Authors: Madhuleena Das, M. Gyana teja, Chetanya Mandan, Adewumi Blessing Adebimpe, Vaishnavi Sinha, Deeksha Yadav, Suhana kumari

1. Introduction

Immigration policy in the United States acts as a powerful reflection of the nation’s    political, economic, and humanitarian priorities. The past two presidential administrations—Donald J. Trump (2017–2021) and Joseph R. Biden (2021–2025) have had sharp differences in their approaches to immigration, particularly in their treatment of enforcement, humanitarian protections, and legal pathways. Under the Trump administration (2017–2021), immigration enforcement became more restrictive, marked by heightened border security, family separation, and efforts to deter asylum claims. In contrast, the Biden administration (2021–2025) sought to reverse many of these measures by emphasizing the protection of vulnerable migrants, restoring asylum procedures, and creating legal pathways for migration.

This comparative analysis explores how the Trump and Biden administrations diverged and, in some cases, converged in their handling of immigration policy. By focusing on three key dimensions—enforcement strategies, humanitarian approaches, and legal pathways—this article aims to evaluate the evolving nature of U.S. administrations.

2. Enforcement Policies

The U.S. immigration system has experienced significant changes under successive administrations, with stark contrasts in enforcement priorities and humanitarian approaches. The Trump administration (2017–2021) adopted a restrictive and punitive immigration policy framework aimed at reducing both legal and unauthorized immigration. In contrast, the Biden administration (2021–present) has attempted to reverse several Trump-era policies, emphasizing humane enforcement, expanded legal pathways, and a restoration of due process.

2.1 Trump-Era Immigration Enforcement:

The Trump administration pursued a hardline stance on immigration, grounded in the rhetoric of national security and deterrence. Key policies included the “zero tolerance” policy that led to the separation of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border (Rosenberg, 2021), the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings, and a sharp reduction in refugee admissions (Pierce & Bolter, 2020). Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly increased interior enforcement, including workplace raids and expanded detention. The administration also employed Title 42, a public health order, to expel migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic without allowing them to apply for asylum.

2.2 Biden-Era Reforms and Continuities:

The Biden administration campaigned on restoring “fair and humane” immigration processes. Upon taking office, President Biden reversed the MPP and ended the family separation policy. The administration also raised the refugee cap and introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill (Krogstad & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2021). Enforcement priorities were redefined to focus on individuals who posed security threats rather than mass deportations. Nevertheless, Biden has faced criticism for continuing to use Title 42 until it was officially lifted in 2023, and for expanding expedited removal and family detention amid rising border crossings (Gonzalez, 2023).

2.3 Key Shifts in Enforcement:

Whereas Trump administration emphasized deterrence through punitive measures, Biden has pursued a more targeted enforcement strategy. However, both administrations faced similar structural challenges, including rising migration flows, congressional gridlock on immigration reform, and political polarization. As a result, enforcement priorities have oscillated more than transformed, revealing the constraints of executive action in a deeply divided policy landscape.

3. Humanitarian Approach

The humanitarian approach of U.S. immigration policy underwent significant shifts between the Trump and Biden administrations. While the Trump era emphasized deterrence and strict border enforcement often at the expense of humanitarian considerations, the Biden administration aimed to restore protection-based approaches, though challenges and continuities remain.

3.1 Treatment of Asylum Seekers

To address the surge of migrants and perceived abuse of the asylum system, the Trump Administration implemented key policy changes, notably the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or the “Remain in Mexico” policy in December 2018. The MPP stated that migrants seeking asylum in the U.S.-Mexico border return to Mexico and wait near the border for the period of their proceedings. These asylum seekers were exposed to harsh conditions and were victims of kidnappings, murder and death (National Immigration Forum, 2024). In contrast, the Biden administration initially sought to reverse some of these restrictions, beginning with ending the MPP. The Biden administration on June 1, 2021 formally ended the “Migrant Protections Protocols” which was known as Remain in Mexico (Women’s Refugee Commission, 2021). The Biden administration continued to hinder and block people seeking asylum also expelling those who crossed the southern border in charge of refuge. In August 2021, the Biden Administration issued a reassessment to confirm the expulsion policy and adopted the same flawed reasoning that was used by the Trump administration to expel asylum seekers (Human Rights First, 2021). Biden’s Administration also authorized “Electronic Metering” which requires that Asylum seekers apply and book an immigration appointment through “CBP One” App. Asylum seekers had to wait for several months at the border until they were able to book an appointment (Hogan, 2024).

