Washington — The Trump administration is developing an asylum agreement with El Salvador’s government that would allow the U.S. to deport migrants to the small Central American country who are not from there, two sources familiar with the internal deliberations told CBS News.
The arrangement, known as a “Safe Third Country” agreement, would empower U.S. immigration officials to deport non-Salvadoran migrants to El Salvador, blocking them from requesting asylum in the U.S. Instead, the migrants would be deported with instructions to seek asylum in El Salvador, which would be designated a “safe third country.”
The plan, if finalized, would revive an agreement the first Trump administration brokered with El Salvador’s government, though that accord was never implemented and was eventually terminated by former President Joe Biden’s administration.
A safe third country agreement could be a significant breakthrough for the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration plans, allowing it to deport migrants from different countries, including Venezuela, that limit or outright reject U.S. deportations of their citizens.
Migrants wait outside the regional office of the National Migration Institute to await their safe conduct to transit through Mexican territory on their way to the United States, in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico on January 13, 2025.
ALFREDO ESTRELLA/AFP via Getty Images
One of the internal plans under consideration would allow the U.S. to send deportation flights to El Salvador that include suspected members of Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang that President Trump has made a focal point of his crackdown on illegal immigration. Hours after his inauguration, Mr. Trump directed officials to start the process of designating Tren de Aragua a terrorist group.
If that plan is implemented, it’s unclear how El Salvador would handle the deported gang members. Under President Nayib Bukele, the Salvadoran government has subdued El Salvador’s notorious gangs, including MS-13, through a mass incarceration campaign.
Bukele’s government is expected to be a key ally of the Trump administration. Bukele enjoys broad popularity in El Salvador, and among U.S. conservatives, mainly due to his anti-gang policies, which international groups say have involved due process violations.
The White House said Mr. Trump and Bukele spoke over the phone on Thursday and discussed “working together to stop illegal immigration and crack down on transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has vowed to make curbing mass migration a top priority, is also scheduled to visit El Salvador in early February as part of a trip to Latin America set to start later this week.
Representatives for the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump has already moved swiftly to start his sweeping immigration crackdown, giving deportation officers broader authorities to arrest and deport unauthorized immigrants, shutting down access to the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border and enlisting the vast resources of the American military for immigration enforcement through an emergency declaration.
An asylum seeker from El Salvador, Silvia Martinez, embraces her daughter Maria in Tijuana, Mexico, on January 20, 2025.
Carlos Moreno/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Military planes are now being used to deport migrants crossing the southern border illegally, and additional active-duty troops have been deployed there to erect barriers designed to repel unlawful crossings. Longstanding federal law generally prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement.
A safe third country agreement would add yet another layer to Mr. Trump’s efforts to seal off U.S. borders to migrants and asylum-seekers, through both physical barriers and far-reaching policy changes.
It’s unclear how such an arrangement would interact with Mr. Trump’s other moves on asylum, including giving border agents the authority to rapidly deport migrants without allowing them to request legal refuge. His administration is also reinstating a rule, known as Remain-in-Mexico, that requires asylum claimants to stay outside of the U.S. while their cases are reviewed.
Currently, the U.S. has one safe third country agreement. Under that arrangement, the U.S. and Canadian governments exchange asylum claimants crossing their shared border. The first Trump administration forged asylum deals with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Only the one with Guatemala ever took effect, and all three accords were suspended once Biden took office.
Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.
In a recent development, President Donald Trump has set his sights on striking an asylum agreement with El Salvador in an effort to curb the influx of migrants entering the United States.
The proposed agreement would allow the U.S. to deport asylum seekers to El Salvador, a country that has been grappling with its own issues of violence and poverty. This move is seen as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to tighten immigration policies and deter migrants from making the journey to the U.S.
Critics of the potential agreement have raised concerns about the safety and well-being of asylum seekers being sent to El Salvador, a country with high levels of crime and gang violence. They argue that such a deal could put vulnerable individuals at risk and violate international refugee laws.
