Democratic operatives and political journalists keep revisiting President Biden’s immigration agenda, often in an effort to distance themselves, and the party, from its failures. A lot of them still argue that when the number of people requesting asylum at the border spiked, Biden tried too hard to please stakeholders on the left. But he wasn’t choosing progressive policies over more moderate ones, he was reluctant to lead on the issue at all.

This was the case when the administration let the border crisis spill into cities across the country. The federal government largely relied on local leaders to manage the financial and political fallout as hundreds of thousands of migrants arrived in New York, Denver, and Chicago. I watched this unfold as a policy staffer, first inside the White House, then in the U.S. Senate.

The crisis in American cities didn’t just hurt Vice President Harris’s election chances, it pushed voters toward Trump’s hardline immigration stance. It brought the border crisis to cities across the country, and exposed the administration’s reluctance to use the full weight of the federal government to respond.

Foreseeing the Crisis

Until Trump shut down asylum earlier this year, anyone who crossed the border without authorization was taken to a federal facility. While some migrants, like single adults, were detained in ICE facilities, others were released with their belongings and given a notice to appear in immigration court, left to reach their destination on their own. Beyond managing individual immigration cases and requiring ICE check-ins, the federal government didn’t really see itself as responsible for helping migrants move or resettle in new communities after they were released.

When border crossings were low, the flaws in the system went largely unnoticed. Border towns adapted by building shelter networks to keep people off the streets. But even before Biden took office, it was clear that this system would collapse without federal support if the number of asylum seekers exceeded what border towns could absorb.

By March 2021, thousands of migrants were already overwhelming border towns, crowding airports and straining city services. At the time, I was at the National Security Council and my job was to convene agency experts to spot issues and plan for the worst. As more migrants arrived, I met with colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to discuss what to do when the border crisis reached deeper into the country.

Building off of the work we started on the transition team, we designed what we called the “Hub Cities” plan: when numbers at the border hit a certain level, ICE would transfer migrants to cities with available capacity, resettling people in an orderly process so no single community was overwhelmed. The plan was designed to relieve pressure on border towns and help migrants reach the cities where their court hearings were held.

Senior White House advisors were hesitant to work proactively with cities because they were afraid it would signal that the border was out of control. They also worried that immigration groups would criticize them if ICE assumed the role of relocating asylum seekers across the country. So they rejected our plan and continued to hope that the situation wouldn’t require federal intervention. Instead, they relied on Title 42, a policy that blocked asylum claims at the border, to deter migration—even though data showed it only made the situation worse.

Leaving the White House

In the summer of 2021, as the administration’s withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan consumed the President’s attention, my team learned that tens of thousands of Haitian migrants were traveling north through Mexico and moving toward Del Rio, Texas where they planned to seek asylum. Inside the administration, people debated whether there was anything we could do to prepare, since Del Rio is a small border town with limited resources. But instead of helping the town get ready for the arrival of thousands of people, the administration chose to wait until they reached the border. The reasoning was that most would be expelled under Title 42.

In September, when more than 10,000 migrants arrived at the Texas border, I knew we weren’t ready. What happened in Del Rio shook me deeply, especially when photographs surfaced of Border Patrol officers on horseback charging toward immigrants with split reins in their hands, evoking images of slavery.

For months, my colleagues and I had warned senior advisors that small towns like Del Rio didn’t have the resources to manage such an influx. I felt powerless and heartbroken as I watched the crisis unfold. No matter what I tried, there simply wasn’t anything I could do to make a difference. By the end of that week, I made the painful decision to leave the White House.

Advocating from the Senate

Shortly after my resignation, I joined the U.S. Senate as Chief Counsel to Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. At the time, he was the Senate’s leading voice on immigration, having spent decades championing the fight for reform. In that role, I worked with national immigration organizations, New Jersey leaders, and other Senate offices to advance legislative changes to the immigration system. Working for a national leader on this issue gave me a renewed sense of purpose.

Now, on the outside, I had a different perspective on the White House’s strategy. I knew my former colleagues were working diligently to find solutions, but the White House didn’t always communicate their efforts back to Congress and members were frustrated by what they saw as inaction. Senators from border states like California, Texas, and New Mexico wanted the administration to request emergency funding to help the shelter providers in their states. The four Democratic Latino senators, led by Menendez, met regularly to push the White House to try and create new legal protections for the millions of undocumented family members of U.S. citizens.

