Open boarders under biden

1. What “open borders” means in practice and how that framing is used

“Open borders” is a political shorthand, not an administrative category, and it is leveraged by opponents to describe any policy perceived as permissive; Republican lawmakers and conservative groups have repeatedly labeled Biden’s approach “open border” to criticize rising arrivals and costs ^{[4] [5] [6]}, but multiple official actions under Biden are aimed at restricting irregular entry and asylum access when needed ^{[3] [7]}.

2. Border encounters and the administration’s operational response

The Biden years saw record migrant encounters at the southwest border, prompting the administration to combine incentives for lawful arrival with stricter measures at the border: the strategy included promoting arrivals at ports of entry, expanding temporary legal pathways for some nationalities, and narrowing asylum access for irregular crossers ^{[1] [2]}, and these operational shifts were explicitly designed to change migrants’ incentives rather than to open the border ^[1].

3. Policy tools that run counter to the “open” accusation

On several occasions the administration tightened consequences for unauthorized entry: it issued Presidential Proclamation 10773 and a joint DHS-DOJ interim final rule to suspend and limit entry and restrict asylum during high encounter periods, and publicly framed these steps as necessary to enable rapid removals and deter irregular crossings ^{[7] [3]}, while the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule presumes asylum ineligibility for many who bypass designated legal routes, further limiting access to protection ^[2].

4. Expanded legal pathways and humanitarian measures that feed the other narrative

At the same time, the administration expanded lawful channels — temporary protected status designations for multiple countries, parole programs and CBP One scheduling to manage arrivals, and efforts to create orderly pathways — arguing these reduce irregular crossings by offering legal options ^{[8] [9]}, a policy mix opponents portray as incentivizing migration even as officials say it redirects flows into supervised channels ^{[9] [1]}.

5. Interior enforcement, deportation priorities and the immigration system backlog

Biden shifted ICE priorities away from broadly targeting all undocumented people toward focusing removal resources on national-security and violent-crime threats, a deliberate narrowing that critics call leniency while supporters frame it as sensible triage ^{[9] [1]}; meanwhile the system faces large backlogs in immigration benefits and court dockets that complicate enforcement outcomes and fuel “open border” rhetoric ^[6].

6. Politics, mixed messaging and accountability

The debate is highly politicized: congressional Republicans and conservative think tanks present statistics and rhetoric to claim an administration-created crisis with “open border” policies ^{[4] [5] [6]}, whereas immigration advocates and policy analysts point to the administration’s numerous executive actions, enforcement rules, and the restoration of humanitarian protections to show an active—but imperfect—management of migration ^{[10] [1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line — neither laissez-faire nor sealed frontier

The record shows a hybrid approach: the Biden administration has expanded lawful pathways and humanitarian protections while also deploying enforcement tools—from asylum restrictions to proclamations suspending entry—when encounters strain capacity, meaning “open borders” is an inaccurate oversimplification rather than a literal description of current policy ^{[3] [2] [8]}.