Addressing the ‘Crisis’ at the US-Mexico Border: Insights From El Paso and Ciudad Juárez

Access the Spanish version of this report via downloadable PDF.

A ‘Crisis Point’ for Two Cities

Nestled against the Franklin mountains on one side and bordered by Mexico on the other, El Paso, Texas, is, in many ways, the quintessential border city. Just across the Rio Grande lies its counterpart, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The two cities often appear to merge into one sprawling metropolis, separated only by an arbitrary international border. Despite their apparent fusion, El Paso — far more than Ciudad Juárez — has captured the attention of both national and international media, largely depicted as the center of the nation’s migration “crisis.” In September 2023, El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser claimed that the city was at “a breaking point.”[1] He argued that even with the help of its partner civil society organizations (CSOs), the city did not have the capacity to keep up with the continuous arrival of migrants and asylum seekers.[2]

The spotlight placed on El Paso comes at a pivotal political moment. State officials in Texas have repeatedly accused the Joe Biden administration of failing to secure the border, igniting jurisdictional turf wars and fueling partisan disputes. As the 2024 presidential election quickly approaches, many observers are speculating that the issue of migration could become a deciding factor, underscoring its importance for both major political parties.[3]

While migration is not as heavily politicized in Mexico, it is also a federal election year there. The extent to which a new Mexican president is willing to cooperate with the U.S. on deportation policy or border enforcement may profoundly impact the relationship between the two countries moving forward.

In this report, we use El Paso and Ciudad Juárez as case studies to illustrate the dynamics at the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing that the situation depicted in media and articulated by politicians lacks nuance and sidesteps possible solutions. The report draws from a series of in-person and virtual interviews as well as informational sessions.[4] In total we spoke with 14 individuals, including government officials and representatives from international organizations (IOs) and CSOs, all actively engaged in the reception and support of asylum seekers in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. Additionally, we visited both cities in January 2024 to conduct interviews and record fieldnotes in order to understand the existing protection architecture in place for asylum seekers.

It is important to note that we visited El Paso and Ciudad Juárez at a time of decreased strain on the region’s reception system. In January 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded only 124,220 encounters between ports of entry along the southwest border. Of these, 17,517 were in El Paso, a decrease of 50% from December 2023.[5] Interviewees in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez confirmed that the numbers were not as high during our visit as they had been previously. Nonetheless, interviewees were able to describe previous periods of heightened arrivals over the last two years and explained in detail how each period was managed and by which actors.

The Changing Landscape of Immigration Policy

From 2017 to 2021, the Donald Trump administration took unprecedented actions aimed at restricting the admission of asylum seekers, as well as regular and irregular migrants, into the United States. Trump’s tactics included implementing safe third-country agreements with sending and transit nations, which enabled the return of asylum seekers who entered the U.S. to a country through which they had previously transited. The administration also instigated the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), informally called the “Remain in Mexico” program, in early 2019, which required asylum seekers from Western Hemisphere countries to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings in the United States. The MPP forced approximately 60,000 asylum seekers back into Mexico during the administration’s tenure.[6]

Finally, and most notoriously, the Trump administration enacted the Title 42 ban in early 2020, coinciding with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ostensibly framed as a revived public health decree, the administration used Title 42 to prevent individuals from crossing the U.S. border to seek asylum, forcing them to remain in Mexico even though seeking asylum is a right protected under domestic and international law.[7]

Biden campaigned on a very different approach to migration and asylum compared to his predecessor. During his first few weeks in office in 2021, he released a slew of executive orders that revoked the safe third-country agreements and took steps toward ending the MPP. Yet while the Biden administration fought in court to end Title 42, it simultaneously added to the list of nationalities that could be expelled to Mexico under the ban in 2022. Once the ban was finally lifted in May 2023, CBP increasingly turned to Title 8 provisions to handle the growing numbers of asylum seekers. These provisions allow asylum seekers to enter the U.S. and file their claim, but those who fail to meet the stringent asylum requirements may face expedited deportation to their country of origin. Additionally, individuals who are deported and attempt reentry within a five-year period may be subject to criminal prosecution.[8]

The Biden administration also began requiring asylum seekers to use a new app called CBP One to apply for an appointment before crossing. Despite reported malfunctions with the app and too few available appointments, to this day, those who do not use the app and try to cross between ports of entry can be denied admission.[9]

Finally, the Biden administration proposed a new rule that echoes Trump’s safe third-country policies and is currently being battled out in court. Under this rule, any individual who did not first apply online or seek asylum in another country through which they transited on their way to the U.S. could be returned to that country to instead seek asylum there.

