On the morning of February 22, 2024, Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student at the University of Georgia, went for her usual run on campus in the city of Athens. This time, however, she never returned. Hours after she left her home, campus police found her body in a nearby forest, showing signs of strangulation and assault. The murderer, Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old illegal immigrant from Venezuela, became a symbol of the failures of President Joe Biden’s immigration policy and governors from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Ibarra entered the U.S. in September 2022 through El Paso, Texas, and was released within 24 hours with a “notice to appear” for immigration proceedings, as part of a mass release policy due to overcrowding in detention facilities. In 2023, he was arrested in New York for theft and disorderly conduct. Still, he was released due to New York’s “sanctuary city” policy, which also prevented reporting him to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Free and unfettered, he moved to Georgia, where he committed the murder that ignited public outrage and became a central weapon in Donald Trump’s campaign in the last elections.
The Riley case was not an isolated incident but part of a chain of crimes committed by illegal immigrants during Biden’s term. In December 2024, Sebastian Zapata, an illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, set fire to a 55-year-old homeless woman at a New York subway station. Zapata, who had been under a deportation order since 2022 after an assault conviction, remained free due to sanctuary city policies that failed to report him to ICE. He had been apprehended by Border Patrol (CBP) in 2023 but was released for immigration proceedings. The shocking act, captured by security cameras, provoked public fury and became further evidence of Biden’s policy failures. New York Mayor Eric Adams lashed out in an interview with CBS, saying: “It’s time Washington stops protecting criminals and starts protecting our residents.”
More examples abound. In April 2023, Francisco Oropesa—a Mexican immigrant who had been deported five times from the U.S.—shot and killed five people, including a 9-year-old boy, in San Jacinto County, Texas, after an argument with neighbors. A year earlier, he had been caught by CBP but released due to overcrowding in detention centers and directives to prioritize serious offenders. In July 2021, Alexis Saborit, a Mexican immigrant who had been under a deportation order since 2007, murdered a woman in Minnesota by beheading her. Despite a history of assaults and drug trafficking, Saborit remained free due to local Minnesota policies limiting cooperation with ICE.
Public outrage grew when Biden, in his State of the Union address about two weeks after Riley’s murder, mispronounced her name and called her “Lincoln Riley.” The mistake was perceived as insensitive, and the young woman’s mother fumed: “Biden doesn’t even know my daughter’s name—it’s pathetic!” Trump, on the other hand, met with the family in Georgia two days later and promised, “Murderers like Ibarra will not roam free under my administration.”
Democrats, instead of focusing on the tragedy, became entangled in a debate over Biden’s phrasing, after he referred to Ibarra as “illegal” rather than “undocumented,” as though it were a trivial bureaucratic matter rather than a blatant violation of the law. Biden himself apologized—not to Riley’s family but to his fellow Democrats—saying on MSNBC: “I shouldn’t have used the word ‘illegal.’”
This debate, centered on words rather than solutions, exposed the Democrats’ disconnect from public concerns and turned the Riley case into a symbol of the immigration crisis. This failure helped Trump win a sweeping victory in November 2024.
The Chaos at the Border: The Crisis that Sparked Outrage
The Biden administration faced an unprecedented immigration crisis, which became a symbol of chaos under his leadership. Between 2021 and 2024, Border Patrol (CBP) reported about eight million encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border—a number dwarfing the 2.4 million encounters during Trump’s first term (2017–2021) and the 4.1 million during Barack Obama’s tenure (2009–2017). For comparison, during George W. Bush’s presidency (2001–2009), about 6.2 million encounters were recorded, and during Bill Clinton’s presidency (1993–2001), about 5.8 million. Biden, in less than half the time, allowed more illegal immigrants to reach America’s southern border. The crisis under him was unprecedented, not only in numbers but also in the public perception of a lack of control, which fueled the anger that propelled Trump to victory.
