Because unbiased media is scarce at best, those who seek to stay informed need a solid understanding of the policy stances of various parties and how information can be twisted to support them to successfully navigate misinformation and loaded language. Highly controversial issues, such as the U.S. border wall, are prone to misrepresentation by news sources.
U.S. border policy refers to securing the border and preventing illegal migration from other countries into the United States, especially along the border with Mexico. The border wall between the United States and Mexico is a high-visibility measure taken in pursuit of security and illegal migration prevention. Connected with the border wall issue are issues surrounding undocumented immigrants.
Liberal and Democratic groups generally support asylum for undocumented immigrants and emphasize humanitarian arguments upholding international asylum laws as outlined in international law, such as the Refugee Convention established following World War II, which incorporated the right to seek asylum into international law. Their reasoning is largely humanitarian and leads them to disapprove of advancements of the U.S. border wall, holding a preference for no border wall.
Conservative and Republican groups are generally highly supportive of the advancement of the wall on the border with Mexico, matching with the concerns they bear regarding strain or exploitation of the system, national security, negative economic impact, and other dangers they attribute to undocumented immigrants.
Additional considerations surrounding the construction of a border wall include its economic consequences, environmental harm, its ineffectiveness as a deterrent, and the political impact of border wall construction. Still, proponents point out the need to decrease illegal drug trade, border crossings, and human smuggling activities by some means, and their preferred means is wall construction.
Balancing the stances is an issue of balancing humanitarian motivations with sustainable border policies that support national security. While the concerns regarding policy on immigration in the U.S. are already significant when it comes to refugee asylum, the unauthorized status of undocumented immigrants requires a much higher value for humanitarian work over legal process and national security.
The Democratic Stance on Border Wall
The Democratic and liberal stance on border security toward the immigrant side of border policies is generally more favorable than the Republican Party’s stance. They are against the construction of the border wall, citing it as an immoral and ineffective expense. As an alternative, they generally prefer to support measures for border security, such as technology investment and an increase in border patrol agents. Addressing the root causes of migration, such as violence and poverty, is their highest preference.
Their arguments focus on the humanitarian approach, emphasizing the importance of facilitating legal pathways into the country and citizenship. While some hold these values because they prioritize providing protections and assistance to asylum seekers, others with more moderate views may prioritize controlled immigration without wall construction.
The construction of a border wall is a highly partisan issue. The Republican platform explicitly endorses the construction of a wall along the Southern border, while the Democratic platform expresses harsh opposition to the concept. Polling reflects a similar partisan divide; 82% of Republican voters favor the construction of a Southern border wall, while 93% of Democratic voters are opposed.
The Republican Stance on Border Wall
The Republican stance on border control leads them to approach migrant policies with a priority on strict border security measures and increased enforcement as they focus on national security and overall stability.
They support border wall policies because they are particularly concerned with issues of illegal entry to the country. To combat illegal migration, they support increased deportations and tend to support stricter controls on asylum access and increased difficulty in obtaining citizenship. As they desire to deter illegal immigration and the entrance of unsafe individuals, they also prefer to increase the difficulty of the process for legal asylum.
As an example of the overwhelming Republican support for the border wall, in December 2018, House Republicans approved a bill to fund President Trump’s border wall. It passed 217-185, with eight Republicans voting against the government funding package that included $5.7 billion to construct a border wall. The bill received no Democratic support.
Although the parties differ in their approaches to refugee asylum, they share a recognition that the existing immigration policies are inadequate to address the problems at the border. The challenge of the situation involves balancing border security and the internationally acknowledged right to asylum.
To see individual politicians’ stances on different policies, please visit the ‘Politician’s Stance Tracker.’
Policy on Border Wall in the United States
The public stance on border policies is characterized by opposing values. Some argue that asylum and the opportunity to flee persecution are core American values that should rightfully be upheld. Many of these people desire an end to the construction of the border wall as well as deportations of undocumented immigrants. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to hold these views.
Those who have a negative view of immigration prefer stricter border controls, as they don’t want the U.S. to be taken advantage of or endangered. They are of the mind that some people come to the U.S. for purposes outside of safety and, as a result, should not be eligible for the humanitarian aid of asylum. If they come illegally as undocumented immigrants, critics of the asylum system are especially reproachful, as they value security and individual integrity. They see undocumented immigration as unjust. Conservatives and Republicans are more likely to hold these views.