The Trump administration, however, maintains that the agreement would help alleviate the strain on the U.S. immigration system and discourage migrants from exploiting loopholes in the asylum process.
As discussions between the U.S. and El Salvador continue, the fate of asylum seekers and the implications of such an agreement remain uncertain. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Roger Marshall, M.D. and Ted Budd (R-NC) re-introduced the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2025.
“Illegal aliens who assault police officers must be deported immediately. I am proud to join Senator Budd in introducing legislation that makes it clear that the United States will not tolerate attacks on our Nation’s law enforcement. We will continue to fight for law and order” Senator Marshall said.
Under the POLICE Act, assault of a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder by an illegal alien will be a deportable offense under federal law. This bill will further strengthen federal law following the historic passage of the Laken Riley Act requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain an illegal alien who assaults law enforcement.
In addition to Senators Marshall and Budd, this bill is co-sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Steve Daines (R-MT), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), James Lankford (R-OK), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Jim Justice (R-WV), and Tim Sheehy (R-MT).
Senators Marshall, Budd Reintroduce Bill to Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Law Enforcement
In a bold move to protect law enforcement officers and uphold the rule of law, Senators Roger Marshall and Ted Budd have reintroduced a bill that would require the deportation of illegal aliens who assault law enforcement officers.
The bill, known as the Protecting Law Enforcement Act, aims to hold criminals accountable for their actions and ensure that those who threaten the safety and well-being of our law enforcement officers are swiftly removed from the country.
Senator Marshall emphasized the importance of supporting our law enforcement officers and standing up against criminal behavior. “Assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense that cannot be tolerated,” he said. “We must send a clear message that those who commit such acts will face consequences, including deportation.”
Senator Budd echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the need to prioritize the safety and security of our communities. “Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” he said. “We owe it to them to ensure that those who attack them are held accountable and removed from our country.”
The reintroduction of this bill comes at a critical time when the safety and well-being of law enforcement officers are under threat. By deporting illegal aliens who assault law enforcement, we can send a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated and that those who commit such acts will face serious consequences.
As the bill makes its way through Congress, Senator Marshall and Senator Budd are committed to fighting for its passage and ensuring that our law enforcement officers are protected and supported. Let’s stand together in support of our brave men and women in blue and send a clear message that assaulting law enforcement will not be tolerated in our country.
Latest: Trump officials have moved quickly to expel migrants in two major Biden-era programs that allowed more than a million people to enter the country temporarily. Read more ››
President Trump has promised to deport millions of people who are living in the United States without permission. This population is commonly referred to as “undocumented,” “unauthorized” or “illegal.” But these terms are not entirely accurate. A significant number are in the country with temporary permissions — though many are set to expire during Mr. Trump’s term.
For the last decade, the best estimates put this population at around 11 million. But the number of people crossing U.S. borders reached a record level in 2022 before falling last year. More recent estimates put the number of people without legal status or with temporary protection from deportation at almost 14 million in 2024.
Many of them have permission to be here, at least for now.
“It’s true that immigration is high, but it’s hard to sort out who is an undocumented immigrant,” said Robert Warren, a demographer and the former statistics director at what was then the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. “Most of the public looks at everyone as undocumented — asylum-seekers, T.P.S., DACA — but it’s important to really figure out who is included.”
The New York Times compared estimates from severalresearchorganizations and the federal government, as well as more recent administrative data, to better understand who these immigrants are, how they got here, and which of them may be most vulnerable to deportation under Mr. Trump.
Those with permission fall under the protection of many different programs.
What is perhaps most surprising — or misleading — about terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” is that as many as 40 percent of the people in this group do have some current authorization to live or work legally in the United States, according to one estimate by FWD.us, an immigration advocacy group that hired a demographer to study the population.
In an effort to deter illegal crossings, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a way for migrants to make an appointment to cross the southern border through a smartphone app called CBP One. The administration also created special pathways for people fleeing humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Venezuela and extended temporary protection from deportation for people from certain countries through a program known as Temporary Protected Status.
