Did Biden have an open border policy?

1. Policy moves that look like tightening, not opening

The Biden White House repeatedly implemented measures that restricted entry and asylum eligibility: the Administration issued a June 2024 Presidential Proclamation and an interim final rule to suspend or limit entry during high encounter periods and to bar migrants who cross unlawfully from receiving asylum in many cases ^{[6] [7] [8] [1]}. DHS also described surges of personnel, expedited removals, and record repatriation flights as part of efforts to reduce irregular migration and to “strengthen enforcement” ^{[7] [1]}. Multiple sources note that by some metrics the Administration referred record numbers of noncitizens to expedited removal and touted increased removals compared with past years ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Actions that reversed Trump-era restrictions or expanded legal pathways

At the same time, Biden rescinded several high-profile Trump-era measures, paused construction of additional border wall segments, and sought to expand humanitarian and legal pathways, including raising refugee admissions early in the term and proposing comprehensive immigration reform to create legalization pathways ^{[9] [10] [11]}. The Administration also reinstated or reworked some policies such as the Migration Protection Protocols (“Remain in Mexico”) at points when courts and operational realities required it, and created parole processes and other humanitarian admissions for specific nationalities ^{[12] [13]}.

3. Title 42, court fights, and pragmatic pivots

Legal and operational constraints forced many of the administration’s choices: Biden sought to end Title 42 but had to navigate court challenges and public-health-era rules that continued expulsions for years and were only fully ended after CDC declarations and litigation ^{[4] [12]}. Where surges occurred, the Administration frequently borrowed restrictive tools—sometimes those it previously criticized—from prior administrations to manage capacity and encounters, producing a mix of expansion and restriction that undercuts a simple “open border” label ^{[4] [14]}.

4. Critics, supporters, and the politics of “open borders”

Critics on the right framed many of these complexities as evidence of an “open border” agenda, pointing to early pauses on some enforcement actions and to rhetoric promising humane treatment ^[5]. Analysts on the left and many humanitarian groups argued Biden reversed some of Trump’s most restrictive asylum curbs and expanded protections for vulnerable groups—while also faulting the Administration for continuing expulsions and measures that denied access to asylum in practice ^{[3] [4]}. Independent policy analysts describe Biden’s record as “mixed,” with meaningful modernization and humanitarian steps offset by pragmatic uses of enforcement tools ^{[13] [15]}.

5. Bottom line: complexity over slogan

The factual record shows a presidency wrestling with historic migratory flows and limited congressional options: the Administration enacted both restrictive measures (proclamations, asylum limits, expulsions, expedited removals) and permissive ones (increased refugee caps, parole pathways, reversals of certain bans), and it surged both enforcement resources and humanitarian capacity—actions inconsistent with an intentional “open border” policy as a single, coherent strategy ^{[1] [10] [7] [2]}. Where sources do not provide definitive motive statements about every decision, reporting shows pragmatic policy shifts driven by operational limits, legal challenges, and political pressure rather than a unified doctrine of open borders ^{[4] [14]}.