Biden open borders
Executive summary
The claim that "Biden has open borders" is an oversimplification: the Biden administration dismantled several Trump-era restrictions and expanded lawful pathways, yet it also preserved or reintroduced enforcement tools and carried out large numbers of expulsions and removals amid record border encounters [1] [2] [3]. Both supporters and critics portray those mixed actions through stark, politically charged frames—“more humane” reform versus “loosened” enforcement—but the public record shows policy changes, litigation, and operational adjustments rather than a single policy of uncontrolled entry [4] [5] [6].
1. What the administration changed on day one and soon after
On his first day President Biden reversed or paused multiple Trump-era rules: he halted further wall construction, rescinded the family-separation policy and set up a Family Reunification Task Force, and temporarily paused certain deportations while directing DHS to prioritize enforcement resources differently [1] [4] [5]. Advocates hailed these moves as restoring humanitarian norms; critics seized them as evidence of relaxed enforcement, a debate reflected in Congressional and state lawsuits that followed [1] [7].
2. Enforcement continued — and sometimes hardened — despite reversals
Contrary to the “open borders” shorthand, the administration expanded or continued use of several enforcement mechanisms: it deployed expedited removal processes to interior cases, debated and used public-health expulsions and other restrictions, and by some measures equaled prior administrations in removals over multiple fiscal years [5] [8] [2]. Migration scholars note that Biden’s presidency has been unusually active on immigration policy even as border encounters climbed, underscoring that high arrival numbers coexist with sustained enforcement actions [6] [2].
3. Policy shifts that look permissive but have limits and conditions
The administration both created new humanitarian pathways and restarted certain restrictive programs when operational pressures rose: it established parole and orderly entry processes while at times reinstating or using elements of Trump-era tools — for instance, reimplementing aspects of the Remain-in-Mexico approach at points and keeping Title 42 in effect longer than critics expected — illustrating a pragmatic, adaptive posture rather than carte blanche admission [2] [3] [8]. The administration also announced contingency limits on asylum access tied to daily encounter thresholds, showing conditional constraints [9].
4. Numbers matter — record encounters complicate narratives
From 2021 through at least late 2024, U.S. agencies recorded millions of border encounters and a backlog that strained processing systems; Migration Policy notes 8.6 million encounters through October 2024 and large numbers of deportations and lawful admissions over the same period [2] [6]. These statistics fuel both the “open borders” rhetoric and the counterargument that surges reflect global push factors, prior policies, and operational bottlenecks more than a single administration’s intent [10] [6].
5. The political frames and agendas shaping "open borders" claims
Conservative critics and Republican congressional materials characterize Biden’s policy choices—ending some Trump programs, pausing wall funding, pausing new MPP enrollments—as evidence of intentionally lax borders, often omitting simultaneous enforcement actions and expulsions [11] [12]. Advocacy organizations and policy analysts emphasize humanitarian reforms, new legal pathways, and administrative constraints, while acknowledging administration missteps in timing and capacity that worsened perceptions [7] [2]. Both frames serve partisan aims: accountability and border control for critics, rule-of-law and humanitarian restoration for supporters.
6. Bottom line: not “open borders,” but a complex, contested record
The factual record shows a mixed Biden approach—significant dismantling of Trump-era restrictions and expansion of legal channels alongside continued expulsions, removals, and new enforcement mechanisms; record arrival numbers and processing backlogs compounded the political narrative [1] [2] [6]. Given litigation, shifting policies, and operational thresholds tied to encounter levels, the most accurate conclusion is that the administration pursued a hybrid strategy marked by both restraint from harsh prior practices and active enforcement when politically or operationally necessary — not a policy of open, uncontrolled borders [4] [5] [9].