https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/saul-loeb
LOS ANGELES — After his inauguration in January 2021, President Joe Biden pledged a more humane and efficient approach to border policy, aiming to transform the U.S. immigration system for good. As he assimilated to the Presidential position, Biden wasted no time in modifying Trump administration policies, ending family separation, and halting the construction of the border wall as a means of producing a more inclusive asylum process.
For the longest time, Biden has emphasized the implementation of a “faster process” for asylum seekers, stating that “people come to America… [fleeing] oppression, you know, to the — to the freest nation in the world”. Yet, over the course of his presidential term, Biden’s immigration reforms have begun leaning toward stricter border regulations, allowing critics to question if the President will ever fulfill his promises to the American public.
Nevertheless, this brings up an important question: Why? If the Democratic party has, for years, been known to support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented individuals while maintaining fair border security, why did Biden drastically shift his immigration views?
The answer may lie in the political and logistical pressures he faced. Politicians argue that shortcomings in his executive policies at the beginning of his term led to a surge in border crossings and political challenges, leaving Biden with no choice but to succumb to a stricter solution.
On his first day in office, President Biden suspended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, formally known as the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting U.S. hearings. However, this decision faced pushback, particularly from Texas and Missouri, who argued that ending the MPP would lead to increased border crossings. Lower courts ruled against Biden’s termination of the MPP, forcing the administration to restart the program in late 2021 under judicial order. The legal dispute escalated to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in 2022 that Biden had the authority to end the program.
Although these decisions aligned with the aggregate Democratic opinion for immigration reform, Biden later faced the consequences of reversing such policy since it created an impression that the U.S. border was more “open” for migrants. With that said, migrants, particularly those fleeing violence or extreme poverty in Central America and other regions, might have seen this as an opportunity to reach the U.S. and wait for their cases to be processed safely rather than enduring the dangerous conditions until being allowed safe entry into the U.S.
In 2018, Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy, which had been enacted in 2018, mandated the separation of families crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. This policy led to thousands of children being separated from their parents, bringing substantial public outcry. However, in 2021, Biden immediately signed an executive order, the Interagency Task Force on Reunification of Families, offering trauma-informed care, and preventing future separations. Biden’s administration further established immigration support by reviewing how to grant legal status, such as parole or visas, to reunified families.
While ending family separations was widely seen as a humanitarian step, it did lead to unintended consequences. The policy reversal likely contributed to an increase in border crossings, as migrants may have assumed a more lenient family reunification stance under Biden. This perception could have influenced people to attempt crossing with children, assuming they would not face the same harsh separation policies from Trump’s administration.
Additionally, Biden issued a proclamation ending the national emergency declared by the Trump administration and halting the construction of the border wall. This decision appealed to his base of progressive voters and immigrant advocates who viewed the wall as a symbol of Trump’s anti-immigrant stance. By restricting the continued construction of the border wall, Biden signaled the protection of migrants’ rights and addressed the root causes of migration, such as poverty and violence in Central America.
Yet, this too, allowed for a perception of an easier entry into the United States, with a total of 100,441 encounters in February 2021 in comparison to the 36,687 in February 2020. To add on, this further allowed human smugglers to take advantage of the southern border, leading to a three times increase in illegal crossings than the previous year.
As a result of such policies in 2021, the United States has skyrocketed in migrant entries, bringing Biden closer to a breaking point. With at least 2.4 million migrants entering the country in the last three years, the President had no choice but to create stricter border regulations as a means of diminishing political pressures and providing order among immigrants.
In 2024, President Biden’s administration implemented a proclamation that temporarily suspended asylum eligibility for migrants crossing the southern border unlawfully, particularly during times when border encounters exceeded U.S. processing capabilities. This policy, accompanied by a joint rule from the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ), restricted asylum claims for most migrants who entered the U.S. without authorization. Although this included some exceptions, such as for unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking, and those with legal entry permissions, these new policies ultimately represented a dramatic shift in Biden’s ideals, bringing the United States closer to a regulatory immigration system.
So, did Biden break his promises to the American people?
Although Biden’s 2024 decision to regulate border crossings was necessary to provide order, it has ultimately become a symbol of betrayal among the Democratic party. This new change risks alienating key parts of Biden’s base, including immigrant rights activists and Latino communities, who had supported him due to his stance against family separations and his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. By moving to restrict asylum, Biden faces a difficult balancing act as he tries to address border security concerns while maintaining the trust of his progressive supporters.
Biden’s administration, therefore, exemplifies the difficulty for politicians, let alone the President, to maintain promises. In this case, Biden’s attempt to keep his word undermined his presidency. With only a few months left in his term, a new question is proposed: How will Biden redeem himself among the Democrat party and the millions of migrants he’s affected?