 3.2 Family based Immigration Policies

Perhaps the most controversial humanitarian failure was the family separation policy under the administration’s “Zero Tolerance” directive. According to the then Attorney general, Jeff Sessions, if you smuggle a child into the country, the child would be separated from you. Prior to the introduction of the “Zero Tolerance Policy”, immigrant parents and children were placed in family detention centers, but with the introduction of the policy, children were separated from parents and placed in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) (Hollenbach, 2024). At the heart of Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign was a commitment to end harsh immigration policies that existed under the Trump’s Administration, especially the practice of separating families at borders (Solis, 2025). The Biden administration also established a Family Reunification Task Force to identify and reunite separated families (White House, 2021). And although the Biden’s Administration ended the policy in January 2021, a report by the Family Tak Reunification Task force shows that as of 2024, 1,400 families remain separated (Home Land Security, 2021). There are arguments however that the issue of family separations has been ongoing for decades but under Biden, it didn’t exist out of purposeful cruelty but exists as a result of lack of transparency and bureaucratic processes (Solis, 2025).

 3.3 Title 42 Policy

Early in the pandemic in March 2020, the Trump administration the Trump Administration introduced a policy known as Title 42, which closed U.S. borders and authorized officials to swiftly expel migrants, including those seeking asylum, on the grounds of protecting public health (PHR, 2023). The Biden’s administration also adopted and widened the Title 42 expulsion policy of the Trump’s Administration and in turn endangered individuals rather than safeguarding health (Human Rights First, 2021). The continued use of the Title 42 policy by the Biden’s Administration created an opportunity for criminal organizations to extort Asylum seekers and migrants.

Title 42 led to over two million expulsions during the Trump and early Biden years, effectively denying asylum seekers access to due process and protection under U.S. law. The policy ended in May 2023 after the Biden administration declared the COVID-19 emergency over. Biden emphasized the need for new immigration measures due to outdated laws (UNHCR, 2020).

A June 2024 policy change titled ‘Implementation Guidance for Noncitizens Described in Presidential Proclamation of June 3, 2024, Securing the Border, and Interim Final Rule, Securing the Border’ eliminated the need for CBP officers to ask border arrivals if they are afraid to return to their home country, allowing officers to deport people at free will, unless they are able to manifest or express their fears (National Immigration Law Centre 2024).

4. Legal Pathways

 The DACA program was originally adopted in 2012 and provided deferred action or protection from deportation or removal from the United States and two year employment authority to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the country as minor. Trump’s approach to rescind DACA into a weak policy variable were held by US supreme Court in many decisions. His attempts to terminate DACA were inconsistent and with valid justifications. On the contrary, when Biden was sworn in as president, he restored the memorandum supporting DACA and calling for its preservation since DACA was mainly associated with the young Minds or children.

Likewise Temporary Protected Status was also granted to foreign nationals already present in U.S from designated countries facing humanitarian crisis, civil war and other disasters. But this temporary policy variable.affected under many leadership like it was sought to end TPS status for few countries under trump administration because of the belief of recovery (2017-2021) but on other side to cite the ongoing conflicts at that time like of Taliban crisis biden administration Extended TPS for Venezuela, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Cameroon, and Lebanon, protecting ~1.2 million (Pew research,2024).

According to MPI, as of 2017, 55% of DACA recipients were employed, and 62% of those not in the labor force were enrolled in school. Many DACA recipients either work, attend school, or both.

Hence DACA recipients theoretically could be under the merit based Immigration. Jeanne Batalova, a senior policy analyst argues that historically skilled immigrants have generally been well received in US immigration Policy Even during times of restriction. Researchers call this approach a human capital accumulation formula to increase the skill workforce

Trump Administration’s goal was to end family based chain migration (White House, 2018) with a strong justification of Economic protectionism. However Biden’s administration disagrees with pursuing only a merit based Immigration system.

5. Political and Economic perspective 

5.1 Public Opinion and Political Challenges

Economic nativism is a political ideology that prioritizes the needs of native residents over immigrants, and can include economic exclusion of immigrants. It is a belief that immigrants pose a threat to the economic well-being of native-born citizens. Three of the most common economic arguments against immigration are 1)job loss and lower wages for Americans, (2) increase in the budget deficit and government debt, and (3) increase in economic inequality.

