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.
Fact check: Biden open borders tactic used to manipulate elections
Executive Summary
President Biden has been accused by critics of using an "open borders" approach to manipulate elections by enabling large numbers of noncitizens to enter the United States and, eventually, vote. The available evidence shows sharp partisan disagreement: congressional Republicans and some commentators frame migration as a deliberate political tactic [1] [2], while fact-checkers and agency materials find no credible evidence of a coordinated voter-importation scheme and point to policy changes aimed at restricting unlawful entries and ramping up removals [3] [4] [5]. The factual record is mixed on migration volumes and political intent, but it does not substantiate a direct administration plan to import voters for electoral advantage [6] [7].
1. The Dramatic Claim: "Open Borders" as an Election Tactic — What Republicans Say
Republican investigators and some conservative commentators assert that the Biden administration intentionally loosened enforcement to produce a historic surge of entries and thereby alter the electorate. A House Homeland Security majority report calls the situation a “crisis by design,” quantifying more than 10.3 million inadmissible arrivals since January 2021 and framing the administration's posture as a dereliction of duty with political motives [1]. This allegation emphasizes numbers and intent, alleging a causal link between border policy choices and electoral outcomes; it relies on internal committee findings and a narrative that policy choices were guided by electoral calculations [1] [2]. The report’s publication date, September 18, 2024, anchors the claim within the run-up to the 2024 election cycle [1].
2. Pushback from Fact-Checkers and Policy Experts: No Evidence of Voter Importation
Independent fact-checkers and migration experts reject the claim that the administration orchestrated an electoral scheme. PolitiFact’s February 2025 reviews concluded there is no evidence that Biden ran a "voter importation" program, noting hundreds of thousands of removals and expulsions during his term and explaining that naturalization and voter eligibility require years, so newly arrived migrants cannot be rapidly converted into voters [3] [6]. Scholars such as David Bier at the Cato Institute emphasize that immigration’s effect on party fortunes is complex and slow-moving, undermining the plausibility of a short-term, election-driven importation strategy [3].
3. Administration Actions: Policy Moves That Contradict "Open Borders"
The Biden administration enacted measures that run counter to an “open borders” description and that aim to reduce unlawful flows. In June 2024, the president issued a proclamation to restrict asylum eligibility for many individuals apprehended crossing illegally, designed to deter unlawful crossings and steer migration toward legal channels; DHS later described unprecedented investments in enforcement and workforce while noting reductions in unlawful crossings after the proclamation [4] [5]. These steps indicate active enforcement and policy adjustments rather than a passive or intentionally permissive border posture [5].
4. The Middle Ground: Policy Constraints, Political Calculations, and Administrative Limits
Analysts highlight a middle-ground explanation: Biden’s immigration record reflects competing pressures—legal constraints, court rulings, resource limits, and political balancing between progressive allies and border-security concerns. Reporting from January 2025 described the administration’s struggle to balance enforcement and humanitarian commitments, suggesting policy choices were influenced by political considerations but not necessarily by a scheme to manipulate voter rolls [2]. This pragmatic interpretation accounts for policy shifts and uneven outcomes without asserting a deliberate electoral plot.
5. Data Nuance: Removals, Entries, and Time Lags That Matter for Voting
Statistical context undermines the immediacy of the "import voters" claim: removals and expulsions number in the millions under Biden, and legal pathways to citizenship require years before voting eligibility, creating a time lag that makes rapid electoral conversion implausible [3]. Congressional figures citing over 10 million inadmissible arrivals capture aggregate encounters but do not track lawful status outcomes or eventual naturalizations, leaving a gap between entry counts and any effect on voter rolls [1] [3]. The distinction between encounters, admissions, lawful permanent residence, and citizenship is central and often omitted in political claims.
6. Isolated Examples and the Risk of Overgeneralization
Isolated incidents of noncitizen registration or fraud occasionally surface and are seized upon as proof of systemic manipulation; a September 2025 report described one noncitizen registered to vote in Maryland [8]. While such cases raise legitimate election-integrity concerns, investigators and fact-checkers caution against extrapolating single incidents into a nationwide conspiracy without systemic evidence. The balance of expert analysis and official data shows localized errors do not equate to an orchestrated national program to import votes [8] [6].
7. Bottom Line: What the Record Supports and What Remains Unproven
The evidence supports the conclusion that migration increased and that the Biden administration faced enforcement challenges and political trade-offs, but it does not support the specific accusation that the administration intentionally imported voters as an electoral tactic. Congressional reports, policy reporting, DHS fact sheets, and independent fact-checks together show contested interpretations of motive and impact, with no verified documentary or statistical proof of a coordinated voter-importation scheme [1] [5] [3]. The debate will continue to hinge on interpretation of enforcement choices, the pace of naturalization, and isolated breaches in election administration rather than on clear evidence of a deliberate electoral manipulation plan [2] [7].