Of the eight million encounters under Biden, about 4.9 million immigrants were released into the U.S. for immigration proceedings, sometimes with only a “notice to appear,” which many ignored. About 820,000 entered through programs in which Border Patrol released migrants without extended detention, sometimes without significant background checks. Detention centers, such as the one in Donna, Texas, were beyond capacity, with reports of 3,000 people in a facility built for 1,500. Images of children in these facilities, described as “inhumane,” dominated headlines and became a symbol of neglect. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Denver faced an influx of tens of thousands of migrants without an organized absorption plan, leading to local tensions and a sense of national crisis.
Biden, who had promised a humane immigration policy in contrast to Trump’s toughness, on his first day in office canceled key policies such as “Remain in Mexico” (Migrant Protection Protocols), which required asylum seekers to wait in their home country until their applications were reviewed. He also halted construction of the border wall, which had been a symbol of Trump’s policy. He instructed ICE to focus only on detaining serious criminals, which led to the mass release of migrants with minor offenses, such as theft or drunk driving.
The CHNV program, launched in 2022, allowed 520,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter through official border crossings, granting them temporary “parole” status—essentially an early release before completing their term for “rehabilitation” purposes. Republicans saw the program as a bypass of immigration law, and it was exposed as vulnerable to fraud, with thousands of applications rejected after forged documents were identified.
The result was a sense of lost control. A 2023 Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report estimated that about 2.3 million migrants entered the U.S. as “gotaways”—those who evaded capture—far higher than the 600,000 under Trump. Leading cities that offered sanctuary to illegal immigrants faced budget crises: New York spent about $1.5 billion in 2023 on migrant absorption, and Chicago reported shelter shortages. New York Mayor Eric Adams stated in a 2024 NBC interview: “We cannot continue to absorb thousands without a plan. Washington must act.” This sense of chaos was not just local; it became a national issue that fueled Trump’s campaign.
In June 2024, after three years of public and political criticism, Biden signed an executive order restricting asylum applications when daily crossings exceeded 2,500, which reduced encounters by 40 percent within months. But the order, issued three weeks before the first debate with Trump, was seen as a cynical PR maneuver, too little too late, in an attempt to shift public perception of negligence.
In contrast, the new Trump administration, which began in January 2025, showed rapid results. Within three months, it reduced migrant encounters from 600,000 to 200,000 per quarter—a 67 percent drop. The policy included reinstating “Remain in Mexico,” suspending asylum requests, shutting down the CBP One app for asylum appointments, deploying 1,500 more troops to the border, expanding fast-track deportations, declaring a national emergency, and canceling parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs for 850,000 migrants.
Trump also threatened economic tariffs on countries that did not cooperate with deportations, leading nations like Colombia and Venezuela to accept deportees. Migrants themselves spread word within their communities that the U.S. was no longer “welcoming,” reducing the motivation to cross the border. This rapid success, compared with the chaos under Biden, highlighted that enforcement was a matter of policy choice, not an act of fate.
“Importing Crime” via the Flight Mechanism
One of the most controversial aspects of Biden’s immigration policy was the program of flying illegal immigrants from border facilities to cities across the U.S. According to a 2023 CIS report, about 530,000 migrants were released into the U.S. after being detained at the border, many of them flown on commercial or charter flights from facilities in Texas and Arizona to cities such as New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Miami. The program, operated by CBP and ICE, relied on the “catch and release” policy, under which migrants received a “notice to appear” for immigration hearings and were allowed to remain freely in the U.S.
The program was supported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provided logistical assistance, including plane tickets and buses, partly funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). A 2023 Republican Senate report estimated that about 85 percent of migrants flown did not show up for their immigration hearings, intensifying the sense of lawlessness.
Crimes committed by migrants who arrived on these flights provoked public outrage and became a political weapon for Trump. A notable case was that of Rangel Salas, a Venezuelan migrant flown from Texas to New York in October 2023 after release from a CBP facility in El Paso. In January 2024, Salas was arrested on suspicion of murdering a 34-year-old tourist in Times Square after a stabbing during an armed robbery. A police report revealed that he was part of a group of 120 migrants who arrived on a CBP charter flight and that he had a history of minor offenses in Venezuela that was never checked before his release.
