn’t the only reason for slapping him with the scathing moniker, though, she said.

His “incompetence and malicious inaction” during the coronavirus pandemic, essential killing of the GOP and risking of lives with his stance against abortion rights, denial of the climate crisis and calls for violence are all added reasons for the nickname, she argued.

“The harsh reality is that Donald is a serious national security threat to the American people. This is a life-or-death election,” Mary Trump concluded the newsletter. “And my uncle is the death candidate. Let’s choose life, shall we?”


(Robert Bork is a failed nominee for the high court under Pres. Reagan)

ROBERT REICH
SEP 12

Friends,

One of the most important initiatives of the Biden administration is its attack on corporate monopolies.

Today, the Justice Department’s case against Google goes to trial. The Department alleges that Google illegally abused its power over online search to throttle competition. It is the government’s first monopoly trial of the modern internet era.

Later this month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will file its lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that Amazon favors its own products over competitors’ on its platforms and uses predatory tactics with outside sellers on Amazon.com.

Whether it’s Ticketmaster and Live Nation consolidating control over live performances, Kroger and Albertsons dominating the grocery market, or Amazon and Google scooping up every operation in sight, corporate concentration is on the rise.

Over the past several decades, giant corporations have come to dominate most American industries, as this chart shows:

[Source: “100 Years of Rising Corporate Concentration” by Spencer Y. Kwon, Yueran Ma, Kaspar Zimmermann]

The social costs of corporate concentration are growing.

— The typical American household is paying more than $5,000 a year because corporations can raise their prices without fear that competitors will draw away consumers.

— Such corporate market power has also been a major force driving inflation.

— Huge corporations also suppress wages, because workers have fewer employers from whom to get better jobs.

— And corporate giants are also fueling massive flows of big money into politics (one of the major advantages of large size).

Yet the federal courts have been reluctant to do anything about this and are pushing back against the Biden administration’s efforts. Why? Because of a man named Robert Bork.

Let me explain.

I first met Bork in September 1971, when I took his class on antitrust at Yale Law School. I recall him as a large, imposing man, with a red beard and a perpetual scowl.

He was only in his mid-40s then, but he seemed impatient and bored with us (also in that class were Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton).

We kept challenging his view that the only legitimate purpose of antitrust law was to lower consumer prices.

“What about the political power of giant corporations?” we asked.

His retort: “How do you expect courts to measure political power?”

“But what about the power of big corporations to suppress wages?”

“Employees are always free to find better jobs.”

“What about their power to undercut potential rivals with lower prices?”

“Lower prices are good for consumers.”

“What about the sheer power that comes from their gigantic size?”

“Also good for consumers. Large size means lower costs through efficiencies of scale.”

Bork had an answer to each of our objections, but we were never satisfied. He spouted economic theory based on dubious “Chicago School” assumptions that all economic players have perfect information and face no cost of entering or leaving markets (Bork had attended the University of Chicago and its law school).

Even in our mid-20s, we knew this was bullshit.

Bork refused to recognize power — even though antitrust laws emerged from the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, when a central concern was the untrammeled power of giant corporations.

A few years later, Bork wrote a book called The Antitrust Paradox that summarized his ideas. The staff of a conservative California governor bound for the White House read it and passed it along to their boss, and Bork’s book formed a basic tenet of Reaganomics.

Federal judges read it, too. Most judges didn’t (and still don’t) know much economics and hated getting bogged down in interminable and almost incomprehensible antitrust trials that could last for years. They found Bork’s simplicity and cogency helpful in limiting such lawsuits.

BORK’S INFLUENCE over the courts represented the culmination of years of work by the monied interests to kill off antitrust law. They’re still at it.

Which is why the new view of antitrust now being pioneered by the Biden administration through the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department is so important.

This new view regards corporate concentration as a problem even if it provides economies of scale that might allow lower consumer prices in the short term. That’s because corporate concentration also means less innovation, more wage suppression, predatory behavior, price-push inflation, and increased political power.

Besides their lawsuits against Google and Amazon, the FTC and the Justice Department have proposed new merger guidelines to keep monopolies in check. Not surprisingly, giant corporations are doing whatever they can to stop these new protections from taking effect.