Upon taking office, Mr. Trump issued executive orders stating his desire to end those programs, and existing appointments made through the CBP One app were canceled.
Immigrants who enter the country through these programs were following the current rules, but Mr. Trump and other Republicans have attacked them and said the programs are illegal.
Millions more people have applied for asylum and are allowed to remain in the country while their cases wend through immigration court — though very few asylum claims are ultimately granted. An Obama-era program known as DACA protects from deportation about 540,000 undocumented people brought to the country as children.
The Biden administration also deferred deportation for other groups of people, like those who have applied for protection because they were victims of or witnesses to a crime.
Trump has limited power to immediately remove these groups.
Many of the permissions offering humanitarian relief are set to expire during the Trump administration, including some that Mr. Biden recently extended. If the incoming administration were to try to end these protections sooner, it would likely face lawsuits.
Mr. Trump on Monday issued executive orders ending humanitarian parole programs for people from specific countries, but it was unclear how those would affect the status of those who are already here.
Nor can Mr. Trump easily deport the more than 2.6 million people who are awaiting a hearing or a decision on an asylum claim. He could try to hire more immigration judges to decide these cases, but even with a significant infusion of new funds, it would take years to work through the backlog.
DACA is no longer accepting new applications, and the future of the program is uncertain because of a lawsuit filed by several Republican state attorneys general.
People can have more than one status, and many of these groups overlap.
Many people in the country with temporary permission fall under overlapping programs.
For example, the bulk of the people who arrived through one of the Biden-era humanitarian pathways were granted parole for two years. Many of them now also have Temporary Protected Status. Along with those who used the CBP One app to cross the southern border, they can also apply for asylum within the first year they are in the United States.
These immigrants come from all over the world.
Note: Not all countries are shown. Data as of 2022. The growth shown for select countries is based on administrative data.
More than half of those who are in the United States without authorization have been here for 10 years or more.
Mexicans remain by far the largest group of people living in the country without authorization, but their share has declined significantly since the 1990s, according to data from the Pew Research Center.
An influx of people fleeing humanitarian and economic crises came from Central America during Mr. Trump’s first term, and many of them are still in the country.
Mexican officials and other leaders in the region say they have not been able to meet with the incoming administration about its deportation plans.
Few immigrants can be swiftly removed. Even fewer are in custody.
Out of all those who are unauthorized, Mr. Trump has said the top priority for deportation will be criminals. There are around 655,000 noncitizens living in the U.S. with criminal convictions or pending charges, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though many of these charges are for minor offenses such as traffic violations.
There were about 39,000 immigrants in ICE custody at the end of December, near capacity for holding facilities.
The Trump administration may also focus its enforcement efforts on the nearly 1.4 million people whom an immigration judge has already ordered to be removed from the country.
Many of the rest have been living in the country for years and have developed ties to their communities, including having children born in the United States. It would require a significant amount of time and resources to locate and remove them.
Methodology and sources
There is no direct measure of the population living in the United States without authorization, as no major government survey collects information on immigration status.
In order to estimate the size of the unauthorized population, most researchers rely on a method that starts with survey data from the Census Bureau and then adjusts it using administrative records and other data to subtract the number of immigrants who are legally in the country from the total number of foreign-born residents.
Recent estimates of the unauthorized population
The number of people waiting for an asylum claim comes from the Pew Research Center as of 2023. The number of people with Temporary Protected Status comes from the Congressional Research Service as of September 2024. The number of DACA recipients comes from U.S.C.I.S. as of September 2024. Figures for the number of people who have entered through humanitarian parole from specific countries and through a CBP One appointment at the southern border are from C.B.P as of December 2024. Many people may be counted in more than one of these groups.
Figures for the number of ICE cases pending and paused are for the national docket and come from the agency’s annual report as of September 2024. The number of noncitizens with a criminal charge or conviction comes from ICE, as of Jan. 8.