Another case was Domingo Pavón, a Honduran migrant flown from Brownsville, Texas, to Chicago in November 2022. In June 2023, Pavón was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Chicago, after being released without extended detention due to local policy that did not report him to ICE. A third case was Jorge Castillo, a Colombian migrant flown from Texas to Miami in 2023, who was arrested in March 2024 on suspicion of drug trafficking and belonging to a criminal network in Florida. A Miami Herald report revealed that Castillo had been released after a border arrest without a thorough background check and had reached Miami on a commercial domestic flight.
These cases reinforced the claim that Biden’s flight program allowed potential criminals to roam free, endangering the public. Trump exploited these cases in his speeches, presenting them as proof that the Biden administration was “importing crime” into the U.S. In an October 2024 interview with Breitbart, he said: “They are flying murderers and drug dealers into our cities, and then they wonder why people like Laken Riley get murdered.” Democrats, on the other hand, argued that the cases were rare and that the program was intended to ease pressure at the border while maintaining humanitarian principles.
But public sentiment, as reflected in a 2024 Rasmussen Reports poll, was different: 62 percent of Americans linked illegal immigration to rising crime, making the flight program a central point of contention in the elections.
The Electoral Motives of the Democrats
Elon Musk, Senator Ted Cruz, and conservative commentators argued that the Democrats supported illegal immigration for electoral motives, aiming to change the demographic makeup of the U.S. and secure long-term political dominance for the left. “The Democrats are flooding the country with immigrants to turn it into a one-party state, like California,” Musk wrote in January of last year. The claim was based on the assumption that immigrants, once granted legal status or citizenship, would vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, as happened in California after the 1986 immigration law, which granted citizenship to three million immigrants and turned the state into a Democratic stronghold. Cruz, in a 2023 Fox News interview, claimed: “Biden and Harris want eight million new voters who will strengthen the Democratic Party for decades.”
This claim, even if controversial, gained significant traction. A 2024 Rasmussen Reports poll showed that 54 percent of Americans believe Democrats have electoral motives in their immigration policy, with 73 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents agreeing. Supporters pointed to policies like the proposed “DREAM Act,” which sought to grant citizenship to millions of immigrants who arrived as children, and the CHNV program as evidence of an effort to court immigrant communities. A 2023 Heritage Foundation report argued that Democrats view immigrants as a future electoral base, particularly in states like Arizona and Texas, where the Hispanic population is growing rapidly.
However, research such as a 2022 Brookings Institution study shows that Hispanic immigrants do not vote uniformly for Democrats. In Texas and Florida, for example, Hispanics increasingly supported Republicans due to conservative values such as family, religion, and free-market economics. The 2024 political shift in South Texas, where Hispanic counties flipped to Trump, undermines the claim that immigration guarantees a Democratic advantage. Democrats, for their part, argued that their immigration policy is driven by humanitarian considerations, such as providing refuge to those fleeing violence and oppression, not by political objectives.
Nevertheless, the lack of transparency regarding the number of released migrants and support for programs like CHNV, which admitted 520,000 migrants, fueled suspicions about their true intentions. This debate became a central focus of the 2024 campaign, as Trump framed immigration as an “invasion” designed to weaken Republicans—a narrative that resonated strongly with many voters.
Immediate Economic Opportunity from the Other Side of the Border
Mass migration from Latin America to the U.S. between 2021 and 2024 was not a spontaneous phenomenon. It was supported by a complex network of NGOs, with both government and private funding, which created economic and practical incentives for citizens of countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to leave their homes. According to a 2023 Heritage Foundation report, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated about $2.6 billion between 2021 and 2023 to “humanitarian aid” programs in Central American countries, ostensibly aimed at addressing the root causes of migration, such as poverty and violence. In practice, these funds flowed to organizations that provided direct aid to migrants en route to the U.S., including food, shelter, medical services, and legal counseling.
Organizations such as HIAS, Catholic Charities, and Médecins Sans Frontières received USAID grants and operated support camps along migration routes in Mexico, particularly in cities such as Tapachula and Tijuana.
George Soros, through the Open Society Foundations (OSF), played a significant role in funding pro-immigration organizations. According to a 2022 Judicial Watch report, OSF allocated about $15 million between 2018 and 2022 to organizations such as Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which led migrant caravans between 2018 and 2022, and La Raza, which provided legal counseling for migrants in the U.S. These organizations published guides in Spanish, Mayan, and K’iche’ explaining how migrants could apply for asylum and leverage legal rights in the U.S.
