Why did Biden have open boarders
Executive summary
The claim that “Biden had open borders” condenses complex policy choices, operational bottlenecks, and partisan narratives into a single phrase; the record shows a mix of restrictions, enforcement surges, humanitarian adjustments, and legal and political constraints rather than a simple policy of open borders [1] [2]. Key drivers of high arrivals included global migration pressures and U.S. legal pathways and enforcement limits, while the administration both tightened and relaxed different tools over time in response to surges and court challenges [3] [4].
1. What supporters point to: reversing Trump-era restrictions and expanding humane pathways
Early Biden actions rolled back several Trump-era measures—pausing wall construction, rescinding travel bans, expanding refugee caps, reopening child shelter capacity, and proposing broad legalization legislation—moves critics framed as loosening border control even as the administration argued they restored norms and expanded lawful channels [5] [6] [7] [8].
2. What critics point to: rhetoric, early pauses, and perceived enforcement softening
Opponents seized on campaign promises and early guidance—such as pauses on some removals and changes to enforcement priorities—to argue Biden signaled permissiveness; congressional testimony and conservative analyses framed these shifts as a break from strict enforcement and a causal factor in rising encounters [9] [3].
3. Operational reality: surges, Title 42, and emergency measures
Record migrant encounters in FY2022–FY2023 forced the administration into practical responses: it used and later prepared to transition away from Title 42 expulsions, surged personnel to the border, expanded expedited removal referrals, and ultimately issued a June 2024 proclamation and interim rule to restrict asylum during high-encounter periods—showing reactive tightening rather than an open-border posture [1] [2] [10] [4].
4. Policy nuance: a mix of restrictions and new legal pathways
Rather than uniformly loosening access, the administration combined restrictive tools—limits on asylum eligibility, expedited removals, and proclamations to suspend entry when encounters exceeded thresholds—with new parole processes and humanitarian programs for specific nationalities and family members, reflecting a dual approach to manage flows while creating orderly channels [2] [11] [12] [4].
5. Politics, courts, and capacity constraints that shaped outcomes
Congressional gridlock stymied a comprehensive legislative fix, courts blocked or delayed some executive changes, and immigration agencies repeatedly cited limited infrastructure and processing capacity—factors that produced visible backlogs, local strains, and a perception of an uncontrolled border even when the administration was tightening rules elsewhere [11] [13] [2].
6. The partisan narrative battle and hidden agendas
Both parties have incentives to simplify and weaponize the border story: Republicans focused on portraying chaotic governance to score political points while some immigrant-rights groups criticized perceived re-adoption of restrictive Trump-era elements; think tanks and advocacy groups therefore produce selective narratives shaped by their agendas, so claims of “open borders” often reflect political framing as much as policy fact [9] [14] [3].
7. Bottom line — why the “open borders” label stuck
The label stuck because a visible human flow collided with policy complexity: administration reversals of some Trump measures, temporary enforcement pauses, capacity shortfalls, and loud partisan messaging combined to create an impression of permissiveness even as Biden alternated between restrictive proclamations and expanded legal pathways in response to crises [1] [2] [10]. Available reporting documents actions on both sides of the ledger but cannot definitively equate Biden’s policies with an intent to have “open borders”; instead, the record shows a reactive, mixed strategy constrained by law, courts, capacity, and politics [4] [11].