Furthermore, in a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO; 2024) about the projected impact of increased immigration between 2021 and 2026 on the U.S. economy and federal budget for the period 2024 to 2034, they find that while immigration ios expected to increase in the U.S. population by 2.5 million by 2033, it is anticipated to expand the labor force, leading to higher employment levels. Immigrants often contribute positively to the economy by filling labor shortages, paying taxes, and fostering innovation. The report also estimates that the recent surge in immigration could reduce the federal budget deficit by approximately $90 billion annually over the next decade, totaling nearly $900 billion in deficit reduction (CBO, 2024).

Donald Trump and Joe Biden pursued sharply contrasting immigration policies rooted in different political ideologies. Trump adopted a restrictive approach, prioritizing border security and national sovereignty. His administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy led to family separations and widespread criticism (Pierce et al., 2018). Trump’s travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries and steep reductions in refugee admissions reflected his nationalist stance and sparked legal and political battles. His rhetoric framed immigration as a threat, deepening partisan divides and energizing a conservative base.

Biden, in contrast, emphasized humanitarian reforms and sought to undo Trump’s legacy. He ended the travel ban, reinstated protections for DACA recipients, and halted family separations (Pierce & Bolter, 2021). Yet, Biden faced criticism for retaining certain Trump-era tools like Title 42 and for failing to control a surge in border crossings. While his tone was more inclusive, policy outcomes were inconsistent, drawing pushback from both the left and right.

5.2  Economic Impact of Immigration Policy

For the United States as a whole, immigrants’ share of total output was 18.0% in 2023 or $1.9 trillion in 2024 dollars. This means that the contribution of immigrants to economic output is larger than their share of the total population, as immigrants made up 14.3% of the total U.S. population in the same year. Immigration is an important source of growth in the size of the U.S. workforce, particularly because overall U.S. population growth has been slowing. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau recently estimated that if there were no future immigration, the overall U.S. population would begin to shrink in absolute terms. Immigration expands the economy and does not lead to higher jobless rates among U.S.-born jobseekers. The year 2023 was a prime example of this. While the United States likely saw higher-than-usual levels of new immigrant arrivals, the unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers hit a record low, while the share of prime-age U.S.-born individuals with a job and the prime-age labor force participation rate for U.S.-born individuals hit its highest rate in more than two decades.

Trump and Biden’s immigration policies also diverged in economic philosophy and impact. Trump’s restrictive measures led to labor shortages in industries reliant on immigrant workers, such as agriculture and hospitality (Bhatt et al., 2024). By cutting legal immigration and tightening visa programs, his policies reduced workforce growth and created uncertainty for employers. Attempts to curb high-skilled immigration also deterred international students and STEM professionals, limiting innovation (Robinson et al., 2020).

Biden aimed to reverse these effects by expanding work visa access and restoring high-skilled immigration programs (DHS, 2023). His administration supported legal pathways for seasonal workers and emphasized the economic benefits of immigrant labor.

Fiscal impacts differed as well. Trump’s approach risked billions in deportation costs and reduced immigrant contributions to public programs. Biden’s reform proposals projected increased tax revenue and workforce stabilization (White House, 2022).

References

Ansems De Vries, L., Gauci, J.-P., Redwood, H., King’s College London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Donnely, E., & Saunders, A. J. (2018). Legal Pathways to Protection: Towards the Provision of safe, legal and accessible routes for refugees and vulnerable migrants.

Bhatt, A. V., Hogan, M., McKibbin, W., & Noland, M. (2024). Trump’s deportation plans would cause lower US employment and GDP than otherwise. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/trumps-deportation-plans-would-cause-lower-us-employment-and-gdp

Edelberg, W., Esterline, C., Veuger, S., & Watson, T. (2024). Immigration and the macroeconomy in the second Trump administration. The Hamilton Project. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/post/immigration-and-the-macroeconomy-second-trump-administration/

Gonzalez, D. (2023). Biden’s immigration enforcement approach draws fire from both   sides. NPR.