All of these changing U.S. policies have put immense strain on Mexico’s nascent asylum system as well as the Mexican organizations attempting to provide services and shelter to migrants who have been unable to successfully cross the U.S. border. As our previous research shows, Mexico has increasingly become a destination country for migrants and asylum seekers, sometimes by default as individuals have been unable to complete their intended journeys to the U.S.[10] According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Mexico received an unprecedented 127,796 asylum applications in 2023, which represents a 29% increase from 2022.[11]

Despite increased demand, the Comisión Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados (COMAR), the Mexican government agency that handles asylum, has not received adequate funding or been appropriately staffed to facilitate the prompt processing of claims or provide sufficient assistance to asylum seekers. Instead, the Mexican government has directed migration-related funding toward the Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM, “National Institute of Migration”), which takes a securitized approach to the issue, prioritizing enforcement and detention over service provision and integration efforts.[12]

Those who were forced to wait in northern Mexico as a result of policy changes under the Trump and Biden administrations over the last several years have faced homelessness, potential violence from cartel members (including gender-based violence), and an understaffed system of assistance.[13] Even with these risks to migrants and asylum seekers — as the next two sections detail — the situation on the Mexican side of the border is often eclipsed by the perceived “crisis” on the U.S. side.

The US Side: Is El Paso Really in a State of ‘Crisis’?

The entities and organizations involved in the reception of asylum seekers in El Paso are numerous, and the region has adapted its reception model over time. The number of asylum seekers arriving in the city has been on the rise since 2018, although there was a considerable drop in arrivals at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. As the pandemic subsided, the number of individuals crossing once again began to increase, with a more diverse demographic of individuals than ever before. Asylum seekers have been arriving primarily from Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba, with Venezuelans making up approximately 70% of arrivals over the last two years.[14]

The first post-pandemic period that felt difficult to manage, according to the director of one migrant shelter in downtown El Paso, was in late 2022.The individual recounted, “I do not recall the total number, but I do know that we were seeing numbers at or over capacity within our facilities. We had one evening here where you could not have walked in this room or down the hallway, where we should not have had more than 120 and we had 310.”[15]

The second large increase in arrivals was in May 2023, just prior to the lifting of Title 42. The same shelter director recalled, “We had close to 800 [individuals] camped out in the alley. We simply did not have the space to bring them in, and we weren’t alone. ... So, when you see media reports and they're estimating 2,500 on the streets, there’s truth to that number. We just had such a large number of individuals. ... We were successful in feeding everybody, three times a day, both inside and out, but we simply didn’t have the space to bring everybody in.”[16]

In the second half of 2022 and throughout 2023, the reception model began to change. In addition to the city of El Paso’s Office of Emergency Management, the county of El Paso stepped up their involvement. The county learned that the city of Brownsville, another Texas border city, had developed a government-run reception center for asylum seekers. After visiting Brownsville and learning how the reception center worked, El Paso County’s Office of New Americans decided to implement a similar model. As a direct result of the Brownsville trip, and with financial assistance from the federal government, the county established the Migrant Support Services Center (MSSC) in October 2022 and developed the operation throughout 2023.[17] By the time a third increase in arrivals occurred between September and November of 2023, and after a relocation of the MSSC to a larger location, the system was better equipped to handle a sudden rise in asylum seekers.

The MSSC is housed in a building rented out by the county in order to receive and process individuals released by CBP. Within the center, asylum seekers are given access to food and hygiene kits. After having their basic needs met, asylum seekers are registered by trained staff who attempt to find out what documents they possess and whether they have connections elsewhere in the U.S. The staff also watch out for indications of human trafficking, such as instances where individuals lack familiarity with their designated “sponsor” elsewhere in the country. While the county does not pay for an individual’s plane or bus ticket, MSSC staff can offer assistance in making necessary purchases or talking to family members who can buy tickets on the asylum seeker’s behalf.

The goal of the MSSC — and the broader shelter network — is to get individuals on a bus or plane or to a local shelter in El Paso by the time the center closes at 7 pm. As one interviewee emphasized, “We want them to continue traveling northward. I don’t think they travel through seven to 10 countries, including the Darien jungle, to end up here in El Paso in a shelter. I don’t think that’s what they envisioned when they left their country.”[18]

It is important to note that the MSSC, as well as the downtown shelter network, are only available to individuals who have been “encountered” by an entity under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including either the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or CBP. The county and the city of El Paso, as well as the downtown shelter organizations, receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and their guidelines state that all beneficiaries must have been processed before receiving services.

A shelter director in El Paso reflected, “I’ll be the first one to tell you that we, as a community, were not prepared for that large influx. I think we are today. I’m not saying that what we’re doing today is perfect, but the whole system has evolved as we have worked through it. ... The entity that stepped up, in my opinion, was the county of El Paso.”[19]

Prior to the county’s involvement, the reception system was informally facilitated by one prominent individual: Ruben Garcia, the director of a church-based shelter called Annunciation House. Garcia has been involved in providing services to migrants and asylum seekers for more than 40 years. At the request of U.S. immigration authorities, he established the informal reception system in 2014.[20] Even after the county opened the MSSC, Garcia has continued to be at the center of coordination between federal government agencies, local government, and CSOs. When CBP releases processed asylum seekers from its facilities each morning, the agency calls Garcia to alert him how many individuals will be let out. Garcia then informs CBP how many he can accept within his network of at least 15 religiously-affiliated shelters, and the remainder are either transported to the MSSC or to the “downtown” shelter network run by both religious and civic organizations.