In addition, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), supported by the U.S., allocated about $300 million for “migration training” programs in Guatemala and Honduras, which included workshops on “opportunities in the North” and information on safe border crossings. This program, managed in cooperation with the UNHCR, sometimes provided migrants in Mexico with debit cards worth up to $800 per month, easing their continued journey to the border.
Critics, including Republicans and conservative commentators, argued that this financial mechanism created a “migration industry” that incentivized people to leave their homes while exploiting their economic hardship. A Heritage Foundation report claimed that financial support turned migration into an artificial phenomenon, driven by monetary incentives rather than solely by distress. For example, a UNHCR program, partly funded by USAID, provided debit cards worth $400–800 to migrants in Mexico, allowing them to purchase food, transportation, and services on their way to the border. This program, promoted by organizations in countries of origin, increased the motivation to migrate, as many locals came to see migration as an immediate economic opportunity. Trump himself capitalized on these claims in his campaign, accusing Biden of “funding an invasion” of migrants—a narrative that gained broad support among conservative voters.
Notably, some of the organizations active in the U.S., such as HIAS, were also involved in Israel’s 2018 “Sent to Their Deaths” campaign, which sought to thwart a government plan to deport infiltrators to Sudan and Eritrea. HIAS, which received funding from USAID and OSF, operated in Israel in cooperation with organizations such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Kav LaOved, and the Hotline for Refugees and Migrants. The campaign included demonstrations, petitions, and legal support in High Court appeals, arguing that deporting the infiltrators endangered their lives due to violence in their destination countries.
HIAS employed a similar narrative in the U.S., claiming that migrants from Central American countries were entitled to asylum due to threats from gangs such as MS-13 and Barrio 18. The resemblance between the campaigns lay in the approach of combining humanitarian aid with political activism to promote unrestricted immigration, relying on similar funding sources such as USAID and OSF. In Israel, the campaign succeeded in delaying the program until it was canceled in 2018, while in the U.S., the activities of these organizations contributed to the intensified flow of migrants to the border.
Kamala Harris: The Farcical Turn of the “Border Czar”
In March 2021, President Biden appointed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to address the root causes of migration from Central America—a role the media dubbed the “Border Czar.” The position, focused on diplomatic coordination with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, was an opportunity for Harris to demonstrate leadership. Instead, she became a symbol of inaction and avoidance. Harris visited the border only once, in June 2021 in El Paso, Texas, and only after heavy media pressure. When NBC’s Lester Holt asked her why she had not visited the border earlier, she responded awkwardly: “I’ve been to the border before, and I will go again,” adding with a defensive laugh: “I haven’t been to Europe either, so I don’t understand the point.” The response went viral, was perceived as unserious, and damaged her public image.
Ahead of the 2024 elections, Harris continued to dodge questions about her role. In a September 2024 CNN interview, she claimed: “I worked hard with Central American countries to address the causes of migration, and we made significant progress,” but failed to provide concrete examples or data. When Fox News’s Bret Baier pressed her in October 2024 about the eight million border encounters, she replied: “The border is a complex challenge, and we need a system that works, not just enforcement.” These vague and generic answers failed to convince voters, and Harris was perceived as detached from the reality on the ground.
Moreover, Harris made a sharp shift in her positions, which further added to the sense of unreliability. As a senator in 2019, she supported non-enforcement against border crossers in cases of illegal entry, proposed shutting down ICE detention facilities, and argued that migrants should be called “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” In a 2019 CNN interview, she said: “Crossing the border should not be a criminal offense; it’s a civil violation.” But in 2024, as a presidential candidate, she adopted tougher rhetoric, promising in a July CBS interview: “I believe in border security, and we will work to ensure that the law is enforced.”
This shift, seen as an attempt to appease moderate voters, was viewed as cynical – especially given her failure to present a concrete plan to address the crisis. A Pew Research poll from January 2025 showed that only 35 percent of the public believed Harris had handled the immigration crisis well, compared to 60 percent who supported Trump’s approach.
