By Meredith Oyen
The brief closure of the Darien Gap – a perilous 66-mile jungle journey linking South American and Central America – in February 2024 temporarily halted one of the Western Hemisphere’s busiest migration routes. It also highlighted its importance to a small but growing group of people that depend on that pass to make it to the U.S.: Chinese migrants.
While a record 2.5 million migrants were detained at the United States’ southwestern land border in 2023, only about 37,000 were from China.
I’m a scholar of migration and China. What I find most remarkable in these figures is the speed with which the number of Chinese migrants is growing. Nearly 10 times as many Chinese migrants crossed the southern border in 2023 as in 2022. In December 2023 alone, U.S. Border Patrol officials reported encounters with about 6,000 Chinese migrants, in contrast to the 900 they reported a year earlier in December 2022.
The dramatic uptick is the result of a confluence of factors that range from a slowing Chinese economy and tightening political control by President Xi Jinping to the easy access to online information on Chinese social media about how to make the trip.
Middle-class migrants
Journalists reporting from the border have generalized that Chinese migrants come largely from the self-employed middle class. They are not rich enough to use education or work opportunities as a means of entry, but they can afford to fly across the world.
According to a report from Reuters, in many cases those attempting to make the crossing are small-business owners who saw irreparable damage to their primary or sole source of income due to China’s “zero COVID” policies. The migrants are women, men and, in some cases, children accompanying parents from all over China.
Chinese nationals have long made the journey to the United States seeking economic opportunity or political freedom. Based on recent media interviews with migrants coming by way of South America and the U.S.’s southern border, the increase in numbers seems driven by two factors.
First, the most common path for immigration for Chinese nationals is through a student visa or H1-B visa for skilled workers. But travel restrictions during the early months of the pandemic temporarily stalled migration from China. Immigrant visas are out of reach for many Chinese nationals without family or vocation-based preferences, and tourist visas require a personal interview with a U.S. consulate to gauge the likelihood of the traveler returning to China.
Social media tutorials
Second, with the legal routes for immigration difficult to follow, social media accounts have outlined alternatives for Chinese who feel an urgent need to emigrate. Accounts on Douyin, the TikTok clone available in mainland China, document locations open for visa-free travel by Chinese passport holders. On TikTok itself, migrants could find information on where to cross the border, as well as information about transportation and smugglers, commonly known as “snakeheads,” who are experienced with bringing migrants on the journey north.
With virtual private networks, immigrants can also gather information from U.S. apps such as X, YouTube, Facebook and other sites that are otherwise blocked by Chinese censors.
Inspired by social media posts that both offer practical guides and celebrate the journey, thousands of Chinese migrants have been flying to Ecuador, which allows visa-free travel for Chinese citizens, and then making their way over land to the U.S.-Mexican border.
This journey involves trekking through the Darien Gap, which despite its notoriety as a dangerous crossing has become an increasingly common route for migrants from Venezuela, Colombia and all over the world.
In addition to information about crossing the Darien Gap, these social media posts highlight the best places to cross the border. This has led to a large share of Chinese asylum seekers following the same path to Mexico’s Baja California to cross the border near San Diego.
Chinese migration to US is nothing new
The rapid increase in numbers and the ease of accessing information via social media on their smartphones are new innovations. But there is a longer history of Chinese migration to the U.S. over the southern border – and at the hands of smugglers.
From 1882 to 1943, the United States banned all immigration by male Chinese laborers and most Chinese women. A combination of economic competition and racist concerns about Chinese culture and assimilability ensured that the Chinese would be the first ethnic group to enter the United States illegally.
With legal options for arrival eliminated, some Chinese migrants took advantage of the relative ease of movement between the U.S. and Mexico during those years. While some migrants adopted Mexican names and spoke enough Spanish to pass as migrant workers, others used borrowed identities or paperwork from Chinese people with a right of entry, like U.S.-born citizens. Similarly to what we are seeing today, it was middle- and working-class Chinese who more frequently turned to illegal means. Those with money and education were able to circumvent the law by arriving as students or members of the merchant class, both exceptions to the exclusion law.
Though these Chinese exclusion laws officially ended in 1943, restrictions on migration from Asia continued until Congress revised U.S. immigration law in the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. New priorities for immigrant visas that stressed vocational skills as well as family reunification, alongside then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s policies of “reform and opening,” helped many Chinese migrants make their way legally to the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.
