Were USA boarders completely open during the biden administration?
Executive summary
The United States’ borders were not “completely open” under the Biden administration: the White House and DHS repeatedly issued restrictions, proclamations, and new enforcement measures while also rolling back some Trump-era policies and expanding lawful pathways — a mixed set of actions that opponents describe as an “open borders” approach and supporters frame as more humane and legally constrained [1] [2] [3]. Political actors and oversight committees have produced sharply divergent narratives — from claims of deliberate dismantling to analyses showing increased removals and enforcement early in the term — meaning the simple label “completely open” misstates a complex, policy-heavy reality [4] [5].
1. Border policy was changed, not abandoned — Biden’s day-one reversals and humane framing
On his first day President Biden rescinded several Trump-era measures and signaled a different approach, including halting wall construction and moving to end the Remain in Mexico program, actions the administration and its supporters described as restoring a more humane asylum process [6] [3]. Civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups documented Day One moves to change enforcement priorities and pause certain removals, framing them as corrective to prior excesses rather than permissive open-door policies [7].
2. Enforcement and restrictions continued — proclamations, expulsions, and expulsive numbers
Far from unrestricted entry, the administration used emergency proclamations and rulemaking to limit asylum eligibility and temporarily suspend entry of certain noncitizens at the southern border when encounters spiked, and DHS reported surges in agents, expedited removals, and historically high repatriation flights and returns — including statements that more than 750,000 people were removed or returned over a year [2] [1] [8]. Congressional legal summaries and DHS materials show the administration invoked INA authorities and issued rules presuming asylum ineligibility for many who entered without documents during specified periods [8].
3. Administrative tools created legal pathways while imposing consequences for unlawful crossings
The Biden team expanded parole programs and safe-mobility or humanitarian channels for specific nationalities, enabling tens of thousands to arrive by lawful parole with sponsors, while simultaneously rolling out measures intended to deter or bar unlawful crossers from asylum — a dual track that critics call contradictory and supporters call pragmatic [3] [1] [6]. DHS messaging emphasized “safe, lawful, and orderly” pathways while strengthening consequences for irregular entry [2] [1].
4. Republicans’ “open border” charge and congressional oversight reports
Republican committees and members framed administration changes as deliberate dismantling of border defenses, producing reports and resolutions accusing the administration of “open borders” and documenting the suspension of prior deterrent policies as the root of record encounters; these assertions are explicit in House and Senate GOP materials and hearings on border crises [9] [4] [10]. Those sources mix policy critique with political aims to hold the administration accountable and to pressure for tougher laws, an implicit agenda evident in the partisan framing [4] [10].
5. Independent and policy-analytic counterpoints: enforcement sometimes increased
Nonpartisan and center-right policy analysts have concluded that some enforcement metrics rose under Biden, noting increased arrests, detentions, and removals in certain periods and arguing that migration drivers — labor markets and global displacement — explain flows as much as policy shifts; Cato’s analysis explicitly disputes the claim that Biden “opened” the border and notes higher enforcement activities early in his term [5]. This complicates the “open versus closed” binary and indicates that capacity, law, and external factors shaped outcomes [5].
6. Verdict and reporting limits
The available reporting shows policy shifts, expanded legal pathways, and targeted restrictions and expulsions — not a period of fully open borders without rules or enforcement — but the debate remains highly politicized with contradictory interpretations from partisan congressional reports, administration fact sheets, and policy analysts [1] [4] [5]. This assessment is limited to the supplied sources; where granular day-by-day operational data or classified enforcement memos are not cited here, no definitive claim is made about every enforcement decision across the entire administration [2] [8].