One interviewee explained that “it took quite a few years to get to the place … where most of the agents know to call Ruben.”[21] Since migrants are sometimes released by the CBP and other times released by ICE, these agencies were not always aware that there were shelters available to receive them.

As an individual involved in the reception network explained, “CBP gets in touch with Ruben Garcia, who then coordinates with MSSC. If Annunciation House has space, they will take all the families that are being released from CBP custody, and MSSC will take all the single adults. If individuals are not leaving that day — people who are not flying out, getting on a bus, or going to hotels — then the individuals that are still at the MSSC will go to the downtown shelter network.”[22]

In order to keep abreast of developments and to ensure that the informal network is running smoothly, representatives from the city, county, downtown shelter network, and the shelter network led by Annunciation House all attend biweekly meetings. The central goal of this coordination is to prevent any asylum seeker or migrant from having to sleep on the street. This mitigates potential risks to both individuals or families seeking asylum and prevents backlash from the broader El Paso community that might be alarmed to see large numbers of unhoused people on its streets.

According to a government official, during a period of increased arrivals from August to October, 2023, El Paso was the only city along the border that did not experience “street releases” — instances where asylum seekers are released from CBP or ICE without accommodation.[23] This was the result of “Our mayor working with our county judge, working with pretty much all of our elected officials; we worked collaboratively to prevent anyone from being released directly to the streets.”[24]

Preventing street releases requires a trusting relationship and a great deal of communication between federal government operations, local government actors, and CSOs. Even when a shelter is filled with hundreds of newly arrived migrants, one director emphasized that this does not constitute a crisis. Instead, it is simply a situation that requires more collaboration with other shelters, the county, and the city in order to accommodate everyone. The same director noted, “No sudden increase in individuals is lasting; it’s just a matter of coordinating to get everyone temporarily housed and then to help them leave El Paso.”[25]

The system does not always work perfectly. One interviewee expressed their frustration with CBP, explaining that the agency’s system for releasing people has been inconsistent and does not always work to prevent the shelters from temporarily reaching capacity.[26] The MSSC and shelter system can typically distribute and process hundreds of individuals each day, but once the numbers climb above 600, the system can be overwhelmed. The interviewee elaborated, “If [CBP] sees that numbers are going up, [they] know we’re here as a resource. ... Again, things have gotten better, but there were two to three times when I was like ... we could have prevented that.”

Coordinating to help individuals leave El Paso is also critical. Working with CSOs, El Paso County charters buses to assist asylum seekers in traveling to Houston, where they can then access flights to reunite with family or friends in other parts of the country. This not only helps reduce the cost of travel for individuals, but also streamlines the process of onward travel. As the director of one shelter explained, “It’s very expensive buying airplane tickets out of El Paso. ... Tickets to New York are like $500. But if you buy them from Houston, which is a hub, you can get them for $200 or less. So, the county charters these buses, and they go to the Houston airport. But everyone on that bus must have a ticket to their final destination already purchased. They leave here on Tuesday, [and] they get there Wednesday morning. Catholic Charities receive them at the airports to make sure everybody gets on their flights in the afternoon.”[27]

Importantly, the county’s buses are different from those chartered by the state of Texas as part of Operation Lone Star, launched by Gov. Greg Abbott in March 2021. Under this program, Abbott charters buses to relocate migrants and asylum seekers from Texas to other states, particularly those with “sanctuary cities” including New York, Chicago, and Denver.[28] Although this was allegedly done to relieve overwhelmed border towns in Texas, many observers have since recognized this as a political stunt rather than a means to productively redistribute responsibility for asylum seekers.[29]

Interviewees in El Paso did not look highly on the governor’s program, viewing it as disruptive to their well-orchestrated reception system. Although the system in El Paso also charters buses to move individuals from Texas to other states, it does so in a coordinated and humane manner. A primary concern with Operation Lone Star is that it moves individuals to locations where they might not have any connections. Additionally, multiple interviewees alleged that asylum seekers entering the U.S. using the CBP One app had not been allowed to board the Operation Lone Star buses. Interviewees suspected that this is because people entering via CBP One, as opposed to between ports of entry, do not fit with Abbott’s narrative of a porous, uncontrolled border.

CSO employees in El Paso sympathized with asylum seekers who might want to take advantage of a free mode of transport. One shelter director commented, “The reality is, if you’ve been traveling for months and you're going to New York and someone says ‘Hey, here's a free ticket to New York,’ you’re going to get on the bus.”[30]

But the director also noted that it is important to explain to asylum seekers that they may end up in a difficult situation if they board the Operation Lone Star buses, stating, “If you get on these buses, you may end up in front of a shelter that doesn’t know you're coming, a church that’s closed, or even in front of a politician’s house. But I feel it is my responsibility to let you know what options are available to you for travel.” Ultimately, the director acknowledged, “[Asylum seekers] make their own decisions with it. And a lot of them go.”