As of 2024, a Gallup Poll found that negative views have increased among Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. The poll found that a majority of Americans want there to be less immigration for the first time since 2005, with 55% preferring less immigration. For comparison, only 41% said the same in 2023, indicating a 14-point leap over the course of a year. Republicans reported the highest desire for decreased immigration at 88%, while 50% of independents said the same, along with 28% of Democrats. While Democrats are less likely to prefer decreasing immigration than the other two groups, the largest portion of Democrats prefer maintaining current immigration levels rather than increasing them.
With the second Trump Administration, a number of immigration-related policies have been implemented or updated in 2025. These changes to U.S. border policy are aimed at decreasing immigration and deporting undocumented immigrants.
During both Trump Administrations, President Trump made significant promises to proceed with the construction of the border wall and decrease illegal immigration as a whole.
A Brief History of Border Wall Policy in the U.S.
The history of deportation in the U.S. has shifted between more and less lenient legislation over time, excluding specific groups based on factors such as nationality early on. Deportation is one mechanism of U.S. border policy used to handle groups of immigrants who were not accepted in the country for various reasons, including undocumented entry or political tensions.
The creation of barriers along the border of the United States and Mexico began with the installation of barbed-wire fences in 1909, intended to prevent cattle from crossing over.
During the Great Depression in the 1930s, Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans were blamed for some of the economic struggles the nation faced, leading to the mass expulsion of an estimated 2 million people to Mexico by the late 1930s. Along with these measures, the construction of additional fencing along the border was authorized by the U.S. Congress.
In 1994, Operation Gatekeeper was launched in San Diego to improve border control with increased enforcement and enhanced infrastructure that improved the fencing. This operation forced illegal crossing ‘traffic’ into more dangerous areas, raising controversy among those with humanitarian concerns. Other, similar operations have been launched in other places, such as Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, Texas, in 1993.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized construction of further reinforced fencing along the border in combination with other security measures and mandated the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prevent illegal entry.
In recent years, the Obama Administration continued border wall construction, followed by Trump’s Administration, which put priority on this work despite funding and legal challenges. While the Biden Administration initially elected to halt border wall progress, as Biden said in one of his campaign promises, they could not divert the funds that had already been allotted by Congress.
As of 2025, the second Trump Administration issued an order to suspend asylum rights at the southern border of the United States. This order had been challenged by the Pacito v. Trump lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the suspension of the USRAP and related funding. The lawsuit argues President Trump’s proclamation goes against decisions made by Congress and the courts without creating viable alternatives for the people who have historically been protected by these decisions.
Also in 2025, the Trump administration expressed the intention to reimplement the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which had been set in the first Trump administration. This policy required asylum-seekers from Mexico to stay in Mexico while they waited on their immigration court cases. However, this intention has been put on temporary hold by the federal court as they dispute the case.
The second Trump Administration rapidly introduced a number of policies to restrict immigration in general and address undocumented immigration. President Trump specifically targeted issues with the U.S.-Mexico border by restarting a policy he had attempted to implement in his first term, the Remain in Mexico policy, which requires immigrants from Mexico to remain in Mexico while applying for asylum in the United States. He also aims for agreements with other nearby countries to establish safe third-country agreements. Safe third country agreements allow a country to deny asylum to individuals who could have applied for protection in another country they passed through instead.
What the Future Holds
A 2025 Pew Poll found that 56% of Americans favor expanding the border wall. 73% of Democrats oppose substantial expansions, but the likelihood that they favor expansion has risen to 27% from 14% in 2019. Meanwhile, 88% of Republicans support border wall expansion, which is up slightly from 86% in 2019.
The efficacy of President Trump’s border policies in 2025 remains to be seen, and their longevity will largely depend on the results they yield. Future immigration policy in the U.S. will likely reflect the results of these policies.
To unlock more data-driven insights into media bias, explore political leanings with research-backed tools, and customize your news feed around what matters most to you, sign up for a Biasly Premium News Membership.