Even after the restrictive immigration laws ended, Chinese migrants without the education or family connections often needed for U.S. visas continued to take dangerous routes with the help of “snakeheads.”
One notorious incident occurred in 1993, when a ship called the Golden Venture ran aground near New York, resulting in the drowning deaths of 10 Chinese migrants and the arrest and conviction of the snakeheads attempting to smuggle hundreds of Chinese migrants into the United States.
Existing tensions
Though there is plenty of precedent for Chinese migrants arriving without documentation, Chinese asylum seekers have better odds of success than many of the other migrants making the dangerous journey north.
An estimated 55% of Chinese asylum seekers are successful in making their claims, often citing political oppression and lack of religious freedom in China as motivations. By contrast, only 29% of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the U.S. have their claim granted, and the number is even lower for Colombians, at 19%.
The new halt on the migratory highway from the south has affected thousands of new migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. But the mix of push factors from their home country and encouragement on social media means that Chinese migrants will continue to seek routes to America.
And with both migration and the perceived threat from China likely to be features of the upcoming U.S. election, there is a risk that increased Chinese migration could become politicized, leaning further into existing tensions between Washington and Beijing.
Meredith Oyen is Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
JimboXYZ says
Why ? That’s a better question to ask Biden-Harris about who is & why are they coming across the USA-Mexico border in record numbers beyond what is being counted ?
Lee says
Great statement Laurel !!
I agree totally.
Laurel says
So here is where my liberal side steps back: If the Chinese, who are coming here, are business people, and can afford to fly across the world, why can’t they stand in legal line? Oh, please, don’t start the Biden-Harris bull, it’s tedious. We know what happened to the bipartisan bill that would ease the situation. I think they are crowding in because they know we are overwhelmed right now, and it’s just, plain easier than to fight for their own country. That’s why I admire the Ukrainians so much, and believe they should get help from democratic countries. They are willing to fight for their country. The Chinese, and others like them from other countries, are taking advantage of us and those who may really have a damned, good reason to flee to here from real oppression, who really need us. Take back your country, and be respected for it, or get in line and stop taking advantage of us.
This is where the Republicans are unreasonable and the Democrats are too nice. Seriously, I think Biden should slam shut the border, south and north, west and east, until both parties can really figure out how to handle this together. Stop the political spin and bullshit. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for everyone to come here, and everyone to force our hand with overwhelming the system when they have the real option to get here legally.
JimboXYZ says
“Oh, please, don’t start the Biden-Harris bull, it’s tedious.”
“This is where the Republicans are unreasonable and the Democrats are too nice. Seriously, I think Biden should slam shut the border, south and north, west and east, until both parties can really figure out how to handle this together. Stop the political spin and bullshit. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for everyone to come here, and everyone to force our hand with overwhelming the system when they have the real option to get here legally.”
While there will most likely never be a perfect border solution, The Trump-Pence Wall is a step towards what you say Biden & the rest of the DC Swamp D’s & R’s should do. Biden-Harris suspended wall contracts within 24 hours of inauguration 2021. Hoping that funding would be reappropriated for something else. That reappropriation never happened, not even with the D’s controlling Congress for 2 years of Biden-Harris. The Biden that “get’s things done”, didn’t get that much done. And showing up in Dec 2023-present with a relative compromise for something funding that he can’t reappropriate anyway, Biden has attached his war chest funding replenishment riders on legislation is treasonous. Biden’s oath is to defend America from invasions, the drug & human trafficking is an invasion. Used to be Benedict Arnold was synonymous with a traitor & treason. In 2021 that reference applies distinctly being called Joe Biden. here has been only one POTUS that has maintained a consistent position on the border. That would be Trump. If you say the border needs to be closed, there’s only one way to vote in Nov 2024, it isn’t Biden-Harris, as they want 4 more years of the same border crisis or worse. Biden just doesn’t have it in him to shut that border down. He wants more funding to process more, faster. And with a track record of doing nothing or being unable to say no, Any funding that legislation has for the border for security will be applied to expedite illegals as legitimate dreamers or whatever the term is today at a faster rate than what is already happening.