The optimist in me thinks that as the public becomes more aware of the close connections among corporate power, predation, inflation, wage suppression, and political corruption, the new antitrust movement will eventually succeed.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Share


Engagement is empowerment! In order to feel empowered is to dig through the obvious trash and look back a bit at what has occurred. Each administration benefits from the work of the previous one (sometimes). When the time to elect a Head of state arrives look at history and understand what was done and the effect it has now. All work done is not grandiose, fully 90% is done by routine daily work. Sensationalism is to benefit the larger public many of whom want instant action, but Government does not work that fast sine what they do affects millions not just a few. Following the crowd is not the way to change government, voting with intelligence is!



Worse than inflation: Let’s remember Trump’s real record in office

Anyone who looks back on the Trump years as a golden time when things were so much better isn’t remembering reality

By HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Columnist

PUBLISHED JUNE 7, 2024 9:48AM (EDT)

Public opinion polls about the current presidential race are mystifying in a lot of ways. How can it be that the twice impeached, convicted felon Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party again? As inexplicable as it is to many of us, I think after eight years we have to accept that almost half the country is beguiled by the man while the other half looks on in abject horror and carry on from there. But as much as we may be dismayed by this adoration and fealty to Trump the man, it’s still maddening that so many voters — including even Democrats — insist that everything was so much better when Donald Trump was president. I can’t believe that people have forgotten what it was really like. By almost any measure it was an epic sh**show. 

One obvious explanation is that Trump lies relentlessly about his record. So after a while people start to believe him. According to Trump, we had unprecedented prosperity, the greatest foreign policy, the safest, the cleanest, the most peaceful world in human history and it immediately turned into a toxic dystopia upon his departure from the White House. 

What people think they miss about the Trump years was the allegedly great pre-pandemic economy and the world peace that he brought through the sheer force of his magnetic personality.

The reality, of course, was far different.

From the day after the election, Trump’s presidential tenure was a non-stop scandal. Even in the early days of the transition, there were substantial and well-founded charges of corruption, nepotism and collusion with foreign adversaries. There was the early firing of Trump’s national security advisor, the subsequent firing of the FBI director and eventually the appointment of a special counsel. He did manage to set a record while in the White House: the highest number of staff and cabinet turnovers in history, 85%. Some were forced out due to their unscrupulous behavior, others quit or were fired after they refused to carry out unethical or illegal orders ordered by the president. This continued throughout the term until the very last days of his presidency when a handful of Cabinet members, including the attorney general, resigned over Trump’s Big Lie and refusal to accept his loss. 

Yes, those were really good times. Let’s sign on for another four years of chaos, corruption and criminality.

Don’t let MAGA theatrics fool you: Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions are not helping him

But, let’s face facts. What people think they miss about the Trump years was the allegedly great pre-pandemic economy and the world peace that he brought through the sheer force of his magnetic personality. None of that is remotely true. The Trump economy was the tail end of the longest expansion in history begun under President Barack Obama and the low interest rates that went with it. Nothing Trump did added to it and he never lived up to even his own hype:

Trump assured the public in 2017 that the U.S. economy with his tax cuts would grow at “3%,” but he added, “I think it could go to 4, 5, and maybe even 6%, ultimately.”If the 2020 pandemic is excluded, growth after inflation averaged 2.67% under Trump, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Include the pandemic-induced recession and that average drops to an anemic 1.45%. By contrast, growth during the second term of then-President Barack Obama averaged 2.33%. So far under Biden, annual growth is averaging 3.4%.

Inflation started its rise at the beginning of the pandemic (Trump’s last year) and continued to rise sharply in the first year of the Biden administration before it started to come back down. The reasons are complex but the fact that it was lower under Trump is simply a matter of timing. Trump’s economy was good but it wasn’t great even before the pandemic. He had higher unemployment than we have now, he blew out the deficit with his tax cuts and his tariffs accomplished zilch. Sure, the stock market was roaring but it’s even higher now.

Unlike Trump, who simply rode an already good economy, Biden started out with the massive crisis Trump left him and managed to dig out from under it in record time. No other country in the world has recovered as quickly and had Trump won re-election there’s little evidence in his record that he could have done the same. All he knows is tariffs and and tax cuts and he’s promising more of the same. 

On the world stage, he was a disaster. From his ill-treatment of allies to his sucking up to dictators from Kim Jong Un to Vladimir Putin, everything Trump did internationally was wrong. He was impeached for blackmailing the leader of Ukraine to get him dirt on Joe Biden, for goodness sakes! Does that sound like a sound foreign policy decision? The reverberations of his ignorant posturing will be felt for a generation even if he doesn’t win another term.

