How have immigration policies changed under the Biden administration compared to previous administrations?

1. Early undoing of Trump-era restrictions: rapid executive reversals

On day one and in the weeks after inauguration the Biden administration rescinded or reversed a slate of Trump executive orders and policies — halting border‑wall construction, ending the travel bans, rescinding EO 13768 on interior enforcement, and creating a family reunification task force — signaling a policy pivot from enforcement‑first to a more humane framing ^{[1] [8] [2] [9]}.

2. Emphasis on executive actions because Congress remained gridlocked

Biden’s team relied heavily on executive actions to change policy rather than waiting for legislation. Migration Policy Institute counted 605 immigration‑related executive actions by late 2024 — more than Trump’s first‑term tally — reflecting both ambition and the limits of getting large immigration bills through a divided Congress ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Humanitarian changes: TPS, parole and asylum access

The administration designated or redesignated countries for TPS (e.g., Afghanistan, Venezuela among others) and expanded parole pathways and programs intended to ease legal avenues for migrants, while opening regional processing and expanding tools like CBP One to schedule asylum interviews — steps framed as expanding legal pathways and humanitarian protection ^{[3] [10] [5]}.

4. Border management: policy shifts met by operational strain and controversy

Biden sought to dismantle some Trump border tools (MPP “Remain in Mexico,” Title 42 was targeted for end) but the administration faced historic irregular arrivals at the U.S.–Mexico border. That tension produced criticism from both immigrant‑rights groups (for continued enforcement) and conservatives (for perceived laxity) and complicated attempts to both increase humanitarian protections and manage flows ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

5. Enforcement priorities changed but removals continued

Although early Biden orders revised enforcement priorities to focus interior enforcement on public‑safety threats, the administration still oversaw substantial removals and increased activities that critics cite as evidence the administration did not simply abandon enforcement — a point underscored by reporting that deportation numbers rose in later years even as policy rhetoric emphasized fairness ^{[4] [8]}.

6. Attempts at modernization and targeted reforms (visas, diversity, worker rules)

Biden proposed legislative changes such as increasing diversity visas and making spouse work permits for H‑1B spouses permanent; the administration also moved to unwind pandemic‑era “invisible wall” consular practices and public‑charge rules, aiming to restore legal immigration channels and reduce administrative barriers ^{[11] [12]}.

7. Legal and political pushback shaped outcomes — and later reversals

Several Biden policies faced court challenges and state opposition; some executive orders were later rescinded by the next administration and others were blocked or modified in litigation. High‑profile reversals and policy churn underscore the fragility of executive‑branch immigration change without durable statutory reform ^{[13] [14] [15]}.

8. Competing narratives: humanitarian reform vs. border crisis

Advocates frame Biden’s record as correcting harsh, discriminatory Trump policies and restoring due‑process dignity (family reunification, ending bans, TPS expansions) ^{[1] [12]}. Opponents say those same moves, plus operational choices at the border, created incentives for irregular migration and required stricter enforcement — an argument that later administrations and critics used to justify renewed restrictions ^{[4] [13]}.

9. What reporting does not settle (limitations)

Available sources do not provide a single, consolidated measure of net legal immigration changes attributable only to Biden policy (e.g., precise counts of green cards caused by his actions, long‑term asylum grant rates tied solely to policy changes); many outcomes also depended on court rulings, international conditions, and subsequent administrations’ reversals (not found in current reporting).

10. Bottom line for readers

Biden’s immigration approach differed markedly in rhetoric and many administrative actions from the Trump administration: it emphasized restoring protections, legal pathways and humanitarian relief while shifting enforcement priorities; but it struggled with unprecedented border operational pressures, heavy use of executive authority that left policies vulnerable to legal and political reversal, and sharp disagreement about whether outcomes improved or worsened as a result ^{[1] [3] [4]}.