Are most of the immigrants here illegally because of Democratic presidents
Executive summary
Most evidence in the provided reporting does not support the claim that “most immigrants are here illegally because of Democratic presidents”; the undocumented population has been substantial under both parties and peaked at times under Republican administrations, while enforcement and policy choices have varied across administrations of both parties [1] [2] [3]. Recent spikes in border encounters have occurred across multiple presidencies and reflect a mix of policy changes, global push factors and seasonal patterns, not a single-party causation [4] [5].
1. The numbers don’t point to one party as the main cause
Analyses cited here find the total unauthorized population has been broadly consistent across Democratic and Republican presidencies, and in fact earlier work shows the unauthorized population peaked during the George W. Bush era rather than under Democratic presidencies alone (Third Way) [1], while long-term counts show the population hovered near 11 million across 2005–2022 (UC Davis/The Conversation) [3].
2. Enforcement under Democrats has sometimes been as vigorous or more so
Enforcement statistics complicate a simple partisan narrative: historical removal totals in multiple analyses show Democratic presidents removed more people in aggregate or on a per-year basis for large stretches of recent decades — for example, analyses that cover 1990–2018 find Democratic presidents removed on average more people per year than Republican presidents and that President Obama removed more people in total than other modern presidents (Cato) [2].
3. Recent increases in border encounters are multifactorial and not purely a policy consequence
Reporting on the Biden era notes significant increases in illegal crossings compared with previous years, but cautions analysts and fact-checkers that surges are driven by seasonal patterns, backlogs caused by pandemic-era closures, and global migration pressures as much as by any single U.S. policy change; several experts argue the rise began before Biden took office and fits predictable patterns of migration flows (CSMonitor; FactCheck) [4] [5].
4. Policy reversals and administrative actions matter, but so do prior trends
Both parties have enacted and reversed major immigration policies; critics of the Biden administration point to rescinded Trump-era restrictions as incentives for migration, while defenders note many of the migration increases began under the previous administration and during pandemic disruption — meaning administrative action can shape flows but is layered atop existing demand and international drivers (CSMonitor; FactCheck) [4] [5].
5. Political incentives and narratives are asymmetric and should be flagged
Some partisan claims frame immigration as a deliberate electoral strategy by Democrats (e.g., apportionment allegations), but data-driven rebuttals show that undocumented counts had limited effect on apportionment in most states and that seats gained or lost did not uniformly advantage one party (Third Way) [1]. Sources themselves have institutional perspectives — advocacy or policy centers may emphasize enforcement or legal pathways — so claims about motives should be treated as political interpretations rather than settled facts [6] [7].
6. Bottom line: causation is shared and complex, not a single-party attribution
The reviewed reporting consistently shows that neither party can be solely blamed for the presence of most undocumented immigrants: population levels have persisted across administrations, removals and enforcement have been substantial under Democrats at times and Republicans at others, and recent border spikes reflect multiple causes beyond presidential party control [1] [2] [3] [4]. Where sources disagree, they offer different emphases — enforcement metrics, policy changes, or political framing — which means the simple assertion that “most are here illegally because of Democratic presidents” is not supported by the cited evidence [1] [2] [4].