All numbers are rounded.
In recent years, President Trump has made immigration a central issue of his administration, often calling for the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. But who exactly are these millions of immigrants that Trump wants to deport?
These immigrants come from a variety of backgrounds and countries, but the majority are from Latin America, particularly Mexico and Central America. Many of them have come to the United States in search of better opportunities and a chance at a better life for themselves and their families.
Among these immigrants are also refugees and asylum seekers fleeing violence, persecution, and poverty in their home countries. They come to the United States seeking safety and a chance to rebuild their lives, only to face the threat of deportation under Trump’s policies.
There are also immigrants who have lived in the United States for years, even decades, contributing to their communities and the economy. Many of them have children who are U.S. citizens and families who depend on them for support.
Trump’s efforts to deport millions of immigrants have sparked controversy and outrage, with critics arguing that his policies are cruel and inhumane. As the debate over immigration continues, it’s important to remember that behind the statistics and rhetoric are real people with stories, hopes, and dreams.
The Trump administration is issuing a new round of heavy-handed measures that could rapidly deport immigrants who entered the United States through recently established legal pathways, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained the New York Times.
The directive, signed by the acting homeland security secretary, Benjamine Huffman, grants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officials unprecedented authority to expedite deportations for immigrants who entered the country with government authorization through two key Biden-era programs.
These programs, which have allowed more than a million immigrants to enter the country since 2023, had provided scheduling for migrants or asylum seekers through the government-run app CBP One or temporary legal status for up to two years through a parole program for certain countries.
The newly reported memo instructs Ice officials to identify and potentially rapidly deport immigrants who have been in the country for over a year and have not yet applied for asylum, in effect sidestepping traditional immigration court proceedings.
In no waste of time, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, posted on X on Friday: “Deportation flights have begun,” accompanied by official pictures of people boarding a military-style aircraft.
Despite such flights being routine under successive administrations, the White House is promoting such images strongly and also deployed troops to the border late on Thursday, including US marines arriving in Boeing Osprey aircraft in California.
The developments come as so-called sanctuary cities like Chicago, Newark and Denver are experiencing direct impacts of the administration’s hardline immigration stance. In Newark, Mayor Ras Baraka condemned a small-scale local Ice raid on Thursday that he claimed resulted in the detention of both undocumented residents and citizens – including a US military veteran.
And Denver’s mayor, Mike Johnston, told CNN the city would cooperate with Ice to deport “violent criminals”, but pushed back against arrests in schools and churches.
A DHS spokesperson defended the new policies, writing in a statement that “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” and that the administration “trusts law enforcement to use common sense”.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already challenged the policy in federal court, with the senior staff attorney Anand Balakrishnan characterizing the approach as a “mass deportation agenda” that circumvents constitutional due process.
Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, has been vocal in his opposition to the immigration programs of the last administration, previously criticizing the admission of immigrants from what he termed “failed states”.
Thousands who had received or were waiting for CBP One appointments south of the border were left devastated this week after the app was abruptly shut down moments after Trump was sworn in, while those already in the country using the app and who were preparing to apply for asylum may now be in the line of fire.
Later on Friday, the Trump administration followed up, announcing that it was expanding a fast-track deportation authority nationwide, allowing immigration officers to deport people without appearing before a judge.
The administration said it was expanding the use of “expedited removal” authority so it can be used across the country, in a notice in the Federal Register outlining the new rules.
“Expedited removal” gives enforcement agencies broad authority to deport people without requiring them to appear before an immigration judge. There are limited exceptions, including if they express fear of returning home and pass an initial screening interview for asylum.
Critics have said there is too much risk that people who have the right to be in the country will be mistakenly swept up by agents and officers and that not enough is done to protect immigrants who have genuine reason to fear being sent home.
The powers were created under a 1996 law. But these powers were not widely used until 2004, when homeland security said it would use expedited removal authority for people arrested within two weeks of entering the US by land and caught within 100 miles of the border. That meant it was used mostly against immigrants recently arrived in the country.