Laurel says
,,,tedious.
jake says
“Oh, please, don’t start the Biden-Harris bull, it’s tedious. We know what happened to the bipartisan bill that would ease the situation.”
You mean the “bill” that would have allowed 5000 illegals a day to come into the country? You mean the “bill” that also included aid to other countries, that included Gaza, run by Hamas, that started a war with Israel. You mean that “bill”?
dave says
Why, because they can. Nothing to effectively stop them . Dec 23, 2023 ” In just five days last week, Border Patrol processed nearly 50,000 migrants who entered the U.S. illegally, with daily apprehensions surpassing 10,000 thrice, up from the 6,400 average last month, according to federal data obtained by CBS News. ”
How are Chinese immigrants getting to Mexico?
Unlike the migrants who make the grueling journey through Central America, some middle class migrants from China arrive with rolling bags. Some said they took flights all the way to Mexico. Many flew from China to Ecuador because it doesn’t require a visa for Chinese nationals. Then they flew to Tijuana. Feb 4, 2024..
Ray W. says
Context, context, Dave.
On Junae 1, 2023, Forbes published an article claiming that the U.S. birthrate was “flatlining”, meaning that it no longer was capable of increasing. According to a paper published by UW-Madison’s Sociology Department, the replacement rate in the U.S. is 2.1 births per woman. In 2007, the U.S. birth rate was 2.12 children per woman. By 2022, it had fallen to 1.67 children per woman.
Admittedly, this is a complex mathematical arena, because death rates can change from year to year (see pandemic, homicide rates, suicide rates, etc.), and the number of women entering maturity can still increase our population because they haven’t had their 1.67 chidren yet. Nonetheless, is seems reasonable to argue that the birth rate among American women is falling fast and we might be in a flatlining American-born population status.
Nonetheless, between 2010 and 2020, the Census Bureau reports that we added 22.8 million people between the two censuses. That means for an entire decade, we averaged the addition to our total population some 6,300 people per day, day after day, week after week. Some come in via lottery. Others have been waiting their turn to migrate for years. Many force the issue and claim asylum upon entry and receive documentation to remain until hearing. Fewer still enter without documentation. Some reverse migrate every year, either back home or to another country and I suspect the number of reverse migrants varies from year to year, too.
I am not arguing that you are wrong in your assertions. Just perhaps not as mathematically accurate as you could be. Is 10,000 per day as bad as you assert when the average daily entry for the past 14 years might just be around or over 6000 per day from the variety of migratory options? Yes, these numbers include the four Trump years, but it seems accurately documented thus far that many migrants reverse migrated during 2020 during the pandemic, because the overall total number of foreign-born residents in the U.S. actually dropped that year, according to the Census Bureau.
I suggest that you might be engaging in political hyperbole for partisan gain. Mathematical accuracy just might be the first casualty of the innumerate commenter in any federal election year.
Ed P says
Ray W,
Yes 10,000 unknown, unvetted, uneducated, non English speaking illegals migrants crossing our border is a problem and not political hyperbole.
It’s not the math but the method. The “real” costs and “problems” have not yet bitten us in the ass but when it does, it will not be a good thing.
You know a sovereign nation can not exist without secure borders.
Ray W. says
Not an altogether bad comment, so thank you, Ed P. As I have occasionally commented, one facet of my commenting approach is to provoke reciprocal comments that provide different perspectives.
Having spent over 30 years as a zealous advocate, I understand that advocacy presumes the existence of two or more valid arguments. We need judges because when two parties are right in their legal, not factual, claims, someone external to the dispute has to fill the role of judge in order to obtain the finality necessary to end the dispute.
Using the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, each of two parties to any dispute can be completely right in their “arguments.” But it is the party that produces the most, i.e., the preponderance, of the admissible “evidence” that is supposed to win. The other side, called the losing side, can be right in its facts all along, only just barely less right than the winning party. When both sides have strong arguments, the outcome is supposed to rest on the greater quantum of facts that supports the winning argument.
Let’s address your comment from the perspective of being factually right and wrong at the same time.
At the outset, just as in many of your prior comments, you have to admit that you just can’t be completely accurate in your factual claims.