In addition to bussing migrants out of Texas, Operation Lone Star authorized heightened policing measures, enhanced physical barriers along the border, and even migrant push-backs by the Texas National Guard. Since immigration falls under federal jurisdiction, these measures have led to turf wars between federal and state agents. For example, in March 2024, several migrants who had already reached U.S. soil and were attempting to turn themselves in to federal authorities were blocked from doing so by Texas state agents.[31]

The Mexican Side: Ciudad Juárez Faces Major Challenges

While interviewees in El Paso agreed that the migration situation could be managed with effective coordination, those in Ciudad Juárez viewed the issue as much more dire on their side of the border. Similar to El Paso, numerous entities and organizations are involved in asylum seeker reception in Ciudad Juárez. The city has approximately 40 shelters, most of them private operations run by religious organizations, as well as two public shelters managed by federal and local government authorities.[33]

As a border city, Ciudad Juárez has been a focal point for Mexican migration to the U.S. for decades, but it was not until 2019 that most of its shelters began operating. That year, thousands of migrants from Central America and beyond started arriving in Ciudad Juárez. According to a local CSO, the city was not prepared to receive them, and many migrants were “experiencing homelessness and living under the bridge.”[34] As a result, several religious organizations began allowing migrants to sleep inside their churches.[35]

Around the same time, 22 church-based shelters started coordinating and seeking support so they could assist unhoused migrants. Today, 15 of those shelters have joined together in a network called Somos Uno Por Juárez (“We Are One For Juárez”). To be part of this network, which is coordinated by the CSO Derechos Humanos Integrales en Acción (DHIA, “Comprehensive Human Rights in Action”), the shelters cannot charge migrants for accommodation or food.[36] Other shelters such as Casa del Migrante (“Migrant House”) or Pan de Vida (“Bread of Life”) are not part of the network, even though they have been operating in the city for years. The director of one shelter explained that while his organization initially only helped Mexican nationals — specifically, children and single mothers — he began offering services to migrants in 2019 after four migrant families arrived asking for housing and assistance.[37]

Ciudad Juárez also has two public shelters. Partly in response to MPP, Leona Vicario, managed by the federal government, opened in August 2019.[38] This shelter is part of the network of Centros Integradores para Migrantes (CIM, “Migrant Integration Centers”), created by the Mexican government to provide services to migrants along the northern border of Mexico.[39] As of January 2023, Leona Vicario had provided nearly 14,000 migrants with shelter and food as well as employment and health services. Yet according to one interviewee, the shelter has been overwhelmed on many occasions and “doesn’t provide optimal conditions” for the migrants staying there.[40]

In April 2021, the local government opened the Kiki Romero shelter. It is the only shelter in the country operated by a local government, although the meals provided to the migrants are supplied by the federal government.[41] The shelter was previously a municipal gym that was transformed into a shelter to help meet the demand of migrants transiting through Ciudad Juárez, as well as those returned from the U.S. waiting for their asylum claims to be resolved.

It is critical to note that private shelters in Ciudad Juárez — despite shouldering the primary responsibility of assisting migrants — do not receive any government funding. The director of a shelter noted that “the support mostly comes from many private donations and from people we know. We do not receive funding from the state nor the federal government.”

Across the region, shelters have to predominantly rely on private funding, although some receive minimal support from IOs such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UNHCR. These two organizations have been present in Ciudad Juárez since 2010 and 2019, respectively, and play an important role in the city as well as across the country. They provide shelters with supplies (mostly nonfood items), connect migrants with legal advice, and offer psychosocial support, among other services.[42]

Partly as a result of the lack of government support and overburdened CSOs, as well as the presence of criminal organizations, migrants are more or less left to fend for themselves in Ciudad Juárez. One shelter director highlighted the hardships that migrants face in attempting to survive in the city: “The migrants have suffered from different types of adversities. They have shared stories with us that are very sad. Some have suffered from sexual assault, kidnapping, siblings have died along the way, and the mother has had to continue their journey.”[43]

In spite of the dire circ*mstances, the director explained that his organization still attempts to support migrants by creating a welcoming environment. Pointing to the walls of the shelter, he elaborated, “Everything that is here is painted blue and white. I did it because they are the colors of the flags of Central America. And many people call it the small village; this feels like a family, they know each other.”[44]

When asked about the main challenges for CSOs in Ciudad Juárez, one organization pointed to the lack of coordination and communication with the Mexican government. According to the individual, the Mexican government does not consider the dire circ*mstances and acute needs of migrants and the organizations serving them in border regions when it signs agreements with the U.S. government. They explained, “[The government] establish[es] alliances and pacts. For example, when the Mexican president agreed to MPP, there were no resources at the border. There was no way to support the migrants, so CSOs always ended up having to step in.”[45] As a result, some organizations are trying to increase their advocacy work at the federal level in order to have their work recognized and voices heard.

