Give up, Leave, or Stay and Fight? Current state of Immigration in the United States and What Immigrants Can Expect After the November Elections

By Ismail Shahtakhtinski, Esq.

Immigration in the United States has changed dramatically under the Trump administration. But to understand what is happening, it is not enough to follow individual ICE arrests, USCIS announcements, visa restrictions, or immigration court decisions.

We need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

What is the Trump administration actually trying to accomplish through immigration policy? What has worked? What has failed? What methods are being used? What are the legal limits on presidential power? Are the courts and Congress still functioning as checks on the executive branch? And what could realistically change after the November elections?

These questions are not relevant only to immigrants. Immigration has become one of the clearest tests of executive power, congressional authority, judicial independence, and the American system of checks and balances.

I have practiced immigration law for approximately 20 years. During that time, I have represented immigrants before USCIS, immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, DHS, ICE, CBP, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and U.S. consulates around the world.

What follows is my assessment of what I am seeing from inside the system.

What Is the Trump Administration Trying to Accomplish?

President Trump was very clear during his campaign about two major immigration objectives: securing the border and conducting mass deportations.

The phrase was not simply “deport dangerous criminals.” It was “mass deportations.”

The administration has also pursued policies affecting humanitarian programs, work authorization, refugees, parole, visas, legal immigration, and the adjudication of immigration benefits.

In my view, when these policies are considered together, the objective has become broader than simply preventing illegal border crossings. The administration is pursuing a highly restrictionist immigration policy that affects both undocumented and lawful immigration.

The more interesting question today is no longer whether the administration intends to enforce immigration law aggressively.

It clearly does.

The important question is how.

I see several distinct methods.

Method One: Direct Enforcement

The most obvious method is direct enforcement.

More ICE arrests. More detention. More enforcement operations. More removal proceedings. More immigration judges. More court capacity. More resources devoted to processing removal cases.

This part is straightforward.

The administration has also made reducing the immigration court backlog an explicit priority. EOIR reported in May 2026 that it had completed more than 1.08 million cases since January 20, 2025, reducing the pending immigration court caseload from approximately 4 million to under 3.53 million. That same month, EOIR swore in 77 new immigration judges and five temporary judges, which it described as the largest class of new adjudicators in the agency's history.

The result is not merely more arrests. The government is also expanding the machinery capable of moving those cases toward final decisions.

There is another important feature of this enforcement strategy: visibility.

We have seen large numbers of heavily armed federal immigration officers deployed in American cities. Minneapolis became one of the most visible examples. During the immigration enforcement surge there, federal officers fatally shot U.S. citizens Renée Good and Alex Pretti, producing national controversy over the tactics used during the operation.

In my view, that visibility has an effect far beyond the individual person being arrested.

The immigrant community sees it. Families see it. Neighbors see it. Social media sees it. The country sees it.

That leads to the second method.

Method Two: Deterrence Through Fear and Uncertainty

The government cannot realistically arrest and deport millions of people simultaneously.

But enforcement has a psychological effect.

Make enforcement visible.

Make it unpredictable.

Make people wonder where ICE may appear next.

Make people concerned about appearing at immigration court, going to an immigration appointment, traveling, or simply going about their lives.

And this atmosphere does not affect only undocumented immigrants.

It affects people with pending applications, temporary protections, work permits, visas, and even lawful permanent residents who may suddenly question how a prior arrest, international trip, old immigration filing, or other issue could affect them.

Whether every enforcement operation is deliberately designed to create publicity is something we cannot know.

But the deterrent effect of highly visible enforcement is difficult to ignore.

Immigration enforcement is no longer happening quietly in the background.

People are supposed to know it is happening.

Method Three: What I Call “Suffocation”

There is another approach that concerns me even more.

I call it suffocation.

A government does not necessarily have to physically remove someone tomorrow to make remaining in the United States extraordinarily difficult.

People need to work. They need housing. They need health insurance. They need to support children. They need to know whether they can remain six months from now.

Employment authorization therefore matters enormously.

On October 14, 2026, DHS finalized a rule ending automatic EAD extensions for certain applicants who timely file renewal applications. DHS says the change enhances vetting and “benefit integrity.” For affected immigrants, however, the practical consequence can be a gap in employment authorization while the government adjudicates a renewal.

