Did Joe Biden have immigrants brought to the US

1. What people mean when they ask “Did Biden have immigrants brought to the US?”

Questions like this collapse distinct policies: creating lawful entry pathways (programs and parole), administrative processing using apps or parole authority, and enforcement/removal actions are all separate tools of immigration policy. Reporting shows the Biden administration announced and ran programs to admit or parole certain nationalities and family members, and at the same time managed very large numbers of deportations/expulsions—so the answer depends on whether the question refers to lawful programs, parole, or unauthorized admissions ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.

2. Programs that explicitly allowed migrants to come to the U.S.

The administration announced expansions that would “accept up to 30,000 migrants per month” from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and later restarted a program allowing migrants from those four countries to apply with vetting of U.S.-based sponsors, measures described in contemporary reporting as lawful pathways rather than clandestine importation ^{[1] [2]}. Those programs were presented by the White House as orderly, and critics argued they could be misused or insufficiently vetted ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Parole-in-place and spouse/stepchild relief: lawful stay without leaving the U.S.

The Biden administration used parole authority to allow some undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to remain up to three years, obtain work authorization, and apply for green cards without leaving the country; DHS estimated roughly 500,000 spouses could be eligible ^[4]. That program faced legal challenges and a federal judge later struck down a key initiative to shield immigrant spouses from deportation, undercutting implementation in part ^[5].

4. Enforcement and expulsions remained significant

At the same time the administration carried out high numbers of deportations, expulsions and returns: Migration Policy Institute reported nearly 4.4 million repatriations combining deportations and expulsions/returns—more than any single presidential term since the George W. Bush administration—partly driven by Title 42-era policies and reliance on partner countries’ cooperation ^[3]. Analysts caution that expulsions like Title 42 produced high totals without necessarily reducing long-term unauthorized immigration ^[3].

5. Political framing and competing narratives

Republicans framed Biden-era actions as “paroling” large numbers into the country and criticized programs as an “end-run” around immigration law; the White House and immigrant-advocacy outlets presented the programs as lawful, humane, and necessary modernization of the system ^{[6] [2]}. Congressional Republicans produced reports accusing the administration of directing funds toward services for unauthorized migrants, while advocates highlighted efforts to expand refugee resettlement and create legalization paths—showing clear political agendas on both sides ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and what is not supported

Available sources document announced programs, parole use, and very large numbers of removals/returns, but they do not support allegations that the administration “secretly imported” migrants or covertly transported people into the U.S. for political purposes; available sources do not mention such a claim (not found in current reporting). Conversely, sources do show lawful programs that admitted or paroled specified groups and administrative actions that released or allowed some migrants to stay pending adjudication ^{[2] [4] [1]}.

7. Bottom line for readers deciding what the phrase implies

If “have immigrants brought to the US” means establishing lawful programs or parole that enable people to enter or remain—that did occur under Biden (programs for certain nationalities, parole-in-place for spouses). If the phrase implies clandestine or illicit importation by executive fiat, reporting does not substantiate that; instead, the record shows a mix of admitted pathways and aggressive enforcement/expulsion measures that produced both legal admissions and large repatriation totals ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.

For further precision, specify which episode you mean (e.g., CBP One app, the Cuba/Haiti/Nicaragua/Venezuela program, parole-in-place for spouses, or expulsions under Title 42) and I will pull only the directly relevant reporting from the sources above ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.