Lawmakers were trying to maintain the Obama approach of securing the border and fighting to protect the undocumented. But at that time, the White House was resistant to pursuing border legislation. They still believed that Title 42 was working and that there was no need for new legislation or emergency funding.

The Abbott Busses

Then, in April 2022, Governor Abbott sent the first buses of migrants from the Texas border to Washington D.C. and New York City, claiming that he was preparing for Biden to lift Title 42. He said the move would help Texas manage the border, but real relief should have come from a coordinated federal response, not a state-led political stunt. Many migrants on those first buses had no idea where they were going or why. The point wasn’t to help them, it was to use them as pawns and create chaos for Democratic mayors, who were not notified in advance of the buses arriving.

I expected the Department of Justice to try and stop Abbott with legal action, or for the administration to find a way to work with Abbott and finally roll out a version of the Hub Cities plan. Instead, the administration stood by as busing expanded. Soon, migrants with no ties to New York, Chicago, or Denver were being sent there by Texas officials, other Republican governors, and Border Patrol agents. Small border towns like Del Rio had no choice but to put people on buses to reduce crowding in their communities. Smugglers caught on, spreading posts online promising anyone who reached the border a free ride to New York. When Senators asked why the White House wasn’t doing more, senior staffers said they didn’t want to draw attention to the issue.

Admittedly, the administration had limited tools to manage both the surge in unauthorized border crossings and the growing strain on cities. In some cases, the policies they introduced helped one problem while worsening another. One example was their parole policy for Venezuelan migrants, which allowed those with U.S.-based sponsors to enter the country and work legally for two years. Although it was intended to curb unauthorized crossings, a critical need at the time, it frustrated Latino communities already living in the U.S. Newly arrived migrants were getting work permits and legal status, while millions of longtime undocumented residents had seen no progress on either front since DACA’s creation in 2012.

The Border Moved to Cities

In effect, Governor Abbott created a harsh and chaotic version of the Hub Cities plan. He refused to coordinate with receiving cities, even as lawsuits mounted. I disagreed completely with his approach, but he was right about one thing: the way this country manages asylum seekers is fundamentally broken. Because the federal government never took responsibility for coordinating the movement and integration of migrants, border towns began working directly with cities like New York, Chicago, and Denver. Local shelter networks also developed their own versions of the Hub Cities plan, working with partners across the country to connect migrants with communities that could receive them.

Filling the gap was much more complicated for Democratic mayors, who had the daunting political task of helping migrants without negatively impacting their constituents. It was nearly impossible to house tens of thousands of migrants in cities that couldn’t provide affordable housing for their own residents. In Chicago, the city held migrants in police stations. Hotels and schools in New York City became full-time migrant shelters. In Denver, the Mayor himself visited makeshift tent camps to try and help people find more permanent housing.

Democratic leaders in states and cities went above and beyond to manage on their own, but the sheer number of people arriving angered people living in those cities. By the end of 2023, more than 200,000 migrants had arrived in New York, 51,000 in Chicago, and nearly 35,000 in Denver.

After a year of pressure from their Democratic allies, the administration finally helped states set up work permit clinics so migrants could financially support themselves, rather than rely on city services. Once again, on paper it made sense, but politically, it caused a lot of frustration. Residents of these cities were angry that migrants were now getting housing support, legal aid, and services that struggling Americans, especially in Black and Latino neighborhoods, couldn’t access. Republicans seized on that anger to argue that Democrats were leaving working-class Americans behind.

Looking Back

Looking back now, I’m still struck by the sheer number of people cities were asked to absorb. It’s painful to remember how the administration failed to lead as communities became overwhelmed and allies asked for help. That failure didn’t just hurt their own party or the migrants caught in the chaos—it deepened the nation’s divisions and diminished its compassion toward immigrants.

Too often in my career as an immigration staffer, I’ve seen Democratic Party leadership avoid immigration because it is so tough to get right. But the real lessons from what I’ve seen in cities is this: avoiding the issue, and the communities most affected by our outdated immigration system, only makes things worse.