And despite the alleged peacenik’s boast that he never had a war while he was president, it’s actually a lie. The US had troops in Afghanistan fighting throughout his entire term despite his promise to withdraw and there was a very ugly drone war carried out throughout his term. Trump bombed Syria and assassinated Iranian leaders and did all the things American presidents had been doing ever since 9/11. His only answer today to the vexing problems that are confronting Biden in Ukraine and Israel is to fatuously declare “it never would have happened” if he were president. On Gaza, Trump’s solution is “finish the problem” and I don’t think there’s any question about what he means by that. 

Trump’s labor record was abominable, his assaults on civil rights and civil liberties were horrific and he did nothing positive on health care. There was the Muslim ban, family separations, the grotesque response to the George Floyd protests and the rollback of hundreds of environmental regulations. And then there was January 6.


Trump, who called himself the greatest jobs president in history, was the first president since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression to depart office with fewer jobs in the country than when he entered. He can say that doesn’t count because of the pandemic but so much of that was his fault that it actually is. It was his crucible and he failed miserably.

His administration had disbanded the pandemic office and failed to replenish the stockpiles of medical supplies so we already started out ill-prepared. He denied the crisis at first, and we learned from Bob Woodward’s interview that he knew very well how deadly it was, he lied, he put his son-in-law and some college buddies in charge of logistics. He pushed snake oil cures and disparaged common sense public health measures because they threatened his desire for a quick economic revival despite the fact that Americans were dropping dead by the thousands every single day. And, as always, he blamed everyone else for his problems. COVID killed far more Americans than other peer nations and it was due to Trump’s failed leadership. 

For all these reasons, anyone who looks back on the Trump years as a golden time when everything was so much better isn’t remembering the reality of those four awful years. There are worse things in life than inflation. 

By HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Heather Digby Parton, also known as “Digby,” is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism.


Don’t let MAGA theatrics fool you: Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions are not helping him

Story by Amanda Marcotte

 • 3h • 6 min read

Many people mistake cynicism for savviness. So, of course, it took no time at all for some political pundits to rush forward to declare that Donald Trump’s historic 34 felony convictions would somehow “help” him. Republicans rushed to beat their chests and made loud threats that Democrats will rue these convictions, even though it was 12 randomly selected jurors in Manhattan, and not the Democratic Party, that convicted Trump. He falsely claimed that his “poll numbers have gone up substantially” since the verdict. (So far, it hasn’t moved the polls much, though it seems to have made some voters more hesitant to support Trump.) The campaign claimed a $53 million fundraising haul in the aftermath of the verdict, though this should be taken with a grain of salt, as they lie constantly. And, of course, Republicans ran towards every microphone is sight to feign outrage and declare that an upswell of once-skeptical Americans would now vote for Trump. Who knew there was a massive constituency of voters outraged that New York would enforce its laws against criminal conspiracies to defraud the public? 

Alas, the GOP theatrics appear to have scared some folks.

Failed presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., called on Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., to “pardon” Trump, claiming failure to do so is “[m]aking him a martyr” and “energizing his base.” Future failed presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — pretending still not to be on the right — insisted this will “backfire” on Democrats. (It cannot be stated enough that the Democratic Party did not convict Trump, a jury did.) But even some well-meaning liberals had a nearly superstitious reaction to the celebrations, worried that somehow Trump would find a way to turn this to his advantage. 

I don’t want to jinx things, but it seems highly unlikely that Trump will benefit from having “convicted felon” replace “former president” as his most recent title. It doesn’t mean Trump’s presidential bid is doomed, as the polls remain alarmingly tight. But the notion that Trump is going to find some fresh wellspring of support because he’s been proved a grubby little criminal by a jury of his peers? I’m not buying it. 

Related video: How Trump’s deny-everything strategy could hurt him at sentencing (The Associated Press)

he was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records

Loaded: 19.85%

Play

Current Time 0:04

/

Duration 2:00

Quality Settings

Captions

Fullscreen

The Associated Press

How Trump’s deny-everything strategy could hurt him at sentencing

Unmute

0

View on Watch

Even Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, who tends to be the voice of the Democratic skittishness, had to admit that the MAGA hollering over the Trump conviction has failed to intimidate. He points out that Republicans are always claiming Democrats are forcing them to support an odious policy or candidate. Even 24 years ago, Republicans argued they had no choice but to vote for George W. Bush because Bill Clinton lied about an extramarital affair. Now, of course, they are “forced” to vote for Trump, which they definitely weren’t going to do before, in defense of candidates breaking the law to cover up sexual misdeeds. “Next thing you know, Trump is going to be so angry about his conviction that he will resort to attempting to overturn an election result,” Chait joked. It’s ironic because Chait was one of the loudest quisling voices freaking out over hypothetical backlash when District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump on these charges in April 2023. So that even he’s not scared of Republican threats says a lot.

