What specific provisions were in Biden's 2024 immigration and border security bill?
Executive summary
The Biden administration’s 2024 border package—centered on the Senate’s Border Act (S.4361) and companion emergency supplemental proposals—combined expanded DHS enforcement authority, expedited asylum processing with new summary removal tools and tight review limits, substantial funding for asylum officers and refugee assistance, and targeted humanitarian pathways for Afghan and certain family-based populations (Congress.gov; White House; National Immigration Forum) [1] [2] [3]. The package was paired with executive actions—most notably a June 2024 proclamation and interim final rule—that suspended entry for many southern-border crossers and narrowed asylum eligibility while creating enumerated exemptions (Congress.gov CRS; White House) [4] [5].
1. The core enforcement and emergency authority: a new “shutdown” lever for DHS
The Border Act explicitly expands DHS authority to summarily remove or prohibit entry of certain non‑U.S. nationals and gives the president emergency authority to restrict border crossings when predefined encounter thresholds are met, making use of short‑term suspension powers that alter who can seek entry at the southern border (Congress.gov summary of S.4361) [1]. FactCheck noted that proponents described this as “new emergency authority to shut down the border,” a point that became central to political debates over whether the executive already possessed similar powers (FactCheck) [6].
2. Faster, administrative asylum processing with limited review
The bill creates provisional noncustodial removal proceedings with target timelines to expedite asylum determinations, shifts much of the asylum screening burden to USCIS asylum officers, and limits judicial and appellate review of denials—changes intended to speed cases but that legal analysts warn could reduce access to full evidentiary hearings and increase erroneous denials (Congress.gov; American Immigration Council; The Hill) [1] [7] [8].
3. Numeric staffing and court investments: an operational scaling plan
To operationalize expedited processing, the Administration and the bipartisan Senate text proposed major personnel and court investments: an increase of roughly 4,300 asylum officers on top of the roughly 1,000 then in place, and funding for about 100 additional immigration judges and supporting staff to shorten multi‑year backlogs (White House fact sheet) [2]. Supporters argue these hires make the system “faster and fairer,” while critics say speed without sufficient legal safeguards risks due process (White House; American Immigration Council) [2] [7].
4. Funding and humanitarian assistance: $2.334 billion and refugee services
The emergency supplemental included $2.334 billion for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance program to support resettlement and services for newly arrived refugees and to reauthorize certain expired benefits—an infusion aimed at state and direct service capacity as part of the larger national security supplemental (National Immigration Forum explainer) [3].
5. Targeted humanitarian pathways: Afghans, family parole, and CHNV programs
The legislative package and related administration moves preserved and in some cases expanded humanitarian channels: provisions to make certain Afghans eligible for conditional permanent resident status and to broaden special immigrant visa eligibility for those injured while supporting the U.S., and administration actions to establish parole processes for an estimated ~550,000 spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens—while maintaining CHNV (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela) parole programs (Congress.gov; Migration Policy Institute) [1] [9].
6. Executive measures in parallel: proclamation, interim rule, and “manifest fear” standard
When Congressional action stalled, the Administration issued Proclamation 10773 and an interim final rule effective June 5, 2024, that suspended and limited entry of noncitizens who cross unlawfully at the southern border, set exemptions (unaccompanied children, trafficking victims, scheduled POE arrivals, etc.), and endorsed a narrow “manifest fear” exception often criticized as vague and difficult to enforce (Congress.gov CRS product; White House) [4] [5].
7. Political and legal flashpoints: due process, efficacy, and partisan skepticism
Analysts and advocacy groups highlighted tradeoffs: supporters touted personnel boosts and new authorities as essential to restore order, while critics—legal scholars and immigrant advocacy organizations cited in reporting—warned about curtailed judicial review, administrative-only hearings, and the increased likelihood of wrongful denials; meanwhile, partisan opponents accused the bill of either not going far enough or of granting dangerous executive powers, contributing to its legislative fragility (American Immigration Council; Brookings; The Hill; FactCheck) [7] [10] [8] [6].