Border Patrol agents detained roughly 2,500 refugees over a 48 hour period, funneling them through at least two gates along the border. The fence between Mexico and the United States stood tall as El Paso, Texas, faced a critical moment just before Title 42 ended, a policy that had allowed immediate removal for public health reasons.
After seeing crowds form in two large groups near gates 40 and 42, about 16 kilometers east of El Paso, authorities organized the removals by bus first and then by vans. At Gate 40, people emerged in orderly lines, some with hands restrained behind their backs, moving toward waiting vehicles between 7 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. The aim was to relocate them to Border Patrol processing sites where their cases would be reviewed. Once the immediate area cleared, volunteers and clean‑up crews addressed debris and trash left behind along the riverbank between the wall and the Rio Grande, a region still under U.S. jurisdiction.
According to Raúl Ortiz, head of the national border guard, the operation shifted to Gate 42 at 3:15 p.m. local time (9:15 p.m. GMT), when a second group of about a thousand people gathered there. Detainees faced the next steps: processing by Border Patrol to determine whether asylum applications could begin, or whether they would face deportation.
Washington, unyielding
El Paso’s federal and local authorities, both aligned with the Democratic Party, have increased efforts in recent days to project order and control among migrants as Title 42 nears its expiration. The policy, set to lift at 9:59 p.m. local time, prompted a coordinated push to demonstrate stability at the border.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican who has repeatedly ordered more agents to reinforce the border, emphasized a narrative of danger amid calls for stronger border controls. In recent days, hundreds of undocumented individuals near the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in downtown El Paso faced pressure from authorities who urged them to comply with rules to avoid danger.
Over the past 72 hours, officials have stressed security while the status of many migrants remained uncertain. El Paso’s mayor announced efforts to expand capacity, highlighting new beds for migrants who pass Border Patrol triage. Washington also signaled a broader tightening of immigration measures. As Title 42 ends, Title 8 takes effect, shaping how asylum seekers at the Mexican border will be treated. The government indicated that new rules will restrict asylum access for those who do not pursue protection in a third country during their journey.
Deterrence campaign
In parallel, the Department of Homeland Security has launched a public information campaign aimed at Latin American migrants who might consider entering the United States. The message urges people not to heed smugglers and to learn how the U.S. immigration system actually works. The campaign targets countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ecuador and Colombia and will extend along migration routes and through popular social platforms among migrants.
Advertisements feature real-life stories and warnings about the consequences of illegal entry, including incompatibility with asylum eligibility. One PSA shows a migrant family and warns that illegal crossing can lead to serious penalties. Other materials emphasize that U.S. immigration laws are in force and that crossing without authorization carries consequences. A third brochure notes tightened rules and explains new penalties that may include deportation, a five-year re-entry ban, and the pursuit of repeat offenders. The core message remains clear: those who bypass legal channels may not qualify for asylum.
They keep throwing themselves into the Rio Grande
Amid the Title 42 crisis, migrants near Matamoros, Tamaulipas in northern Mexico have faced intense stress, with many attempting perilous crossings as authorities bolster border measures. As the end of Title 42 approached, more agents joined missions along the river while U.S. personnel reinforced the border area with additional barriers.
In the final hours, groups from diverse nationalities—mostly Venezuelans and others—rushed to riverbanks carrying children and personal belongings. Relief coordinators described the scene as a mounting sense of desperation as the deadline loomed. A Red Cross official noted that many were already at the limit of their endurance as May 11 approached, when the transition away from Title 42 would begin. Lifeguard data suggested that thousands had crossed irregularly in the preceding 48 hours, with some subsequently repatriated to their communities.
They challenge authority
Along the Rio Grande, federal personnel conducted ongoing operations while various private security teams and riot control units monitored the flow of asylum seekers. Observers noted increased cooperation on the American side to clear paths and prepare for anticipated arrivals. The National Institute of Migration staff faced constant pressure from loudspeakers and public guidance about the consequences of irregular entry, yet the tireless movement of people continued. A Venezuelan migrant shared that they remained hopeful but aware of the challenges ahead.
May 11 marks the end of Title 42, and the interim framework known as Title 8, which governs asylum procedures, is set to take effect. The shift has intensified expectations and concerns about how asylum policies will be applied in real time as people seek protection in the United States.
When time is up
In the final hours, groups with knowledge of possible crossings into Brownsville, Texas, pushed toward the border with urgency, aiming to reach U.S. soil before the river became a barrier. A Venezuelan migrant expressed that the window could stay open late, perhaps until midnight, highlighting the night that lay ahead. The situation underscored the ongoing challenge of balancing border security with asylum traditions as the country moved through a transition period.
As this phase continued, the border remained a focal point for policy discussions and humanitarian concerns alike, with authorities balancing enforcement priorities against the realities faced by people seeking safety and protection across the border.