That distinction matters.

Someone may still have a pending immigration case or another basis to remain in the United States, yet lose the practical ability to support a family while waiting for the government to act.

Ukrainians illustrate the problem

The United States created Uniting for Ukraine after Russia's invasion. The program allowed Ukrainians fleeing the war to seek humanitarian parole in the United States. USCIS has also allowed qualifying Ukrainians to seek re-parole on a case-by-case basis when their original parole period expires.

These are people whom the United States affirmatively allowed to enter through a humanitarian program.

When people in that position face uncertainty about parole, re-parole, TPS, employment authorization, or the government's processing time, the problem is no longer simply one of “border enforcement.”

Imagine inviting a family into your home because their house is burning, then making it increasingly difficult for them to know whether they may remain in your home or whether they can support themselves while they are there.

That is why I consider some of these policies morally indefensible.

Method Four: Procedural Trickery

There is another method that, in my view, is even more troubling: using complexity and procedure itself as an enforcement mechanism.

Immigration law is already extraordinarily complicated.

A person in removal proceedings needs to know when to appear, where to appear, what documents to file, what deadlines apply, and how to preserve legal arguments.

Mistakes can have enormous consequences.

A missed hearing can result in an in absentia removal order.

A missed appeal deadline can end a case.

A rejected filing can cost months.

And increasingly, lawyers and immigrants are dealing with rapidly changing procedures, hearing locations, form editions, filing requirements, and deadlines.

EOIR itself instructs respondents to rely on official hearing notices and to contact the immigration court if they are uncertain whether a hearing is in person or internet-based.

I recently dealt with a notice in one of my own cases that referred to an internet-based hearing but also instructed the respondent to appear at a physical location in Washington, D.C. A lawyer can investigate that contradiction. An unrepresented immigrant may have no idea what to do.

The BIA has also made notice rules less forgiving

In Matter of Diji, decided in 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that DHS may rely on the most recent address provided by the immigrant and that written notice mailed to that address may be sufficient for purposes of an in absentia proceeding. The BIA expressly overruled part of its earlier precedent in Matter of G-Y-R-.

That means an administrative issue involving an address or notice can have consequences as serious as a removal order.

We are also seeing constant attention to form editions, filing fees, and changing acceptance requirements. USCIS warns that applications may be rejected when incorrect form editions or mixed-edition pages are submitted.

When rules change frequently enough that even lawyers must constantly verify what is valid on a particular day, procedure itself can become part of the enforcement environment.

Method Five: Making America Less Attractive

There may also be another mechanism reducing immigration, although I am not prepared to say whether it is intentional.

America itself may be becoming less attractive.

For generations, people wanted to come to the United States not simply because America was wealthy.

America represented something.

Freedom.

Opportunity.

Stability.

Individual rights.

The rule of law.

The idea that a person could come here, work hard, raise a family, and build something.

That international reputation was an extraordinary American asset.

So when someone says, “Border crossings are down, therefore the immigration policy succeeded,” I think we should ask a second question:

Why are fewer people coming?

Enforcement matters.

Deterrence matters.

The difficulty of crossing matters.

But we should also ask whether hostility toward immigrants, highly visible enforcement operations, uncertainty surrounding lawful immigration, and broader international tensions are changing how people abroad perceive the United States.

You can reduce immigration by making a country harder to enter.

You can also reduce immigration by making the country less attractive to enter.

Those are not the same kind of success.

America's strength was never only that it could keep people out.

It was that people around the world wanted to get in.

Immigration Courts Are Part of the Executive Branch

To understand where the limits on all of this come from, it is important to understand the structure of the government.

USCIS, ICE, and CBP are components of the Department of Homeland Security.

Visa processing abroad is largely handled through the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs.

The Department of Labor plays an important role in employment immigration.

Immigration courts, however, are located within the Department of Justice.

That surprises many people.

An “immigration judge” is not an Article III federal judge.

Immigration judges work within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR. The Board of Immigration Appeals is also part of EOIR, which exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General.

This does not mean immigration judges are simply told how to decide individual cases. EOIR's stated mission is fair and uniform adjudication of immigration law.

But structurally, immigration courts and the BIA remain inside the executive branch.

