What factors have contributed to increased illegal immigration during Biden presidency?

1. Border encounters rose — but experts disagree about why

Data show record levels of migrant encounters during the period covered, and analysts link the rise to multiple causes rather than a single policy change: Cato argues increases predated Biden and cites a strong U.S. labor market and preexisting policy incentives, saying Biden actually increased arrests, detentions and removals from day one ^[1]. Migration Policy Institute documents unprecedented executive activity to restore legal immigration and refugee flows while noting record irregular arrivals that created strains ^{[4] [5]}. Republican committee reports contend Biden-era decisions weakened deterrence and “incentivized” illegal migration ^{[3] [6]}.

2. Economic pull factors: labor demand and migration economics

Analysts emphasize that U.S. labor market strength and economic opportunity are durable pull factors. The Cato Institute stresses that America’s robust labor market and existing policies that allow unauthorized work explain large parts of migration flows, arguing these structural incentives predated Biden and were major drivers of the surge ^[1]. The Christian Science Monitor similarly lists a strong U.S. economy among reasons migrants and smugglers act ^[2].

3. Smugglers, networks and “gotaways” complicate control

Reporting highlights the role of sophisticated smuggling networks and enforcement challenges — including people who elude apprehension (“gotaways”) — that boost flows irrespective of administration. The CS Monitor cites sophisticated smuggling networks and perceptions of a more welcoming U.S. policy as factors ^[2]. Republican oversight summaries also point to transnational criminal organizations and evolving smuggling tactics as contributors ^[8].

4. Policy shifts, parole programs and enforcement priorities — contested effects

Observers disagree sharply on whether Biden administration policy changes encouraged migration. Migration Policy Institute documents many executive steps that expanded legal channels and retooled enforcement priorities, while acknowledging record irregular arrivals that political opponents seized upon ^{[4] [5]}. Republican reports assert that decisions such as ending certain pandemic-era expulsions, pausing some Trump-era measures, and parole initiatives “incentivized” migrants and weakened deterrence ^{[3] [6]}. Independent fact-checkers and media note changes in data definitions and short-term policy effects make simple cause-and-effect claims unreliable ^[9].

5. Regional “push” factors and U.S. diplomacy

Congressional Republican reports emphasize worsening conditions and migration drivers in Mexico and Central America — crime, governance, and migration management failures — and criticize the administration’s “root causes” approach as insufficient ^{[3] [8]}. Migration Policy Institute notes Biden sought to address root causes and reestablish refugee and legal pathways, which are part of the broader policy response even as arrivals surged ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Politics, messaging and perception shape behavior

Multiple sources note that migrants’ perceptions of U.S. policy matter. The CS Monitor points to a public perception that Biden’s policies were more welcoming, which can affect migration decisions ^[2]. Republican reports and communications frame administration measures as deliberate “rewards” or “catch-and-release,” using strong language to argue policy caused increases; independent outlets caution that short-term declines or increases often reflect enforcement tactics and messaging as much as underlying flows ^{[3] [6] [9]}.

7. Data interpretation disputes: counts, removals and “who’s responsible”

Different institutions produce contrasting narratives by selecting different metrics. Cato emphasizes arrest/removal trends and argues Biden did not reduce enforcement ^[1]. Republican committee fact sheets highlight raw encounter totals and claim policy-driven increases ^[7]. Migration Policy Institute documents expanded legal admissions, naturalizations, and executive actions while also acknowledging the political salience of irregular arrivals ^{[4] [10]}. Independent fact-checkers warn short-term comparisons can mislead ^[9].

Conclusion — what the reporting collectively shows

Available sources agree that encounters rose and that the phenomenon is multi-causal; they diverge on the weight to give to Biden policy choices versus structural pull factors, smuggling networks, and regional drivers ^{[1] [4] [3] [2]}. Policymakers and analysts therefore draw different lessons: some call for tougher border enforcement and policy reversals ^{[3] [6]}, while others emphasize expanding legal pathways, addressing root causes, and clarifying enforcement priorities — a debate reflected across the cited sources ^{[5] [4]}.