“…..bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job.” Kamala Harris 2024 Debate

Increasing the number of border agents by 1,500 under the Biden administration could offer some operational improvements in handling illegal immigration, but its overall effectiveness may be limited if immigration laws and border agency politics remain unchanged.

Here’s a detailed analysis from different perspectives, using examples specifically from the Biden administration:

1. Operational Efficiency & Asylum Backlog

• Pro: More agents can help with the day-to-day operations at the border, allowing for better monitoring of crossings and potentially speeding up the processing of migrants.
  
• Cons: Without changes in immigration laws, particularly in the asylum process, additional agents will still face the same bureaucratic delays. Under the Biden administration, the surge of migrants, especially asylum seekers from Central America, led to massive backlogs. Even with more agents, the system remained overwhelmed because immigration courts were handling over a million pending cases, slowing down the process of either approving or deporting asylum seekers.

Example: In 2021, despite increased personnel and resources at the southern border, the administration struggled with an influx of migrants. The number of asylum seekers surged, but the legal framework, requiring court hearings and due process, clogged the system. The backlogs grew, and many migrants were released into the U.S. with court dates far into the future, reducing the immediate impact of additional border agents.

2. Resource Allocation & Overcrowding

• Pro: A larger workforce may reduce agent burnout and ensure more comprehensive coverage of the border, potentially improving migrant processing.
  
• Cons: Even with more agents, if resources such as processing facilities, legal aid, and detention centers aren’t improved, overcrowding and humanitarian crises may persist. During the Biden administration, there were frequent reports of overcrowded facilities, especially for unaccompanied minors. Additional agents may help manage the crowd, but without changes in how resources are allocated, such as building more shelters or increasing processing speed, the situation won’t improve significantly.

Example: In Donna, Texas, in 2021, migrant facilities became dangerously overcrowded, particularly with unaccompanied minors. Despite the deployment of more border agents, the lack of infrastructure and slow asylum processes meant that migrants were held in poor conditions for extended periods. Adding agents did not alleviate the root cause—insufficient legal and logistical capacity to process and care for the migrants.

3. Impact on Smuggling & Cartels

• Pro: More agents could disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder for traffickers to bring people across the border.
  
• Cons: Smugglers and cartels often adapt to increased enforcement by changing tactics or routes. During the Biden administration, even with heightened enforcement, smugglers found ways to exploit remote areas, bypassing checkpoints or taking more dangerous routes, which increased the risk for both migrants and border agents.

Example: Despite increases in enforcement personnel, smugglers continued to operate along more dangerous routes, such as the desert areas between Texas and Arizona. Smugglers also increasingly used sophisticated methods like tunnels or concealing migrants in hazardous conditions, showing that increasing agent numbers alone was not enough to completely counteract illegal activity.

4. Political and Legal Considerations

• Pro: Deploying more agents can show a commitment to border security and deter potential illegal crossings through a show of force.
  
• Cons: However, internal political challenges and legal ambiguities within the border enforcement system can diminish the effectiveness of added personnel. Under the Biden administration, the suspension of some Trump-era policies, such as the “Remain in Mexico” program, was met with confusion and legal challenges. While more agents were deployed to manage the situation, the unclear legal framework and political tensions within agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP) led to inconsistent enforcement.

Example: The Biden administration struggled with the legal and logistical complexities of rolling back the “Remain in Mexico” program. While the program was paused, court challenges and mixed messaging created uncertainty. Even with more border agents, the lack of a coherent legal and policy framework left agents and migrants in limbo, diminishing the impact of additional personnel on border security.

Conclusion:

Increasing 1,500 more border agents under the Biden administration would offer some immediate improvements in managing the flow of migrants and handling illegal immigration.

However, without changes to immigration laws, agency policies, and resource allocation, the overall impact of this increase will likely be limited.

Issues like overcrowded facilities, legal backlogs, smuggling adaptations, and political confusion have continued to impede effective border control, even with more personnel deployed.