Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did Biden's first term immigration policies affect asylum seeker numbers?
Executive Summary
Biden’s first-term immigration policies produced a complex and contradictory set of outcomes: they coincided with large increases in border encounters and more people entering the U.S. on parole or awaiting adjudication, while simultaneously tightening formal asylum access through new restrictions and scheduling systems. Different analyses emphasize either the surge in encounters and parole pathways (increasing the asylum‑pipeline population) or the administration’s restrictive rules that limited traditional asylum grants and shifted processing to alternative channels [1] [2] [3].
1. Momentum at the border: an unprecedented surge in encounters and parolees
Multiple analyses document a dramatic rise in migrant encounters and people routed into U.S. custody, parole, or release during Biden’s first term. Official tallies and compilations show millions of encounters—with figures cited between roughly 6.5 million and over 8 million encounters across 2021–2024—resulting in millions being paroled, released, removed, or expelled [3] [2] [4]. These data reflect the practical impact of ending some Trump-era barriers (for example, “Remain in Mexico”) and creating humanitarian parole programs; these changes increased the number of people inside the U.S. institutional pipeline seeking asylum or other relief even as formal asylum adjudications lagged. The surge also generated political and operational pressures that shaped subsequent policy adjustments [2].
2. Policy shifts that opened pathways but narrowed formal asylum access
Biden reversed several Trump policies and introduced new legal pathways such as humanitarian parole programs and the CBP One scheduling app, but also issued measures that restricted asylum eligibility for many irregular crossers, including the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule and other enforcement steps. Analysts conclude this produced a dual effect: more people were allowed into the country under parole or humanitarian programs, increasing the pool of people pursuing protection, while formal asylum channels and grant rates were constrained or delayed, changing where and how asylum claims were filed and adjudicated [2] [1]. That split between greater inflows and narrower formal access is central to understanding changing asylum‑seeker numbers under Biden.
3. Asylum grant rates rose, but decisions fell and backlogs grew
Available analyses show asylum grant rates increased relative to 2020—denial rates fell and a higher share of claims were successful—but the absolute number of asylum decisions dropped during pandemic disruptions and processing changes. For example, one compilation reported a decline in total asylum decisions in FY2021 compared with FY2020 even as success rates rose, illustrating how changes in adjudication volume and timing can produce misleading impressions if only rates are considered [5]. The consequence was a growing backlog and a sizeable population of parolees and claimants waiting for full hearings, which amplifies the perception of larger “asylum seeker numbers” even where formal grants did not immediately increase in proportion [5] [2].
4. Humanitarian and safety impacts: dangerous irregular crossings and Mexican limbo
Observers and humanitarian organizations documented that restrictive operational policies and metering at ports of entry pushed many asylum seekers into irregular crossings and prolonged stays in Mexico, exposing them to greater danger. Critics argued that the combination of limited lawful entry appointments, expulsions under pandemic-era rules, and restrictive asylum eligibility led migrants to attempt riskier routes such as the Rio Grande or desert crossings, while NGOs urged rescinding restrictive rules and speeding adjudications to reduce harm [1]. This underscores that policy design reshaped not only counts but the human geography of migration and the risks migrants faced.
5. Conflicting counts and political framing: why numbers diverge sharply
Different actors present starkly different totals—ranging from several million to near‑ten‑million encounter figures—because they count different metrics: encounters, gotaways, paroled entrants, expulsions, and cumulative contacts are combined or separated in varying reports. Fact‑checking analyses warn that citing raw encounter totals without distinguishing repatriations vs. releases, or encounters vs. unique individuals, leads to misleading claims [3]. Political actors and oversight committees have incentives to emphasize high totals to signal crisis, while humanitarian groups highlight human costs; neutral analyses stress parsing the underlying datasets and timeline to reconcile these divergent portrayals [3] [6].
6. Net effect: a larger asylum‑pipeline but compressed legal access and greater backlog
Summing the documented trends, Biden’s first‑term policies enlarged the population seeking protection within or at the border through parole programs and increased encounters, while reforms and restrictions simultaneously constricted formal asylum entry and delayed adjudications, producing more people in limbo. Analysts characterize this as a policy legacy that modernized some systems (e.g., CBP One) but left enforcement and humanitarian outcomes in tension: rising encounters and parole numbers, improved grant rates for some applicants, and growing backlogs and human-rights concerns for others [2] [1] [5]. Policymakers and stakeholders differ sharply on remedies, reflecting competing priorities between border management, asylum access, and humanitarian protection [1] [6].