Hogan, M. (2024). Trump vs. Biden on immigration: A side-by-side policy comparison. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trump-vs-biden-immigration-side-side-policy-comparison

Hollenbach, T. (2024). The truth of the American immigration system: Family separation. https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1232&context=studentresearch

HomeLand Security. (2021). Migrant Protection Protocols (Biden Administration Archive). https://www.dhs.gov/archive/migrant-protection-protocols-biden-administration

Human Rights First. (2021). Human rights travesty: Biden administration embrace of Trump asylum expulsion policy endangers lives, wreaks havoc. https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HumanRightsTravesty_FINAL-1.pdf

Krogstad, J. M., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2021). Key facts about U.S. immigration policies and Biden’s proposed changes. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/11/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-bidens-proposed-changes/

National Immigration Forum. (2024). Trump & Biden on key immigration policy areas. https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/NIF_TrumpBidenComparison_2.pdf

National Immigration Law Centre. (2024). Seeking safety from darkness: Recommendations to the Biden administration to safeguard asylum rights in CBP custody. https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/NILC_CBP-Black-Hole-Report_112124.pdf

New York Magazine. (2025). Trump sees defying courts on deportations as good politics. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/defying-courts-on-abrego-garcia-is-good-politics-to-trump.html

Peterson Institute for International Economics. (2024). America first? The economic implications of Trump’s anti-immigration policies in the United States. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387170244_America_First_The_Economic_Implications_of_Trump’s_Anti-Immigration_Policies_in_the_United_States

Physicians for Human Rights. (2023). Title 42 border expulsions: How Biden and the CDC’s misuse of public health authority expels asylum seekers to danger. https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PHR-Title-42-Order-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Pierce, S., & Bolter, J. (2020). Dismantling and reconstructing the U.S. immigration system: A catalog of changes under the Trump presidency. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/us-immigration-system-changes-trump-presidency

Pierce, S., Bolter, J., & Selee, A. (2018). U.S. immigration policy under Trump: Deep changes and lasting impacts. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/us-immigration-policy-trump-deep-changes-impacts

Ries, L., & The Heritage Foundation. (2020). President Trump and Joe Biden: Comparing immigration policies (No. 3547). Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/BG3547.pdf

Robinson, S., Noland, M., Gornostay, E., & Han, S. (2020). The short- and long-term costs to the United States of the Trump administration’s attempt to deport foreign students. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Rosenberg, M. (2021, February 2). How Trump’s family separation policy unfolded. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/us/family-separation-trump.html

Salazar, M. C., De La Salle University – Dasmariñas, Maureen Cayzie A. Salazar, & Jumel G. Estañero. (2024). America First: the economic implications of Trump’s Anti-Immigration policies in the United States. In Article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387170244

Solis, G. (2025). Report reveals migrant family separations continue under Biden. https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2024/07/29/report-reveals-migrant-family-separations-continue-under-biden

UNHCR. (2020). UNHCR warns U.S. asylum restrictions put vulnerable people at risk. https://www.unhcr.org

UCLA School of Law. (2024). New report: Family separation persists at the US-Mexico border. https://law.ucla.edu/news/new-report-family-separation-persists-us-mexico-border

White House. (2021). Interagency task force on the reunification of families. https://www.whitehouse.gov

William A. Kandel. (2018). How the United States Immigration System Works [Report]. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43145.pdf

Women’s Refugee Commission. (2021). The latest: Changes to the asylum system under the Biden administration. https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org

Pew Research Center. (2024). How Temporary Protected Status has expanded under the Biden administration. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/29/how-temporary-protected-status-has-expanded-under-the-biden-administration/

Immigrants and the economy. (2025) Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/immigrants-and-the-economy/

Rescinding DACA could have negative health impacts on children. (2017) Stanford University. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/09/rescinding-daca-negative-health-impacts-children

CLASP. (2022, April 1). The vital importance of DACA protections CLASP. https://www.clasp.org/blog/vital-importance-daca-protections/

Moreno, O., Fuentes, L., Garcia-Rodriguez, I., Corona, R., & Cadenas, G. A. (2021). Psychological impact, strengths, and handling the uncertainty among Latinx DACA recipients. The Counseling Psychologist, 49(5), 728–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000211006198

Title 42 has ended. Here’s what it did, and how US immigration policy is changing. (2023) Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/immigration-biden-border-title-42-mexico-asylum-be4e0b15b27adb9bede87b9bbefb798d

Trump Administration Immigration policy priorities – the White House. (2017, October 8). The White House. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/trump-administration-immigration-policy-priorities/