According to interviewees, one of the biggest challenges over the last several years has been coping with continuous policy changes on both sides of the border. As one CSO representative explained, “Everything changes so quickly, and it’s more and more chaotic so we can’t keep up. Once we come up with a response, everything changes.”[46]

These constant changes have also affected migrants themselves, who many times do not understand the policies in place at the border. Organizations such as the UNHCR have tried addressing this issue by making information available to migrants. For example, they created “El Jaguar,” a Facebook page that posts information daily about what dangers to watch out for, where individuals can find help, steps to apply for protection as an asylum seeker, and shelters and organizations that can provide temporary housing.[47]

Despite these efforts, disinformation and misinformation are still very common among migrants, who frequently obtain information from social networks. On numerous occasions, migrants have been led to believe that ports of entry were open and that CBP officers were going to allow them to cross. For instance, after the deadly fire that killed 40 migrants in an INM detention facility in Ciudad Juárez in 2023, over 1,000 migrants lined up outside the international bridges to El Paso after false information spread that U.S. authorities would allow them to enter the country.[48]

One interviewee also mentioned that in November and December of 2023, CBP opened up door 36, located under one of the bridges to El Paso, to let migrants in, and that “of the 10,000 people who tried to cross, only 1,000 were able to stay; the rest were deported.”[49] For desperate individuals seeking safety, this kind of misinformation and the seemingly arbitrary openings and closings of ports of entry can be devastating.

The backup plan for many of those who are deported from the U.S. is to try to settle in Mexico. The director of one shelter in Ciudad Juárez explained, “Plan A is to head to the United States, the American Dream. Mexico is Plan B. The majority that stay [in Mexico do so] because they have tried to cross the border and they have been deported. That being said, they don’t have another option. For many, the problem is that when they head here, they have already sold everything: their house, their business, their car. So how could they go back to their country? For what? It's better to stay in Mexico than go back to their home. They earn way more money — twice or three times as much — and can help their family a bit more than if they go back.”[50]

For a small minority, returning to Mexico is a choice. The director relayed a poignant story of one family who opted to return to Mexico after becoming disillusioned with the U.S. He recounted, “There was a lady with her daughters in 2020 or 2021; they crossed through here, and I kept contact with them. Four months ago, she posted on social media mentioning that she was here in Mexico, that she did not like the American Dream. She saved some money and began a business in Mexico and is doing better than in the United States — and there are many such cases.”[51]

Although the experience of each asylum seeker is different, we found striking disparities between the reception frameworks in place in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, with the situation on the Mexican side of the border considerably more dangerous, difficult and under-resourced. In the following section, we outline recommendations for facilitating the reception of asylum seekers and ameliorating the border “crisis” in both cities.

Resolving the ‘Crisis’: Strategies for Redistribution, Collaboration, Integration, and Depoliticization

Despite their interconnectedness, El Paso and Ciudad Juárez have exhibited significantly different strategies for handling the increased arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers over the past several years. Based on the interviews we conducted with government officials and representatives from IOs and CSOs, we outline four important recommendations that could help ease the process for those seeking asylum, mitigate the challenges faced by aid organizations, and reframe the issue in a more productive, nonpartisan manner.

1. Improve Processes for Redistributing Asylum Seekers

The perceived “crisis” on the U.S. side is primarily a redistribution problem. As the director of a shelter in El Paso explained, “There are cities, like Chicago and New York, both asking how to get migrants to their cities. …There are a multitude of cities who would want to have migrants there, but there is no network to make that happen.”[52] El Paso County’s model has been focused on facilitating the redistribution of asylum seekers, but the county and its partner CSOs cannot manage this task on their own.

In order to scale up the El Paso model, government actors emphasized the need for more communication. Certain cities — such as Denver, New York, and Chicago — haveexpressed their willingness to accept more asylum seekers,who can then integrate into new communities and contribute to the labor force.One local government actor indicated that there are likely other cities that would be willing to do the same: “We want to identify other communities that are willing to accept [asylum seekers]. And we would ask them ‘How many individuals do you want to receive?’ We don’t believe in these random uncoordinated transfers of individuals. So, we would want that community to tell us, ‘Hey, send us 10 individuals once a month, or once a week.’ And so, we would set up processes to be able to facilitate that.”[53]

If local government actors along the U.S.-Mexico border can coordinate with local governments in the interior, much of the pressure on border cities would be alleviated, and communities across the U.S. could further share the responsibility of hosting asylum seekers. Indeed, asylum seekers offer major benefits to the urban fabric and economies of cities. A recent report found that refugees and asylees generated $123.8 billion in net fiscal benefits to the U.S. economy between 2005 and 2019, and contributed more tax revenue than they cost the government over the same 15-year period.[54]

2. Increase Cross-Border Collaboration

Our research reveals that there is currently not enough cross-border collaboration between CSOs and government actors on the U.S. and Mexican sides. This builds upon the findings of a survey we conducted in 2021 with 29 individuals from 27 organizations across Mexico. Survey respondents indicated that establishing or maintaining stronger connections with NGOs and policymakers in the U.S. would be beneficial for the work of their organizations.[55] Respondents listed benefits including being able to plan for advocacy, engage in national-level dialogues, and build long-term capacity.