But ultimately, it comes down to this: If getting convicted of crimes is so goshdarned awesome for Trump, then why are his allies doing everything in their power to delay Trump’s other criminal trials? If a guilty verdict is such a boon to Trump, you’d think the six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court would be eager for the January 6 trial, instead of dragging their feet on releasing a decision on presidential immunity that will likely push the trial until after the election. If Judge Aileen Cannon believed a conviction would boost the man who appointed her to the federal bench, you can bet the classified documents trial would have happened already. Instead, she’s indefinitely delayed it. If felonies give Trump such an edge in the polls, Republicans in Georgia would be rushing forward with the RICO case there, instead of filing frivolous motions against District Attorney Fani Willis to keep the case from trial. 

Certainly, the post-conviction Reuters poll showed 35% of Republican voters saying the verdict makes them more likely to vote for Trump, but that’s a number roughly no one is taking seriously. Those are quite obviously people whose political motives are defined entirely by resentment of liberals and feelings of entitlement, i.e. folks who were going to vote for Trump anyway. What’s more interesting is the 10% of Republicans who say they are less likely to vote for Trump now. Conservative media has been downplaying these charges for over a year now, so it’s possible many of these voters are only now just realizing these were serious crimes indeed. 

What all this discourse about “the base” is missing is that it’s not just Trump who has a base of supporters to motivate. Trump hasn’t actually risen in the polls. It’s just that President Joe Biden’s support has eroded. It’s not entirely clear why so many people who voted for Biden in 2020 are unhappy. They keep saying “the economy,” even though unemployment is at record lows and inflation has dropped back down to low rates. I agree with Heather “Digby” Parton, however, that the actual reason is the general bad vibes caused by Trump’s continuing presence on the political scene. “For all of Biden’s successes, he couldn’t put an end to the single biggest problem we face,” she writes. Biden, although it’s unfair, is paying the price for our Trump-caused psychological malaise. 

But that’s a reason to hope that Trump’s conviction might actually matter. It’s not a cure-all for the corruption and institutional failure that is wearing people down, to be sure. But it’s energizing to have proof that Trump is not invincible. Especially if Democrats can find the discipline to hammer the words “convicted felon” and “jury of his peers” home through brute repetition. It’s not just about reminding voters what a terrible man Trump is. Those phrases are a promise that the system can work, if people put their minds to it. It might actually help put a little pep in people’s steps, all the way to the polls. 

Certainly, Trump himself is not acting like a man who thinks things are going great for him. His post-conviction appearance at Trump Tower more closely resembled the ravings of an addled person screaming about demons on the subway than a press conference. Over the weekend, he gave an interview to Fox News that appears to have created a lot of headaches for their talented editing staff. 

As many have pointed out, the only way the Trump trial in Manhattan really benefitted him is by keeping him off the campaign trail. Whenever he speaks publicly, the lies and rants are startling, even to people who follow politics closely and are aware that Trump’s already low levels of coherence have fallen through the floor. Beyond just the rabid MAGA base, a lot of Trump’s polling support comes from people who just aren’t paying much attention, and have no idea what Trump is sounding like these days.

The prediction is that once some of these folks hear Trump’s word salad rage dumps, they might rethink their complacent acceptance of a grievance-addicted liar with 34 felony convictions. Certainly, if that theory has any juice, there’s reason to hope they’ll be alarmed, as the guilty verdicts increase the number of truly unhinged statements from Trump. He won’t have the Fox News editing staff around every day to protect him from himself. 