In the notice on Friday the administration said the authority could be used across the country and would go into effect immediately.
The notice said the person put into expedited removal “bears the affirmative burden to show to the satisfaction of an immigration officer” that they have the right to be in the US.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
The Trump administration has granted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the power to deport immigrants who came to the United States legally under the Biden administration. This move is part of the ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on immigration and enforce stricter policies at the border.
This decision has raised concerns among immigrant rights advocates who argue that it is unfair to target individuals who followed the legal process to come to the United States. Many fear that this could lead to increased deportations of immigrants who have been living in the country for years or have established roots here.
The Trump administration has been vocal about their stance on immigration, with President Trump often emphasizing the need for stronger border security and stricter immigration policies. This latest move is seen as a continuation of those efforts and is likely to have a significant impact on immigrant communities across the country.
As the debate over immigration continues to rage on, it is clear that the Trump administration is determined to take a hardline approach on the issue. The decision to give ICE the power to deport immigrants who came legally under the Biden administration is just the latest example of this ongoing crackdown.
The House on Wednesday gave final approval to a bill that would require the detention and deportation of migrants who enter the country without authorization and are charged with certain crimes, making it the first bill to clear the new Congress and head to President Trump’s desk for his signature.
The final vote, 263 to 156, capped the opening salvo in a broader Trump-era crackdown on immigration and undocumented migrants that the president has promised, Republicans have championed, and a small but increasing group of Democrats has begun to embrace. Forty-six House Democrats joined all Republicans in backing it, a sign of the growing cross-party consensus around taking a harder line against those who enter the country illegally.
The bill is all but certain to be quickly signed by Mr. Trump, who on Monday started his second term by issuing a raft of executive orders that kicked off his immigration crackdown, clamping down on both legal and illegal entries into the United States.
Wednesday’s measure, titled the Laken Riley Act, is named for a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was killed last year by a migrant from Venezuela who crossed into the United States illegally. The man had previously been arrested in a shoplifting case but had not been detained.
The House gave its blessing after the Senate spent last week debating changes to the bill, exposing deep divisions among Democrats over immigration. Some Democrats have moved to the right on the issue after their party’s electoral losses in November, arguing that they must embrace basic steps to punish unlawfulness, even if they disagree with some of the details. But others pushed back forcefully on the bill, saying it would deprive accused criminals of due process, a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system, and was aimed mostly at demonizing unauthorized immigrants.
The act instructs federal officials to detain unauthorized immigrants arrested for or charged with burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or crimes that result in death or serious bodily injury, expanding the list of charges that would subject migrants to immediate detention and potential deportation.
Republicans teed up the measure as the first of several border bills they hope to revive and enact now that they have cemented their governing trifecta. A similar measure passed the House last year but died when the Democratic-led Senate declined to take it up.
The G.O.P. also wants to resurrect measures to increase deportations, hold asylum seekers outside the United States and strip federal funding from cities that restrict their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies.
“I vowed I would fight with every ounce I had to make sure that we protected families across this country, and that we did,” said Representative Mike Collins of Georgia, a Republican who wrote the bill and whose district includes Ms. Riley’s hometown, Athens. “There’s nothing with any meaningful legislation that happens in this town up here until the American people demand it, and by God, they’re demanding that this get passed and we get these criminals out of our country.”
The bill’s swift journey through Congress this month laid bare fissures among Democrats about how to position themselves on immigration, and foreshadowed the immense challenge of maintaining unity on a pressing topic that Mr. Trump has made his signature issue.
“It is so shameful that the first bill of the new Congress will put a target on the back of millions, millions of our neighbors,” Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, said in a floor speech against the measure.
Some Democrats, including Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Patty Murray of Washington, raised grave concerns about the bill, arguing that it would undermine due process rights for migrants who had not yet been convicted of crimes. They also said that it would waste limited resources that federal immigration enforcement agencies could use to apprehend people who have committed more serious, violent offenses.