The interviews we recently conducted in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez further emphasized the need to establish stronger cross-border collaborations. While a CSO in Ciudad Juárez mentioned having collaborated with Annunciation House in El Paso and another legal service provider on some occasions, all the CSOs we interviewed acknowledged and lamented the lack of cross-border connections.

The main barriers to strengthening cooperation include a lack of time and resources, as well as not having a designated person willing to lead the effort. A shelter director in El Paso explained, “We need someone to bridge that gap. I think it can be bridged. And it certainly would help the migrants know where to go, what to expect, and where to get information, instead of ad hoc information, which is what happens now.”[56]

Another shelter director in Ciudad Juárez agreed that establishing connections with shelters in El Paso would allow them to provide migrants with information about where to find food and a secure place to go once they successfully cross the border to seek asylum.[57]

It is a striking paradox that El Paso and Ciudad Juárez are so geographically close yet so far apart in terms of collaboration. As we suggested in previous research, establishing a cross-border facilitation mechanism — whether a working group, a regional forum, or a consortium led by an external partner — would enable organizations aiding migrants on both sides of the border to enhance mutual support and cooperation.[58]

3. Support Integration, Not Security

While the situation on the U.S. side of the border can be managed with available — and continued — access to resources, the situation on the Mexican side is much more challenging. Forcing asylum seekers to reside in Mexico, and especially in an under-resourced city like Ciudad Juárez, does not solve the “problem” of migration for U.S. politicians. Just because migrants are out of view of U.S. voters and media does not mean that they no longer exist, nor does it mean that they are in a safe location. In fact, migrants in Mexico are at increased risk of trafficking, exploitation, and even death.[59]

A shelter director in Ciudad Juárez explained that oftentimes buses transporting migrants through Mexico are turned over to drug dealers or cartels who ask their families for ransom.[60] In some instances, these cartels have even killed migrants.[61] In other instances, Mexican police have facilitated migrant kidnappings, as was documented in June 2023 when two municipal police officers from Ciudad Juárez were arrested after holding migrants captive.[62] Furthermore, the deadly fire in a detention center in Ciudad Juárez in March 2023, and the refusal of government agents to open the gates to allow migrants to exit the burning building, led to the death of at least 40 migrants. This incident sparked intense criticism about the treatment of migrants in the country. According to human rights defenders, the incident “was a consequence of the restrictive and cruel immigration policies shared by the governments of Mexico and the United States.”[63]

To make residing in Ciudad Juárez, or other parts of Mexico, viable for asylum seekers, the U.S. must assist Mexican CSOs that are frequently strapped for resources, as well as Mexican governmental institutions that provide accommodation, employment training, and other integration services, rather than helping to further fund security-focused institutions. The Mexican government should stop relying on the National Guard, a military body that has been linked to numerous abuses and even some migrant killings, for migration enforcement, and the United States should stop supporting this practice.[64] The Mexican government, with U.S. assistance, should also ramp up efforts to control violence and organized crime in the country, as criminal organizations operate freely in many states, and executions and kidnappings of both migrants and citizens have become routine.[65]

4. Depoliticize Migration

Even with adequate resources, the real challenge to addressing the perceived border “crisis” is confronting the politicization of migration. Unfortunately, with the election year ahead, we are likely to see further partisan battles over the issue. In Texas, measures like SB 4 — which would have authorized state police to arrest and deport undocumented migrants — have further fueled partisan disputes and jurisdictional turf wars between state and federal officials.[66]

The state of Texas has also pursued a strategy of attacking the support and protection infrastructure available to asylum seekers and migrants, allegedly as a deterrent mechanism. In February 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent lawyers to investigate Annunciation House’s records, potentially with the intention of closing down the shelter.[67] Unlike the “downtown” shelter network discussed in this report, Annunciation House and other church-based shelters do not receive FEMA money, allowing them to assist undocumented individuals who have not been processed by DHS. However, this makes them a potential target in an anti-immigrant political environment.

The attack on Annunciation House fits within the broader strategy of criminalizing organizations that assist asylum seekers.[68] For example, in Arizona organizations that provide water and sanitation stations to asylum seekers crossing the border have been raided by CBP and accused of serving as a “pull factor” for other migrants.[69] In reality, closing Annunciation House will work against El Paso’s goal of ensuring that no migrant or asylum seeker is left unhoused and forced to sleep on the street.

To help overcome the partisan divide on migration, local governments, CSOs, and other actors working to ensure a well-functioning system of asylum seeker reception should continue to emphasize that the issue is manageable within the normal parameters of government operations. As one such individual in El Paso expressed, “[This is] not a crisis. We have a capacity to absorb these numbers, but I think we have a lot of people approaching the problem incorrectly.”[70]

Notes

[1] Sharon Bernstein, “El Paso, Texas ‘At a Breaking Point’ Amid Jump in Migration, Mayor Says,” Reuters, September 24, 2023,https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-paso-texas-at-breaking-point-migrants-flood-border-mayor-says-2023-09-23/.

[2] In this report, we use the term “asylum seeker” to refer to those who have been processed by government officials and lodged their asylum claim. For all other individuals, regardless of their reasons for leaving their home country, we use the umbrella term “migrant.”