(note embedded video may not play-sorry about that, MA)


Story by Amanda Marcotte

 • 3h • 6 min read

Many people mistake cynicism for savviness. So, of course, it took no time at all for some political pundits to rush forward to declare that Donald Trump’s historic 34 felony convictions would somehow “help” him. Republicans rushed to beat their chests and made loud threats that Democrats will rue these convictions, even though it was 12 randomly selected jurors in Manhattan, and not the Democratic Party, that convicted Trump. He falsely claimed that his “poll numbers have gone up substantially” since the verdict. (So far, it hasn’t moved the polls much, though it seems to have made some voters more hesitant to support Trump.) The campaign claimed a $53 million fundraising haul in the aftermath of the verdict, though this should be taken with a grain of salt, as they lie constantly. And, of course, Republicans ran towards every microphone is sight to feign outrage and declare that an upswell of once-skeptical Americans would now vote for Trump. Who knew there was a massive constituency of voters outraged that New York would enforce its laws against criminal conspiracies to defraud the public? 

Alas, the GOP theatrics appear to have scared some folks.

Failed presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., called on Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., to “pardon” Trump, claiming failure to do so is “[m]aking him a martyr” and “energizing his base.” Future failed presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — pretending still not to be on the right — insisted this will “backfire” on Democrats. (It cannot be stated enough that the Democratic Party did not convict Trump, a jury did.) But even some well-meaning liberals had a nearly superstitious reaction to the celebrations, worried that somehow Trump would find a way to turn this to his advantage. 

I don’t want to jinx things, but it seems highly unlikely that Trump will benefit from having “convicted felon” replace “former president” as his most recent title. It doesn’t mean Trump’s presidential bid is doomed, as the polls remain alarmingly tight. But the notion that Trump is going to find some fresh wellspring of support because he’s been proved a grubby little criminal by a jury of his peers? I’m not buying it. 

Even Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, who tends to be the voice of the Democratic skittishness, had to admit that the MAGA hollering over the Trump conviction has failed to intimidate. He points out that Republicans are always claiming Democrats are forcing them to support an odious policy or candidate. Even 24 years ago, Republicans argued they had no choice but to vote for George W. Bush because Bill Clinton lied about an extramarital affair. Now, of course, they are “forced” to vote for Trump, which they definitely weren’t going to do before, in defense of candidates breaking the law to cover up sexual misdeeds. “Next thing you know, Trump is going to be so angry about his conviction that he will resort to attempting to overturn an election result,” Chait joked. It’s ironic because Chait was one of the loudest quisling voices freaking out over hypothetical backlash when District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump on these charges in April 2023. So that even he’s not scared of Republican threats says a lot.

But ultimately, it comes down to this: If getting convicted of crimes is so goshdarned awesome for Trump, then why are his allies doing everything in their power to delay Trump’s other criminal trials? If a guilty verdict is such a boon to Trump, you’d think the six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court would be eager for the January 6 trial, instead of dragging their feet on releasing a decision on presidential immunity that will likely push the trial until after the election. If Judge Aileen Cannon believed a conviction would boost the man who appointed her to the federal bench, you can bet the classified documents trial would have happened already. Instead, she’s indefinitely delayed it. If felonies give Trump such an edge in the polls, Republicans in Georgia would be rushing forward with the RICO case there, instead of filing frivolous motions against District Attorney Fani Willis to keep the case from trial. 

Certainly, the post-conviction Reuters poll showed 35% of Republican voters saying the verdict makes them more likely to vote for Trump, but that’s a number roughly no one is taking seriously. Those are quite obviously people whose political motives are defined entirely by resentment of liberals and feelings of entitlement, i.e. folks who were going to vote for Trump anyway. What’s more interesting is the 10% of Republicans who say they are less likely to vote for Trump now. Conservative media has been downplaying these charges for over a year now, so it’s possible many of these voters are only now just realizing these were serious crimes indeed. 

What all this discourse about “the base” is missing is that it’s not just Trump who has a base of supporters to motivate. Trump hasn’t actually risen in the polls. It’s just that President Joe Biden’s support has eroded. It’s not entirely clear why so many people who voted for Biden in 2020 are unhappy. They keep saying “the economy,” even though unemployment is at record lows and inflation has dropped back down to low rates. I agree with Heather “Digby” Parton, however, that the actual reason is the general bad vibes caused by Trump’s continuing presence on the political scene. “For all of Biden’s successes, he couldn’t put an end to the single biggest problem we face,” she writes. Biden, although it’s unfair, is paying the price for our Trump-caused psychological malaise. 

But that’s a reason to hope that Trump’s conviction might actually matter. It’s not a cure-all for the corruption and institutional failure that is wearing people down, to be sure. But it’s energizing to have proof that Trump is not invincible. Especially if Democrats can find the discipline to hammer the words “convicted felon” and “jury of his peers” home through brute repetition. It’s not just about reminding voters what a terrible man Trump is. Those phrases are a promise that the system can work, if people put their minds to it. It might actually help put a little pep in people’s steps, all the way to the polls. 