Others, including Representative Greg Casar of Texas, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the party needs to clearly articulate to voters what’s actually in the bills that Republicans are forcing them to vote on, and unite in opposition.
“These bills that the Republicans are throwing our way are so extreme that we should be able to get united Democratic opposition, but for the enormous amount of lies that are being pumped out by the president of the United States,” Mr. Casar told reporters Wednesday afternoon before the vote. “Trump campaigned on the lie that immigrants are the source of the nation’s problems. We have to combat the flood of lies.”
Some House Democrats on Wednesday called their Republican colleagues hypocritical for supporting the bill, which would deport migrants based on a mere accusation of assaulting a police officer, immediately after applauding Mr. Trump’s pardons for nearly 1,600 convicted Jan. 6 rioters, including several convicted of attacking police officers.
“I have been clear that violent criminals have no place in our society, and with President Trump’s anti-law enforcement pardons of violent criminals, I felt it was important to stand with law enforcement,” said Representative Eugene Vindman, a first-term Democrat of Virginia, who opposed the bill when it came up in the House earlier this month but voted yes on Wednesday.
Mr. Vindman said language added by the Senate to include violent crime and assault of a police officer as detainable offenses were enough to persuade him to switch, even though he had concerns about the lack of due process in the bill and its potential cost.
“I voted yes on this bill to uphold the rule of law, keep our communities safe from violent crime, and reinforce that any assault against a police officer is abhorrent,” Mr. Vindman said.
In a significant move, Congress has passed the Laken Riley Act, which aims to deport immigrants who are accused of committing crimes in the United States. The act, named after the tragic victim of a violent crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, has sparked heated debates and discussions among lawmakers and the public.
Under the Laken Riley Act, immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes such as murder, rape, or drug trafficking will face deportation proceedings, regardless of their immigration status. The act also includes provisions to expedite the deportation process for these individuals, ensuring that they are swiftly removed from the country and unable to commit further crimes on American soil.
Supporters of the Laken Riley Act argue that it is a necessary measure to protect the safety and well-being of American citizens, particularly in light of recent high-profile crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. They believe that deporting criminal immigrants will help to reduce crime rates and make communities safer for all residents.
However, critics of the act have raised concerns about potential violations of immigrants’ rights and due process, as well as the implications for families who may be separated as a result of deportation. They argue that the act may unfairly target and stigmatize immigrant communities, leading to increased fear and distrust among immigrants and law enforcement.
As the Laken Riley Act moves forward, it will be crucial for lawmakers to carefully consider the implications and consequences of this legislation, balancing the need for public safety with the protection of individual rights and liberties. Only time will tell how this act will impact immigration policy and enforcement in the United States.
Jorge Luis Jiménez and his wife did exactly what the US government asked of them when they spent months trying over and over again to get an appointment to cross the border, after risking everything to flee Venezuela.
Now they may be easy targets in Donald Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown – despite living and working legally in the US.
Even more vulnerable are those still waiting on the Mexican side of the border in treacherous conditions, trying daily to score one of the coveted appointments with US immigration agents that are offered via the government’s mobile phone app called CBP One.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to end the CBP One appointment system almost immediately upon taking office. And in an interview with Fox News, he said he would go so far as to revoke legal permissions for those already stateside.
For Jiménez, home in Venezuela is such a beautiful place. But life was paralyzing under Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime.
So Jiménez and his wife, Milexsa, set out for the United States last summer. They trudged through the deadly Darién Gap that links South and Central America, then traveled from town to town until they reached Mexico City, where a friend welcomed them to a crowded two-room apartment and they found jobs at a local market.
Mexico was a necessary stopover. Only there could Jiménez and his wife be within the geofencing to enter a virtual lottery for one of the 1,450 daily appointments offered by the US government via the official app, CBP One, a name that has even been trademarked. Getting an appointment allows migrants to come into the US legally through the designated ports of entry along the US-Mexico border, with scope to begin the asylum application process.