[3] Gabriel R. Sanchez, “Immigration Policy Could Determine the Next President of the United States,” Brookings, March 4, 2024,https://www.brookings.edu/articles/immigration-policy-could-determine-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/.

[4] This research was approved by Rice University’s IRB (Study #IRB-FY2021-216). We wish to thank Bela Koshy, Jasper Munden, Karina Pan, Sarah Sowell, and Poema Sumrow for their assistance with interview transcriptions.

[5] U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), “CBP Releases January 2024 Monthly Update,” February 13, 2024,https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-january-2024-monthly-update; CBP, “Southwest Land Border Encounters (By Component),” March 22, 2024,https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters-by-component#.

[6] Kelsey Ables, “U.S. Judge in Amarillo Halts Biden Administration’s Attempt to End ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy,” The Texas Tribune, December 16, 2022,https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/16/remain-in-mexico-mpp-judge-ruling-migrants/.

[7] International Rescue Committee, “Is it Legal to Cross the U.S. Border to Seek Asylum?” April 11, 2024, https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum.

[8] Carnegie Corporation of New York, “What Does the End of Title 42 Mean for U.S. Migration Policy?” June 5, 2023,https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/what-does-end-title-42-mean-us-migration-policy/.

[9] Joel Rose and Marisa Peñaloza, “Migrants Are Frustrated With the Border App, Even After Its Latest Overhaul,” NPR, May 12, 2023,https://www.npr.org/2023/05/12/1175948642/migrants-are-frustrated-with-the-asylum-claim-app-even-after-the-latest-overhaul.

[10] Ana Martín Gil and Kelsey Norman, “Biden’s New Border Policies Will Put Further Strain on Mexico’s Struggling Asylum System” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, March 16, 2023),https://doi.org/10.25613/TCZ8-ZV75.

[11] The Mexican government’s calculations vary slightly from those of the UNHCR. According to the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR), 140,948 individuals sought asylum in Mexico in 2023 versus 119,225 in 2022, which amounts to an 18% increase. Data obtained from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Mexico,” accessed March 22, 2024,https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/operations/mexico; and COMAR, “Solicitudes,” February 29, 2024,https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/896219/Cierre_Febrero-2024__29-Febrero_.pdf.

[12] Martín Gil and Norman, “Biden’s New Border Policies.”

[13] Arturo Castellanos-Canales, Clara Villatoro, and Alexandria Villarreal, “The Implications of the Biden Asylum Rule in Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, and the Northern Triangle Nations,” National Immigration Forum, May 10, 2023,https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-implications-of-the-biden-asylum-rule-in-mexico-costa-rica-colombia-and-the-northern-triangle-nations/.

[14] City of El Paso, “Migrant Crisis,” accessed March 22, 2024,https://www.elpasotexas.gov/migrant-crisis/.

[15] Civil society organization representative (CSO), interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[16] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[17] Stephanie Shields, “El Paso County Opens New, Larger Migrant Services Center,” KTSM, March 9, 2023,https://www.ktsm.com/local/el-paso-county-opens-new-larger-migrant-support-services-center/.

[18] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[19] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[20] Alexandria Viescas, “Ruben Garcia Opens the Door to Humanity,” The City El Paso Magazine, accessed March 22, 2024,https://thecitymagazineelp.com/ruben-garcia-opens-the-door-to-humanity/; CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[21] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, February 2024.

[22] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[23] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[24] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[25] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[26] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[27] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[28] Office of the Texas Governor, “Texas Transports Over 100,000 Migrants to Sanctuary Cities,” January 12, 2024, https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/texas-transports-over-100000-migrants-to-sanctuary-cities.

[29] Asher Price, “Democratic Mayors Prepare to be Next Texas Migrant Busing Targets,” September 8, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/09/08/texas-greg-abbott-buses-immigrants-dc-chicago.

[30] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[31] Omar Ornelas and Aaron A. Bedoya, “Migrants Breach Razor Wire Barrier in El Paso, Overwhelm Texas National Guard,” El Paso Times, March 21, 2024,https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/immigration/2024/03/21/el-paso-migrants-breach-razor-wire-barrier-overwhelm-national-guard/73059403007/.

[32] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[33] Jose Luis Gonzalez, “El INM Habilita un Nuevo Refugio Tras el Desalojo del Campamento de Migrantes en Ciudad Juárez,” El País, May 24, 2023,https://elpais.com/mexico/2023-05-24/el-inm-habilita-un-nuevo-refugio-tras-el-desalojo-del-campamento-de-migrantes-en-ciudad-juarez.html.

[34] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[35] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[36] Verónica Martínez, “Albergues Para Migrantes se Agrupan Como ‘Red Somos Uno por Juárez,’” La Verdad Juárez, April 19, 2022,https://laverdadjuarez.com/2022/04/19/albergues-para-migrantes-se-agrupan-como-red-somos-uno-por-juarez/.

[37] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[38] Martín Gil and Norman, “Biden’s New Border Policies.”