If 10,000 people report to border officials to claim asylum on a particular day, you would be partially right in your claim, but those who report to border officials are not unknown and they are not illegal, because they are reporting to border agents and filing asylum claims. And they are not necessarily uneducated. They are supposed to be vetted, but Congress just won’t fund enough hearing officers, enough support personnel, enough border agents, enough holding areas, and on and on, to quickly process, or vet, their claims. It is our legislative scheme that requires that the legal applicants be released into the country prior to vetting. Hearing officers cannot be hired via executive order. Only legislation can do that. We can’t lawfully send asylum seekers back until they have the required hearing.
On the issue of education, the article addresses Chinese immigrants, many of them educated and many of them possessing skills any nation would need. We need more workers. We still have nine million unfilled posted job openings, according to the latest monthly JOLTS report, which by definition means that the worker shortage is a drain on our overall economic efficiency. We remain at a historically low level of domestic unemployment levels. We have been under 4% unemployment for a period longer than any other time in documented employment history. As we have relatively few domestic workers available to fill those job openings, many of our employers simply have to go without enough workers. I repeat, we need more workers. We have a relatively strong economy, perhaps the strongest in the world, but we cannot meet the needs of the companies that are unable to fill their posted job openings.
You are right on the relatively small yet significant number of entrants who do not report to border officials, your “illegals”, if you will. If three-quarters of all incoming immigrants report to border authorities, thereby becoming legal immigrants, and one-quarter bypass the border authorities, that latter category is a relatively small percentage, yet a significant number, nonetheless. I have never argued that immigration pressures are never a problem. Indeed, I have commonly argued that it is a “great” problem, meaning that all great problems, per Lincoln, are unsolvable. If a problem can be solved, according to Lincoln, it cannot be a great problem. All my adult life, there has been some type of problem or another with immigration, yet immigration problems have never been completely solved. The idea that immigration does not carry some sort of problem today is baseless. The issue is how big of a problem it is. That is the context of my first comment in this thread.
You are right that a nation needs secure borders, which is why the most recent border bill should have at the very least been considered and discussed on the floor of the House. Direct your ire at the leadership of today’s House.
You lost a significant amount of credibility when you claimed that the border issue is not political hyperbole. Wow! Immigration has been the subject of political hyperbole since before the turn of the 20th century. Yellow journalism has its roots in the political hyperbole directed toward the Spanish and its Cuban colony in the 1890’s. But that doesn’t mean that yellow journalism did not drive the political hysteria directed at Chinese and later Japanese immigration. Yellow journalism is the centerpiece of one current presidential candidate’s campaign platform.
The idea that one party’s immigration policy is not political hyperbole is absurd. Why throw away your reputation over something like that?
And it is the math, too. Innumeracy, which you apparently suffer from, means the inability to understand numbers. According to the Census Bureau, which has been tasked with collecting data on the birthplace of residents from its inception, there were nearly 50 million foreign-born residents here in 2023, up from 40 million in 2010. Do you understand these numbers? Is immigration a great, i.e., unsolvable, problem?
I previously commented about a 25-year study that revealed that some 45% of foreign-born residents eventually reverse migrate. This means that we are losing a large number of our foreign-born residents each year to reverse migration. I commented about a trend of reverse migrants who have long been sending money home. Their families build them homes and buy farms with some of that money, and they are returning to their families once they obtain the means to thrive in their home communities. Some of the today’s nearly 50 million foreign-born residents will die of old age or other factors, offsetting the numbers of incoming immigrants. Some will migrate to a second country.
Through all of this, we need more workers to meet current business needs. Given the size of America’s long-term foreign-born resident growth, if immigration ever were to meet your dire economic predictions, we would have suffered the dire effects long ago. Instead, since the second Reagan term, America has had a sustained strong economic growth rate, except for the Great Recession (housing based) and the pandemic. That history alone undermines your dire predictions. That doesn’t mean your dire predictions won’t happen and it certainly doesn’t mean that you won’t exaggerate the effects, if it does happen. After all, you have long presented as a commenter who doesn’t understand numbers.
In that long term of years dating from the Reagan era, we have gone from fewer than 10 million foreign-born residents to about 50 million.
Again, I am not saying you are wrong, but you are far less right than you could be.
Please consider and then reconsider the impact of your commonly less than factually accurate claims on your credibility before you send in a comment. The math is important. Your credibility is important. I look forward to reading comments by the factually accurate Ed P. The other one, not so much.