What catalyzed the turmoil at the southern border during the Biden administration? More intriguingly, what were the underlying reasons?
In a span of just three years, approximately 10 million individuals surged toward America’s southern border—a demographic larger than the combined populations of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston.
This influx wasn’t triggered by war or natural disasters; it stemmed from deliberate Biden administration policies put into action from Day One. Ironically, this strategy provided Donald Trump with an unexpected opportunity to re-enter the Oval Office.
The Biden administration didn’t merely stumble into this situation; they waded in with eyes wide open, backed by a cadre of political professionals who deftly maneuvered him into the presidency. These were no naïve players, yet they utterly miscalculated both public sentiment and the political terrain. In a dramatic turn of events, they transformed immigration—an issue they believed would weaken Trump—into one of his most significant advantages.
On his first day, Biden signed a flurry of executive orders aimed at dismantling Trump’s immigration framework. He halted deportations, terminated the border wall project, and revoked the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The immediate repercussions were staggering, with border encounters skyrocketing to 2.4 million in 2022, the highest number ever recorded.
Democratic leaders attempted to attribute this surge to factors like poverty, climate change, and corruption, yet these conditions had persisted for decades. The only variable that had shifted was the welcoming stance taken by the administration.
When the backlash finally emerged, it was monumental.
So, how did they mismanage this issue so profoundly?
This wasn’t the first time immigration policies backfired politically. Back in 1994, California’s Republican Governor Pete Wilson championed Proposition 187, which denied state benefits to illegal immigrants. While it passed resoundingly, it also galvanized California’s Latino community, igniting a wave of Democratic voter registrations. Ultimately, California’s political landscape flipped permanently blue, embedding a cautionary lesson into Republican strategy: tread carefully on immigration, or face political ruin.
Historically, Democrats have walked a precarious tightrope on immigration. On one side, they faced blue-collar workers who were adversely affected by the influx of cheaper labor. On the other, Latino voters represented a crucial electoral bloc—one that Democrats presumed would be supportive of new Latino immigrants, regardless of their legal status.
Additionally, there was a more subtle calculation: immigrants and their offspring were viewed as potential future Democratic voters. The more who arrived—and eventually gained legal status—the larger the Democratic voting base would grow. This was rarely spoken of openly; instead, it was cloaked in terms like “compassion” and “comprehensive reform,” although the arithmetic wasn’t particularly complex.
Meanwhile, Republicans had their own reasons for maintaining a blind eye. Many feared being labeled “racist” if they pushed immigration issues too aggressively—something that had long haunted their political consultants. Moreover, a significant number of corporate donors, particularly in sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and construction, depended on a steady influx of low-wage labor.
For years, both parties danced around the immigration debate, each for reasons they were reluctant to disclose. Then came Donald Trump.
Trump didn’t tiptoe; he charged in with talk of walls, criminals, and a total border shutdown. His approach was blunt and politically perilous, yet it resonated because, by that time, he was more in tune with the concerns of average Americans than either political party.
While other Republican candidates hesitated, Trump seized the opportunity, making immigration his defining policy stance that propelled him to the GOP nomination in 2016.
His unapologetic rhetoric ignited a fervor among voters who felt overlooked for years, and after his election, the media backlash only solidified his position. Terms like “kids in cages,” “Muslim ban,” and “racist wall” were wielded by Democrats and the press, who believed they had struck gold by portraying him as callous.
Yet, many who disapproved of Trump’s tone quietly concurred with his objectives. By the conclusion of his presidency, even 80% of Democrats favored enhanced resources for border enforcement.
Instead of recalibrating their approach, Democratic leaders doubled down. During the 2020 primary debates, each leading candidate pledged health benefits for illegal immigrants, raising their hands in unison as if reciting a group mantra.
Then, President Biden ushered in an era of open borders.
Initially, this approach seemed to work. Yes, it became a staple on Fox News and within the expanding conservative media landscape, but it wasn’t until one individual took a decisive action that the national conversation shifted: Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
In 2022, Abbott began busing migrants to sanctuary cities—New York, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. This theatrical maneuver was shockingly effective. It transformed what had been a Texas and Arizona dilemma into a pressing issue on the doorsteps of liberal mayors.
Suddenly, the border crisis was no longer an abstract concept or a mere Fox News segment; it became a palpable reality with tangible costs. New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, labeled it a disaster, predicting it would “destroy” the city, with a migrant budget projected at $12 billion over three years.
Voters began to notice the job displacements, overcrowded schools, and dwindling housing availability. It wasn’t long before residents of blue cities started echoing the same concerns that red-state voters had expressed for years.
The Biden administration was caught off guard. They had been reading the wrong polls, heeding the loudest activists, and assuming the media’s protective barrier would remain intact. It worked for a time—until reality bulldozed through their narrative.
By mid-2023, two-thirds of Americans disapproved of Biden’s immigration policies. A year later, Trump enjoyed a double-digit lead over him on the issue.
The irony is striking: in their effort to differentiate themselves from Trump, Democrats inadvertently handed him a perfect campaign gift. They transformed a contentious slogan—“Build the wall!”—into a growing point of consensus.