Jiménez said that risking crossing on their own initiative – through the river that divides Texas and Mexico or through the desert, or elsewhere, often by relying on human smugglers – and then turning themselves in to the US border patrol wasn’t ever an option for him and Milexsa.
A view of the US-Mexico border from the Sonoran desert in January. Photograph: Thalia Juarez/The Guardian
It took four months of poring over the app in Mexico City, but the couple eventually received an appointment and made their way by bus to the US’s south-west border.
They saw others like them at the border get kidnapped by organized crime gangs and paid 3,000 Mexican pesos (about $145) in bribes to avoid being held themselves. By the time they reached Texas last October, they had nothing left except permission to live and work in the US.
But soon after, they had received work permits and had found a new home in the midwest. They got jobs at a plastic factory, while their legal permissions allow them time to apply for asylum or some other form of legal relief in the US.
If Trump scraps CBPOne “that would be cutting off the dream of many people”, Jiménez said, thinking of those still waiting south of the border.
And if his own permission to stay and work stateside is suddenly revoked, too?
“That would be – no – a really serious, serious, serious, serious thing to do to someone,” he said solemnly.
Like Jiménez and Milexsa, more than 900,000 people have received appointments to present themselves at an official port of entry by using CBP One in the last two years. Named for the agency that runs it, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the app launched in 2020 during Trump’s first term. But it wasn’t until January 2023 that officials incorporated capabilities for individual migrants to apply to enter the country with pre-scheduled appointments.
Through this highly limited appointment system, the Biden administration hoped that CBP One could provide a more orderly process for people to request asylum at the US-Mexico border. Incentives include a year or two of “parole”, a legal permission to temporarily stay in the US, with leave to apply for work permits immediately.
“It’s important for people to realize, if you came in through CBP One, then you entered the country legally,” said Jon Ewing, a spokesperson with the mayor’s office in Denver, Colorado, which has worked with the local community to help CBP One entrants apply for work permits.
But Trump and his allies disagree. In addition to Trump’s comments on ending the app, vice-president-elect JD Vance has called CBP One “the facilitation of illegal immigration” and considers people in the US on parole “illegal aliens” – a pejorative for unauthorized immigrants, who are subject to deportation.
Yet to de-legalize people’s immigration documents and explicitly target those in the US lawfully for deportation would be “an embarrassment to this country”, said Tom Cartwright, an advocate for refugees with the group Witness at the Border.
“It would just be the most heinous act of betrayal of trust that I can think of,” he continued, “for the United States to take vulnerable people and revoke their parole when they acted in good faith and they did everything that this country asked them to do.”
People from Colombia, Venezuela and Mexico await their CBP One appointments at the Casa de Esperanza shelter in Sonoyta, Mexico, in January. Photograph: Thalia Juarez/The Guardian
Many of those who have come through CBP One had already tried to “get in line” for visas in their home countries before being forced to flee imminent danger, and then persevered with waiting for appointments to present themselves legally despite facing serious threats in Mexico, said Jesús de la Torre, assistant director for global migration at the Hope Border Institute.
Those still in Mexico “are not safe”, De la Torre added. “And they are not safe until they literally cross to the US side of the border. We’ve seen people kidnapped while they were waiting in line to be processed for their appointment.”
In a group of more than 100 migrants surveyed for a Hope Border Institute report, four out of five reported experiencing violence by criminal groups or state employees during their journeys in Mexico, De la Torre said. Other human rights organizations have documented people suffering kidnappings, torture, extortion and sexual assault while awaiting their CBP One appointments.
“After they do all that, they endure all that pain, all that suffering, then you are telling them that there is no option for them any more?” said De la Torre. “Or that if they cross with that pathway that you told them to, now you’re gonna prioritize them for deportation?”
