In a voluble monologue at the unarmed National Association of Black Journalists Convention in Chicago, ex-president Donald Trump projected a fallacious picture that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris operate an open-border policy. Trump theatrically claimed that ‘They have policies of open borders, unbelievable open borders’ demonstrating his flair for hyperbolic dramatization. Trump took the opportunity to grandstand his purported solution, to ‘close the border’ should he make a political comeback, promising to only admit legal entrants. A repetitive, strings-on-the-puppet style argument the current administration has been used to hearing from its opposition.
In reality, Trump’s claims are as substantial as a mirage in the desert heat. Not only do his cries of ‘open borders under Biden’ fail to hold water, they project a distorted image of the actual immigration policy underway. David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, condemned such beliefs as ‘unhinged from reality.’ Evidently, logical reasoning has left the conversation, replaced with fantastical myth-making.
Contrary to the delusions disseminated by the opposition, Biden’s administration hasn’t budged an inch towards open-border policies. I’d argue that their stance is more in line with America’s long-standing immigration control philosophy than the previous administration. Rebecca Hamlin, Ph.D., director of the Legal Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, concurs, pointing out a disparity in claims that vastly contradicts the actual stricter immigration measures currently being enacted.
The current immigration law, intricate and rigid, only permits a thin sliver of the global populace to legally immigrate to U.S., with strictly defined exemptions targeting high-skilled workers and families of U.S. citizens. One can’t help but notice how this inconvenient fact was left untouched in Trump’s theatrical recitations. The reality integral to the present administration’s immigration policy seems lost amongst the political static.
An understanding grounded in reality would recognize a presidential prerogative, uncontested according to federal immigration law, offering asylum to foreigners at risk in their homeland. However, under Biden’s watch, not only was the refugee admissions cap unfulfilled in 2021, with only 11,411 out of a 62,500 cap admitted but unprecedented restrictions were imposed on asylum applications. Not unlike a fortress extending its walls and drawbridge, one might say.
Indeed, the Biden administration’s actions echo harsh realities over feel-good rhetoric, exemplified in invoking the Title 42 rule, enabling swift expulsion of individuals for border transgressions amidst the Covid-19 national emergencies. Following in Trump’s footsteps, Biden upheld this rule until 2023, a fact check that contradicts the open-border narrative, unless, of course, you consider expulsions a sign of an open-door policy.
Upon lifting the Title 42 order, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State made it explicitly clear that its end doesn’t equate to an ‘open border.’ Instead, a transition back to the norm, the home-grown Title 8, which enforces criminal penalties including possible deportation and a five-year reentry prohibition for those who illegally cross the border, was initiated. A surprising choice for an administration allegedly favouring ‘open borders,’ don’t you think?
Still, Biden’s administration faced record high border crossings into late 2023, raising another question about how an ‘open-border’ government has failed to manage the border crisis. Responding to this, Biden initiated an immediate halt on asylum processing once the number of illegal entries into the U.S reached a certain limit. Targets defeated, space maxed out – it appears the ‘wide-open door policy’ has suddenly become rather exclusive.
The new measure imposed relegates migrants to be issued deportation orders even without the option to seek asylum, a rather stringent barrier in place for an alleged open-border policy. Individuals denied asylum under this rule face criminal prosecution on their next attempt and are barred from legally entering the country for several years. Hardly the warm, welcome-all policy critics often label the Biden administration with.
As a response to a border security deal collapsing in the Senate, with most Republicans rejecting it despite its bipartisan appeal, Biden cited gaining control of the border as his rationale for this unilateral action. This stand echoes less of the much-accused ‘open doors’ and more the reality of mitigating the unchecked influx that marked his governance.
According to federal officials, Biden’s stringent stance reflected a decrease in illegal border crossings by about 30% in July, a new low since he came into office. The temporary asylum ban seems to be effective in regaining border control, contradicting the so-called ‘open border’ theory and reminding one of the leadership’s intent to enforce immigration laws.
Research indicates that it’s impossible for Biden, or any leader for that matter, to entirely shut down the border. Such actions would be clear violations of existing federal law. However, in the same vein, the fact that a leader can issue executive orders to restrict various demographics from entering the U.S., as previous presidents have done, clearly undermines the ‘open border’ allegation.
Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, criticizes the misguided notion of a possible fully closed border. She says, ‘In reality, that’s not possible.’ A grounded point of view, lost amidst accusations and sentiment driven narratives, which bodes us to question the validity of rhetoric being thrown around.
Rhetoric, as we well know, can easily blur the lines between fact and fiction. However, when separated, reality paints a different picture of the Biden administration’s immigration policy: It might not be totally in sync with high hopes of progressive change, but it is far from the accusations of ‘open borders.’ It’s time we pick the facts out from the political melee and truly understand the circumstances.
In conclusion, the open-border narrative against Biden and Harris appears to be a politically convenient misrepresentation deviating significantly from the reality of enacted immigration policies. Exaggerations and blame-shifting aside, a nuanced understanding of the situation only underscores the contrast between the fact and fiction of U.S. immigration under the Biden administration.