Certainly, Trump himself is not acting like a man who thinks things are going great for him. His post-conviction appearance at Trump Tower more closely resembled the ravings of an addled person screaming about demons on the subway than a press conference. Over the weekend, he gave an interview to Fox News that appears to have created a lot of headaches for their talented editing staff. 

As many have pointed out, the only way the Trump trial in Manhattan really benefitted him is by keeping him off the campaign trail. Whenever he speaks publicly, the lies and rants are startling, even to people who follow politics closely and are aware that Trump’s already low levels of coherence have fallen through the floor. Beyond just the rabid MAGA base, a lot of Trump’s polling support comes from people who just aren’t paying much attention, and have no idea what Trump is sounding like these days.

The prediction is that once some of these folks hear Trump’s word salad rage dumps, they might rethink their complacent acceptance of a grievance-addicted liar with 34 felony convictions. Certainly, if that theory has any juice, there’s reason to hope they’ll be alarmed, as the guilty verdicts increase the number of truly unhinged statements from Trump. He won’t have the Fox News editing staff around every day to protect him from himself. 


The Border Process

We reached out to the Migration Policy Institute to ask what happens to migrants who arrive at the southern border without authorization to enter the U.S. “The short answer is, it depends,” Putzel-Kavanaugh told us.

We’ll start with migrants apprehended while trying to cross between ports of entry.

In the last several years, Putzel-Kavanaugh said, typically migrants will go into U.S. territory and then wait to be apprehended, with the intention of asking for asylum. They are taken to a processing center – “large, tent-like structures” – for 24 to 72 hours to answer questions and provide biometric information.

“While in custody,” she said, “they’re processed, so to speak … the appropriate disposition will be given to them.” Migrants could be released with a notice to appear in immigration court, processed for expedited removal or asked if they want to be returned to Mexico.

For expedited removal, the U.S. would have to have a relationship with the migrant’s country of origin and space on a repatriation flight. ICE would need capacity to hold migrants pending removal.

In fiscal year 2023, 46% of encounters were migrants from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that regularly accept repatriation of their citizens. Venezuelans made up 10.7% of encounters. The U.S. announced in October that Venezuela agreed to accept repatriations of its citizens, but in January, the country halted those flights.

For families, “Border Patrol doesn’t want to keep children in custody for very long,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said. Families are “likely to be released quickly with an NTA [notice to appear] to appear in immigration court.”

What happens for border crossers “depends on the day, depends on how many people Border Patrol is processing” and depends on the type of people coming in, such as whether they are traveling as a family. Criminal record checks are conducted, including screenings for prior immigration charges and whether someone is on a terrorist watchlist.

Glossary of Immigration Enforcement Terms

The process at legal ports of entry is different. Most migrants without authorization to enter the U.S. who are processed at ports of entry have appointments through CBP One — an app that in January 2023 began accepting appointments for a limited number of migrants who are in Mexico and want to request asylum or parole. DHS calls this “safer, humane, and more orderly” than processing between ports of entry, where migrants cross the border illegally and wait to be apprehended. Migrants with CBP One appointments get a similar screening and could be subject to expedited removal, but the majority are released into the U.S. with a notice to appear in immigration court, Putzel-Kavanaugh said.

With CBP One, border officers already have a lot of information about the person, including contact information and a photo. But appointments are capped at 1,450 per day. For calendar year 2023, 413,300 people scheduled such appointments, CBP says.

So, those who are released into the U.S. are generally saying they have a fear of returning to their home countries and want to apply for asylum, and releases are especially likely if it involves a family.

The capacity of Border Patrol and ICE facilities is also an issue, with detention reserved “for people who are really presenting a national security threat,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said.

There’s also a humanitarian parole program for people fleeing Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, who can potentially stay in the U.S. for two years if they have a sponsor who applies for the program. Through the end of last year, 327,000 people have been granted parole under the program, which launched in October 2022 for Venezuelans and expanded to the other nationalities in January 2023. There are 30,000 slots per month available.

Unaccompanied children are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for children who cross the border on their own.

“It’s this giant puzzle of different agencies … that have to work together,” Putzel-Kavanaugh told us.

For a visualization of the process, the American Immigration Council referred us to a New York Times infographic it helped the newspaper create on what happens to those coming to the border.

