Berenson, a former New York Times reporter turned independent writer known for his contrarian takes on public health issues (marijuana, COVID-19 policies), now turns his attention to immigration. This piece is the first in what he teases as a series examining shifts in Democratic positions.
The article's central claim is that the 2020 Democratic Party platform on immigration amounted to a deliberate blueprint for effectively open borders, describing it sarcastically as the "world’s longest political suicide note." Berenson argues this wasn't accidental but a feature that encouraged massive migration surges under the Biden administration.
He breaks it down by quoting and analyzing the platform (archived here: https://archive.ph/a2Zvd, as it's been removed from the official Democrats site):
No mention of "border security" at all.
Heavy emphasis on expanding asylum protections, ending Trump-era restrictions (e.g., no prosecutions of asylum seekers at the border, no "safe third country" requirements).
Promises to end workplace/community raids, protect "sensitive locations" from enforcement — notably including DMVs (a point Berenson highlights mockingly as absurd).
Treating detention as a last resort, with investments in community alternatives.
Prioritizing family reunification and removing barriers to naturalization/citizenship for millions of "undocumented" individuals.
Berenson interprets these as an invitation to anyone who can reach the U.S.: claim asylum, and entry is virtually guaranteed since claims can't easily be disproven at the border. He sums it up with the line: "Come on in. The water’s fine."
He connects this to real-world outcomes:
Caravans forming shortly after the 2020 election (pre-inauguration).
A professionalized smuggling industry emerging (citing a 2022 New York Times article).
The Biden administration's 2023 Humanitarian Parole Program, which allowed ~360,000 migrants annually from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter legally by plane with U.S. sponsors — bypassing physical border arrival altogether.
Overall result: Nearly 10 million arrivals under Biden, described (citing a 2024 NYT piece) as the largest migration surge in raw numbers or as a percentage of U.S. population since the Civil War.
Berenson calls the policy collapse "nakedly political," aimed at reshaping demographics/power dynamics, and expresses surprise the numbers weren't even higher.
The writing is sharp, sarcastic, and polemical — characteristic of Unreported Truths, Berenson's Substack voice. Phrases like "more complex needs" being code for "people uninterested in working" (quoting an American Immigration Council report) and "supply creates its own demand" (on smuggling) add a biting edge. This makes it engaging for readers who share his skepticism of progressive policies, but it can read as one-sided or inflammatory to others.
Factual grounding — He relies on direct quotes from the 2020 platform, archived links, and mainstream sources (NYT, American Immigration Council). The removal of the platform from the Democrats' site is verifiable and lends credence to his point about it being quietly downplayed post-surge.
Clear cause-effect narrative — It ties policy language to subsequent events (caravans, parole program, migration totals) in a logical sequence.
Timely — Published on Jan 1, 2026, it arrives amid ongoing debates about immigration enforcement under the new administration.
Selective framing — While the 2020 platform was indeed unusually focused on humanitarian protections and light on enforcement rhetoric, many Democrats would argue it reflected a response to Trump-era family separations and asylum restrictions, not an intent for unlimited migration. The piece doesn't deeply engage counter-arguments (e.g., global push factors like violence/economics in origin countries).
No new data — The ~10 million figure has been cited in mainstream reporting, but it's a cumulative estimate including legal pathways, parole, encounters, etc. Critics often note that "net migration" or long-term economic impacts are more nuanced.
Partisan lens — Berenson's history as a critic of progressive policies (COVID, marijuana) colors the analysis. It appeals strongly to conservative or centrist readers frustrated with border outcomes but may not persuade those who see the platform as aspirational rather than "insane."
Series teaser — It promises more on "how Democrats reached this point" and future implications, so this feels like part 1 rather than a complete analysis. We can’t wait.
Overall, this is a provocative, well-sourced opinion piece that effectively highlights how far Democratic immigration rhetoric shifted leftward in 2020 — and the scale of migration that followed. Whether you view it as evidence of "insanity" or a principled humanitarian stance will depend on your politics. It's classic Berenson: data-driven outrage aimed at readers skeptical of elite consensus.
If you're interested in the full original, it's freely available on his Substack (with the usual paywall for comments/archives). Worth reading alongside contrasting views from immigration advocacy groups or Democratic strategists for a fuller picture.
