How does Biden's border policy compare to that of his predecessors, such as Trump and Obama?

1. Biden started with a different tone but a mixed toolbox

President Biden came into office promising to undo the “moral and ethical” harms of Trump-era immigration measures, emphasizing a more humane approach and parole for some migrants ^[3]. Yet analysts note his administration kept or retooled several enforcement tools — including expulsions and asylum restrictions — and pursued administrative actions (over 600 immigration-related actions by late 2024), producing a policy mix of humanitarian programs and tough border controls ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Enforcement: targeted expulsions and retained Trump-era mechanisms

Policy trackers show Biden retained critical enforcement mechanisms early on — Title 42–style expulsions and other Trump-era processes were kept in place at least initially — and later in 2024 implemented a presidential proclamation and rule that further restricted asylum, which the administration credited with a sizable short-term drop in encounters ^{[1] [2]}. Migration-policy analysis emphasizes that Biden’s choices sometimes resembled Trump approaches on expulsions even as the administration framed them as necessary emergency measures ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Trump’s approach: deterrence, detention, and mass enforcement

Trump’s border strategy centered on deterrence—hardline asylum limits, “zero-tolerance” prosecutions that produced family separations, large-scale removal priorities, and expanded use of detention and interior enforcement. Commentators and policy reviews contrast this direct enforcement posture with Biden’s stated humanitarian aims, noting Trump historically pursued more sweeping local-enforcement partnerships and broader detention policies ^{[6] [5]}.

4. Outcomes and political framing: overlapping criticism from left and right

Observers from across the political spectrum criticized Biden: immigrant-rights advocates said some of his practices doubled down on Trump-style enforcement, while conservatives argued Biden’s earlier policies led to record arrivals and a “crisis” ^[4]. Both sides have used encounter and apprehension numbers to make opposing claims about cause and effect, and reporters note that changes in asylum rules and cooperation with Mexico and other countries influenced flows in 2023–24 ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Administrative activity versus legislative reform

Because Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform, the executive branch under Biden produced a high volume of administrative changes (MPI counted some 605 actions through late 2024), reflecting the modern reality that presidencies shape immigration mainly by executive authority — the same dynamic that produced rapid changes under Trump ^[4]. Policy observers say this pushes immigration back into the courts and politics rather than producing durable legislative solutions ^[4].

6. Recent developments: more restrictions in 2024–25 and comparisons to a second Trump term

In mid-2024 the Biden administration implemented a presidential proclamation and interim final rule to restrict asylum, which officials said cut encounters; at the same time, reporting and policy centers tracked further shifts under a later Trump administration that emphasized “mass deportations,” expanded local enforcement, and steeper reductions in releases — illustrating how hardline and restrictive tools have been used by both parties depending on political pressure ^{[2] [7] [8]}.

7. What the data and sources do — and don’t — resolve

Migration-policy and think‑tank analyses document that Biden both changed and preserved Trump-era policies and that outcomes (apprehensions, removals, asylum claims) shifted with administrative rules and international cooperation ^{[4] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a definitive, single metric that proves one president “closed” or “opened” the border permanently; instead, they show cyclical policy adjustments, litigation, and international arrangements shaping flows ^{[4] [5]}.

8. Bottom line for readers: nuance matters amid political claims

Both administrations relied heavily on executive authority to manage migration; Biden emphasized humanitarian framing and targeted parole while also utilizing expulsions and asylum limits when pressured, whereas Trump prioritized deterrence through detention, removals, and hardline asylum tests. Each side accuses the other of creating crisis conditions — but reporting and policy trackers show convergence on some tools and divergence in rhetoric, implementation scope, and stated goals ^{[1] [6] [4]}.