Which executive actions and laws shaped Biden-era border enforcement and migration management?

1. Presidential Proclamation 10773: a legal lever to curb asylum access

In June 2024 the White House used a decades-old presidential-statute authority to issue Proclamation 10773, temporarily suspending or limiting entry of certain noncitizens at the southern border when “high levels of encounters” strained the system; the administration framed it as a thresholded tool tied to encounter metrics and accompanied it with an interim/final HHS–DHS/DOJ rule that narrows asylum eligibility for many who arrive outside ports of entry ^{[1] [2] [10]}. Supporters argue the proclamation gives officials a way to impose consequences when crossings spike; critics, including immigrant-rights groups, say it undercuts asylum obligations ^{[1] [11]}.

2. The “Asylum Ban” / Circumvention rule: rulemaking to deter irregular entries

After Title 42 ended, the administration adopted the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule (May 2023) that presumes many entrants who transited other countries without using DHS-approved pathways are ineligible for asylum unless they meet narrow exceptions — a presumption later echoed in the 2024 proclamation and subsequent rulemaking ^{[5] [2]}. The Library of Congress/CRS trace this approach to earlier Trump-era attempts to limit asylum by imposing third-country transit and POE conditions, underlining continuity in using rulemaking to restrict asylum eligibility ^[2].

3. Parole programs and orderly pathways: expansion as pressure valve

The administration increased use of parole authority and created nationality- or program-specific channels (CBP One appointments and parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and others) to move people off the irregular flow and into supervised entry, with public documents citing nearly 1.3 million paroled admissions across initiatives and DHS fact sheets promoting the approach as both humanitarian and pragmatic ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Migration Policy Institute reporting credits these orderly pathways paired with tougher asylum limits as the twin strategy shaping enforcement ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Executive orders, agency priorities and enforcement guidance

Early Biden executive actions shifted ICE/DHS priorities away from broadremoval of noncitizens with minor offenses and toward national-security and public-safety targets; the administration issued executive orders, fact sheets and guidance that reoriented enforcement and promised reunifications of families separated under prior policies ^{[12] [13]}. Migration-policy analysts note Biden took more immigration-focused executive actions in his first three years than his predecessor did over four, reflecting an activist use of executive authority ^[6].

5. Conflict with states and lawsuits: politics and litigation reshape implementation

Republican-led states and officials have repeatedly challenged Biden’s mix of parole, asylum restrictions and enforcement guidance in court and through public attacks; House Republicans and state attorneys general have framed the administration’s actions as causing a “border crisis,” while state filings and statements seek injunctions or alternative enforcement authority ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Congressional and state pressure produced a contested legal terrain that affected how rules were implemented and litigated ^{[2] [7]}.

6. Mixed assessments from policy analysts and advocates

Migration Policy Institute and other analysts call Biden’s record “mixed”: administration modernization and new orderly pathways coexist with policies that significantly limit asylum access and increased enforcement at the border — a combination that analysts say has reshaped who can access protection and how migrants enter ^{[5] [6]}. Humanitarian groups argue proclamation and rules undermine asylum law and values; the administration counters that restrictions are temporary, tied to encounter thresholds, and necessary to maintain operational control ^{[11] [1]}.

Limitations and unresolved items

Available sources document the major proclamations, the Circumvention rule, expanded parole programs and executive orders, but they do not provide a comprehensive list of every single executive action or internal DHS memos shaping daily enforcement; for a complete legal inventory, readers should consult the CRS product and DHS rulemaking dockets cited above ^{[2] [1]}. Sources disagree sharply about effects: government and migration-policy scholars emphasize management and modernization, while congressional Republicans and some state attorneys general describe unlawful soft enforcement — both positions appear repeatedly in the record ^{[6] [7] [8]}.