Those seeking asylum must prove “that they meet the definition of a refugee,” the American Immigration Council explains in a fact sheet updated in January. “In order to be granted asylum, an individual is required to provide evidence demonstrating either that they have suffered persecution on account of a protected ground in the past, and/or that they have a ‘well-founded fear’ of future persecution in their home country.”

Because of a backlog of cases, asylum seekers can spend years waiting for a court date. As we explained in a story last month, less than 15% of those seeking asylum were ultimately granted it in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, according to Justice Department statistics. But it is taking four to five years for asylum cases to get to court.

The immigration court backlog was 3 million cases in November, a record, according to a December report from TRAC, a nonpartisan research center at Syracuse University.

Border Statistics

As we said, there were 6.5 million encounters at the southern border from February 2021 through October, including a little more than 700,000 migrants who arrived without legal documentation at ports of entry. That’s according to DHS’ Office of Homeland Security Statistics.

About 2.5 million people through October have been released into the U.S. That figure includes 2 million released by Border Patrol, with a notice to appear in court or a notice to report to ICE, or released through prosecutorial discretion or granted parole, which allows people into the country for a temporary period. The 2.5 million number also includes nearly 534,000 paroles processed at legal ports of entry.

In addition to those releases, nearly 367,000 migrants have been transferred to HHS, which is responsible for children who cross the border on their own, unaccompanied by adult family members or legal guardians.

Another 771,000 were transferred to ICE, a figure that includes those subsequently booked into ICE custody, enrolled in “alternatives to detention” (which include technological monitoring and other case management options) or released by ICE.

Of those arriving at the southern border during Biden’s presidency, 2.8 million were removed or returned directly from CBP custody through October, the vast majority of them under the Title 42 public health law during the pandemic. Total DHS repatriations were 3.7 million, which includes removals by ICE.

Under Title 42, the U.S. immediately expelled people encountered at the border, except for unaccompanied children, without giving them an opportunity to apply for asylum — and without imposing criminal penalties. Now that Title 42 has ended, there are fewer expulsions overall, but the number removed from CBP custody under Title 8 has increased. Title 8 laws are the longstanding immigration laws that dictate what can happen to migrants entering illegally and who is inadmissible. Title 8 removals are subject to criminal penalties, including a five-year ban on entering the U.S. again.

In addition to fewer expulsions since the end of Title 42, there is evidence of a decline in the rate and number of gotaways, according to David J. Bier, the associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Since Title 42 was terminated, successful evasions of Border Patrol have declined 79 percent to a daily average of about 500, or 15,500 per month, in January 2024,” Bier wrote, using monthly estimates reported by media outlets.

The gotaway figures can be estimated through observation – such as electronic surveillance of the border – or statistical modeling. “Gotaway data have become more reliable over the past decade because border surveillance has increased dramatically from 2005 to 2023,” Bier wrote.

As we said, some Republicans have claimed that 85% of migrants are being allowed into the country under Biden, citing remarks attributed to DHS Secretary Mayorkas by the Border Patrol Union. (Publicly, Mayorkas said at the time that “the majority of all southwest border migrant encounters throughout this administration have been removed, returned, or expelled.”) But overall under Biden, through October, 35% of those apprehended at the border have been released to await further immigration processing.

Recent Customs and Border Protection figures of those trying to enter the country between ports of entry come close to that 85% number for December, when 77% of the nearly 250,000 apprehensions by Border Patrol were released with a notice to appear in court. But the monthly figures vary. In January, 57% were released with a notice to appear. From June, the first full month after Title 42 ended, through January, 64% of Border Patrol apprehensions were released.

Again, these initial dispositions don’t indicate what ultimately happens.

DHS also publishes lifecycle reports on what happens to migrants over time — since asylum cases and deportation proceedings can take years. The most recent report is for fiscal 2021, which covers less than a year of Biden’s time in office. The latest report shows that cases can be pending for quite some time. It says that 28% of all border encounters from fiscal 2013 to 2021 were still being processed.

Bier calculated release and removal rates for the last two years of former President Donald Trump’s term and the first 26 months of Biden’s, using DHS data, including the lifecycle report, ICE detention statistics and other figures published by the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee. Bier wrote in November that his work showed the Biden administration “has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden.”

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier’s estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

“These numbers highlight how difficult it was even for the most determined administration in US history to expel everyone who enters illegally,” Bier wrote.


Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.