The United States’ immigration and border policy has never been stable. In the last few years, it has careened wildly based on who occupies the Oval Office, with executive orders and presidential proclamations usually the primary instruments of change. The result is a system that can appear unstable to migrants, refugees, and even U.S. agencies tasked with implementing the policies.
Upon assuming the presidency, President Biden’s government acted with all due haste to dismantle numerous of the limiting policies established under him. He signed a series of executive orders intended to repair what he characterized as America’s tradition of openness and humanitarian responsibility.
Among his first actions was revoking the so-called “Muslim ban,” which had shut doors to several Muslim-majority and African countries. He also increased the refugee admissions cap, restarted programs to reunify Central American children with their families, and focused on addressing the root causes of migration within the region.
Biden’s proposals were not merely to turn back the clock—he proposed to overhaul the entire immigration system. The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, while never fully implemented, established a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants, reformed legal channels of immigration, and enhanced protections for vulnerable populations. Enforcement priorities were also reformed to include only those who were threats to national security or public safety, and to reduce removals of individuals with significant community ties or humanitarian issues.
But the pendulum has swung again. In June 2025, President Trump signed a new proclamation limiting admission for foreign nationals from nations that were deemed to possess unsound security policies or unreasonable visa overstay rates. The order completely halted admission from nations like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen based on defective documents and terrorism risks.
Other nations—like Cuba, Venezuela, and Laos—were partly shut down, mainly for some types of visas. As Trump put it, the norm was to keep Americans safe from possible hazards by letting in guests from sharing data and collaborative governments with the U.S. government.
This method puts immense pressure on public safety and national security. Nations that failed to verify identities, exchange criminal information, or accept re-admitted deported nationals faced the most stringent restrictions. Sustained levels of high visa overstays were also being cited as a reason, as proof of a lack of compliance with American law.
Biden’s strategy was relatively more concerned about enforcement in balance with responsibility for humanity. His government implemented stricter asylum processes during times of increased border crossings, but exceptions continued for unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, and migrants through proper means, such as applications via the CBP One mobile app. Illegals were confronted with expedited removal, a five-year reentry ban, and possible criminal prosecution for serial offenders, but exceptions still existed for those who proceeded through proper channels.
These policy oscillations have had concrete, real-world impacts. Refugee admissions exploded in Biden’s administration, only to be placed further in check again in Trump’s announcement. Families from banned nations continue to endure obstacles to reunification, with students and professionals from the same nations facing uncertainty in visa and travel. Asylum seekers also toil under a patchwork of policies that change based on changing political agendas and border encounter levels.
Legal battles are to be expected from this point in the story. The courts have consistently held, at times blocking, limiting, or authorizing these presidential moves ahead. Waiver systems are incorporated in the system to provide for case-by-case exceptions in the national interest, but it is time-consuming and often burdensome.
Taken together, the outcome is an immigration system that is highly dynamic and subject to heavy executive discretion. The competing values may oscillate between competing values of compassion and values of national security, but in either case, the interest is intense. For the migrant and the refugee, the outcome can be protection or exclusion. For America, these decisions are not merely reflective of how it secures its borders but also how it presents its values and purpose in the world.