[39] Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, “Inaugura Gobierno el Primer Centro Para Migrantes; Ofrecerá 50 mil Empleos en Ciudad Juárez,” Gobierno de México, August 1, 2019,https://www.gob.mx/stps/prensa/inaugura-gobierno-el-primer-centro-para-migrantes-ofrecera-50-mil-empleos-en-ciudad-juarez?idiom=es.

[40] Hérika Martínez Prado, “Ha Atendido ‘Leona Vicario’ a 13 mil 742 Extranjeros,” El Diario de Juárez, January 3, 2023,https://diario.mx/juarez/ha-atendido-leona-vicario-a-13-mil-742-extranjeros-20230103-2009480.html.

[41] Heroica Ciudad Juárez, “El Kiki Romero es el Único Albergue Para Migrantes del País que Sostiene un Gobierno Local: Alcalde,” July 31, 2023,https://www.juarez.gob.mx/noticia/14613/el-kiki-romero-es-el-nico-albergue-para-migrantes-del-pas-que-sostiene-un-gobierno-local-alcalde.

[42] International Organization for Migration (IOM), “Apoyo a Albergues y Alojamientos Temporales Para Personas Migrantes,” Naciones Unidas México, June 17, 2022,https://mexico.un.org/es/187234-apoyo-albergues-y-alojamientos-temporales-para-personas-migrantes.

[43] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[44] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[45] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[46] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[47] UNHCR, “@ConfíaEnElJaguar,” accessed March 23, 2024,https://help.unhcr.org/mexico/en/where-to-seek-help/confia-en-el-jaguar/.

[48] Nicole Acevedo and Albinson Linares, “Misinformation Fuels False Hopes for Migrants in Mexico Fire,” NBC News, March 26, 2024,https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/misinformation-fuels-false-hopes-migrants-mexico-fire-rcna77398.

[49] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[50] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[51] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[52] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[53] Government employee, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[54] Wilson Center, “Net Positive: New Government Study Finds Refugees and Asylees Contributed $1.2 Trillion to the U.S.,” February 26, 2024,https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/net-positive-new-government-study-finds-refugees-and-asylees-contributed-1238-billion-us.

[55] Norman,Martín Gil, Kevin Cole, and Zaid Hydari, “Strengthening Mexico's Asylum System Through Cross-Border Civil Society Engagement” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, June 7, 2021),https://doi.org/10.25613/ck0v-9992.

[56] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[57] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[58]Isaias Alvarado, “Los Secuestraron, Torturaron y Asesinaron: El Viaje de 4 Migrantes que Acabó en la Morgue de Ciudad Juárez,” Univision,March 10, 2023,https://www.univision.com/noticias/criminalidad/secuestro-torturo-asesinato-viaje-migrantes-acabo-morgue-ciudad-juarez-mexico.

[59] Martín Gil and Norman, “Biden’s New Border Policies.”

[60] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

[61]Alvarado, “Los secuestraron, torturaron y asesinaron.”

[62] Julian Resendiz, “UPDATE: South Juarez Neighborhood Becomes Migrant Killing Field,” Border Report, June 15, 2023,https://www.borderreport.com/immigration/border-crime/south-juarez-neighborhood-becomes-migrant-killing-field/.

[63] Amnesty International, “Mexico: Fatal Fire in Migrant Detention Center Result of Inhumane Policies,” March 29, 2023,https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/mexico-fatal-fire-immigration-detention-cinhumane-policies/.

[64] Uriel Garcia, “Mexico Officials say National Guard Member Shot at Migrant ‘Separated from his Position,’” The Texas Tribune, August 28, 2023,https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/28/texas-national-guard-shoots-mexican-citizen-border/.

[65] Denise Dresser, “Mexico’s Turn to Autocracy Should Worry the U.S.,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2023,https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexicos-turn-to-autocracy-should-worry-the-u-s-11673672462.

[66] Garcia and William Melhado, “U.S. Supreme Court Continues Blocking Texas Immigration Law,” The Texas Tribune, March 12, 2024,https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/04/texas-sb4-illegal-immigration-law-5th-circuit-court-ruling/.

[67] Garcia, “El Paso Judge Blocks Ken Paxton’s Efforts to Subpoena Annunciation House,” The Texas Tribune, March 11, 2024,https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/11/texas-migrant-shelter-investigation/.

[68] Jonathan Kent, Norman, and Katherine H. Tennis, “Changing Motivations or Capabilities? Migration Deterrence in the Global Context,” International Studies Review 22, no. 4 (December 2020): 853–78,https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz050.

[69] Kirk Siegler, “Desert Aid Camp Turning Away Migrants Following Border Patrol Raid,”NPR, June 28, 2017,https://www.npr.org/2017/06/28/534671455/aid-group-shuts-down-migrant-aid-camp-after-border-patrol-raid.

[70] CSO representative, interview by Norman and Martín Gil, January 2024.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Addressing the ‘Crisis’ at the US-Mexico Border: Insights From El Paso and Ciudad Juárez | Baker Institute (2024)