Did president biden cage illegals?

1. Biden’s promises vs. what happened on the ground

As a candidate and early president Biden pledged to reduce prolonged detention, end the use of for‑profit immigration detention centers, and protect asylum rights, but administration actions have been mixed: the White House signaled a preference for fewer people in detention and proposed legal reforms to reduce detention reliance, while DHS and ICE continued to detain tens of thousands and kept a role for incarceration in the system ^{[4] [1] [5]}.

2. Numbers and trends: detention remained large and in some cases grew

Multiple watchdogs and data analyses report that ICE detention levels under Biden remained substantial — with daily averages in the tens of thousands and instances where border and interior detention increased or were prepared for expansion — and ICE even contemplated adding capacity in multiple states, indicating detention was not being dismantled ^{[2] [6] [5]}.

3. Private prisons and converted facilities: the practical mechanics of “caging”

Although the administration issued a DOJ order to phase out private prison use for federal prisons, that order explicitly excluded ICE detention and, in practice, private companies expanded their share of the immigration detention market with facilities repurposed or contracted to house migrants, drawing criticism that private prison interests benefited from Biden-era policy choices ^{[2] [3] [7]}.

4. Asylum seekers and remote detention: human rights critics’ case

Human Rights First, the ACLU and other advocates documented that thousands of asylum seekers were jailed in remote facilities, often with limited legal access, and argued the administration treated asylum seekers as enforcement “priorities,” which human rights groups say amounts to imprisoning vulnerable people seeking protection ^{[1] [8]}.

5. Administration rationale and policy constraints

The administration has argued its detention decisions were constrained by surges in migration, legal limits, and operational needs; some analysts note Biden increased expulsions and detention in early phases while also moving to prioritize enforcement against violent criminals rather than nonviolent immigrants — a policy framing that left space for continued detention even as rhetoric emphasized reform ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Partisan scrutiny and political positioning

Republican critics portray Biden as too lax for releasing migrants, while advocates and some Democrats say he did not go far enough in closing detention; oversight reporting shows the administration sometimes preserved beds for local economic and political reasons, revealing an implicit balancing act between reform goals and political/operational pressures ^{[2] [3] [11]}.

7. Who benefits and who is harmed

Private prison corporations saw increased revenues from ICE contracts during Biden’s term, even as advocates warned detention harms asylum adjudication and human rights; this alignment of government contracting and private profit is often raised as a hidden agenda behind continued detention capacity ^{[2] [7]}.

8. Bottom line — did Biden “cage illegals”?

If the question asks whether the Biden administration continued to incarcerate noncitizens and used detention as a central enforcement tool, then yes — Biden did not abolish migrant detention and in many instances preserved, expanded, or converted capacity and relied heavily on private facilities to house large numbers of migrants and asylum seekers ^{[1] [2] [6]}. If the question implies Biden uniquely invented mass detention, the record shows continuity with prior administrations: policies evolved rather than ended, and the administration both restrained and expanded detention in different periods for legal and operational reasons ^{[5] [9]}.