At the Casa de Esperanza migrant shelter in Sonoyta, a small, dusty Mexican border town in the state of Sonora which faces the Organ Pipe national monument in Arizona, 140 people from Mexico, Venezuela, Honduras and Colombia were among those waiting earlier this month for a CBP One appointment. Some had already been waiting for eight months, they said, yet remained hopeful that Trump will not follow through with his threats to shut down the appointment system.
One family at the shelter fled their home in Guanajuato last June – a once tranquil state in central Mexico where organized crime and homicides have risen in the past few years.
“There’s a lot of rumors that the app will close but we’ve spent so much time and money to be here that I can’t give up hope. Our goal is to reach Fresno [in northern California], where my husband has family, from there we are prepared to work anywhere and do anything. I have faith in God that we’ll make it,” said the mother, 55, who asked the Guardian to withhold her identity for her security.
A woman from Guanajuato awaits her CBP One appointment at the Casa de Esperanza shelter in Sonoyta, a border town in Sonora, Mexico, in January. Photograph: Thalia Juarez/The Guardian
The mandatory use of the CBP One mobile application as largely the only accepted means of seeking asylum in the US has been condemned by Amnesty International as a “violation of international human rights and refugee law”. Still, it brought some order and relief for some asylum seekers – and a boost to the US economy, which some advocates believe make the application too costly to cut.
“CBP One is a machiavellian system that changed the dynamic of migration, guaranteeing cheap labor and taxes for the US but few rights for the migrants,” said Aaron Flores Morales, co-director of the Casa de Esperanza.
“Trump will deport people to demonstrate his power but I don’t think he will cancel CBP One because the US economy will collapse without the steady flow of cheap migrant labor. Immigration was a principal part of Trump’s campaign but he has far bigger problems to face as president,” he added.
There’s no question that the Trump administration can revoke the legal protections of people who already entered the US through CBP One should officials so choose, said Muzaffar Chishti, a New York-based senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. But the law would suggest they will at least need to proceed case by case and allow for some form of rebuttal, which even if they issued boilerplate parole cancelation notices probably couldn’t happen overnight.
But if he wants to, Trump can discontinue use of the CBP One app on day one, meaning potential legal limbo for those who have secured appointments for dates on or after the 20 January inauguration.
“All prior practice would show they have to honor it,” Chishti said of the upcoming appointments, “but I can’t tell you that that’s what this administration is going to do.”
In Denver, Ewing said his community was still gearing up for more work authorization legal clinics this month and next. So far, they have helped roughly 4,400 people apply for their work permits, about 3,700 of whom came into the US by using CBP One.
That’s thanks in part to about 1,100 volunteers who have already put in over 13,000 hours – and are still showing up to help.
Ewing believes it would be “antithetical to our values” if Trump negates all that, perhaps in the blink of an eye.
For those who risked so much and tried so valiantly to make a legal entry: “We gave them our word, and that should mean something,” he said.
In a recent turn of events at the US-Mexico border, a group of individuals who followed all the rules to legally enter the United States are now facing the threat of deportation by the Trump administration.
These individuals went through the proper channels, applied for asylum, and were granted entry into the country. They followed all the necessary steps and were hopeful for a better future in the United States. However, their hopes have been dashed as President Trump’s administration has decided to target them for deportation.
This cruel and heartless decision is tearing families apart and putting lives at risk. These individuals came to the United States seeking safety and a better life, only to face the threat of being sent back to dangerous and unstable situations in their home countries.
It is important to remember that these individuals are not criminals or threats to society. They simply followed the rules and sought refuge in a country that has prided itself on being a beacon of hope for those in need.
As Americans, we must stand up against these unjust and inhumane actions. We must demand that our government treat these individuals with the compassion and dignity they deserve. Deporting them would be a grave injustice and a stain on our nation’s values.
It is time to speak out and hold our government accountable. These individuals followed the rules to enter the US, and now it is our duty to ensure that they are treated fairly and with the respect they deserve. #ProtectAsylumSeekers #NoDeportations