That distinction becomes extremely important when we talk about appeals.

Where the Independent Judiciary Begins

For a typical final removal order, the path generally looks like this:

Immigration Judge → Board of Immigration Appeals → U.S. Court of Appeals

Once a petition for review reaches the appropriate federal court of appeals, the case has entered a constitutionally separate branch of government.

Article III federal judges have life tenure and cannot simply be fired by a President who disagrees with their decisions.

That is where checks and balances become especially important.

A President controls the executive branch.

He does not control the federal judiciary.

Federal courts may agree with an administration. They may disagree. Their rulings may later be reversed.

But institutionally, they are independent.

Why Building the Record Matters

Clients sometimes ask me a very reasonable question:

“If immigration judges are denying so many cases, why should I spend the time and money preparing?”

My answer is simple.

Build the record.

Present the evidence.

Make the legal arguments.

Preserve the issues.

If necessary, appeal to the BIA.

Exhaust the remedies the law requires you to exhaust.

Because if the case eventually reaches a federal court, the record you built below matters enormously.

Today's political environment will not exist forever.

Administrations change.

Policies change.

Regulations change.

Precedents change.

Cases can be reopened.

But if a person gives up prematurely or fails to preserve an issue, a future change in law may come too late to help.

One individual case can also affect many others. That is how precedent develops. A person challenges government action, the issue reaches a federal court, and the resulting decision can shape the law for thousands of people.

What Could the November Elections Actually Change?

There is also a great deal of misunderstanding about what a change in congressional control would mean.

Even if the opposition party were to control both houses of Congress after November, President Trump would remain President.

DHS would remain part of the executive branch.

ICE would continue operating.

USCIS would continue operating.

DOJ and EOIR would remain part of the executive branch.

And the President would retain substantial executive authority.

Congress also cannot simply pass any law it wants over presidential opposition.

Under current Senate rules, most legislation can be blocked by a filibuster unless 60 senators vote for cloture.

And even legislation passed by both chambers can be vetoed by the President. Overriding a presidential veto requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate.

So a congressional election does not instantly reverse executive immigration policy.

But Congress is not powerless

Congress has several major tools.

First is oversight.

Congressional committees can hold hearings, subpoena documents, question DHS and DOJ officials, investigate detention practices, examine government contracts, scrutinize enforcement operations, and place officials under oath.

Oversight does not automatically cancel a policy.

But it can expose problems, create political and institutional pressure, provide information for litigation, and make agencies answer publicly for their actions.

Second is the power of the purse.

Congress controls appropriations and can impose conditions on future spending, restrict certain uses of money, or decline to provide additional funding.

Third is Senate confirmation authority over many senior executive officials and Article III judges.

These powers create friction and accountability even when Congress cannot simply rewrite immigration law over a presidential veto.

So, Leave, Stay, or Fight?

That brings me back to the title.

There is no universal answer.

For some people, leaving the United States may ultimately be the correct decision.

For others, remaining and pursuing available immigration relief is appropriate.

For some, the right answer may be to fight through the immigration court system, the BIA, and, if necessary and legally available, the federal courts.

What people should not do is make that decision based solely on fear.

Government pressure does not mean legal rights have disappeared.

An immigration judge's decision is not necessarily the final word.

And today's immigration policy will not necessarily be tomorrow's immigration policy.

The executive branch has enormous power over immigration.

But the executive branch is not the entire United States government.

Congress still matters.

Federal courts still matter.

The Constitution still matters.

Individual cases still matter.

And the American system of checks and balances, however severely tested it may be, still matters.

The answer is to understand the system, protect your rights, preserve your case, and make an informed decision about whether your circumstances call for you to leave, stay, or fight.

We Can Help

Immigration law is changing quickly, and the correct strategy depends heavily on the facts of each individual case. If you are facing removal proceedings, questions about asylum, TPS, parole, employment authorization, adjustment of status, citizenship, or another immigration matter, the attorneys at I.S. Law Firm, PLLC can review your situation and discuss the options available to you.

Schedule a consultation with I.S. Law Firm

This article provides general legal and policy information and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration cases are fact-specific, and readers should obtain individualized legal advice regarding their circumstances.

Ready to Expand to the U.S.? Let’s Talk.

Ismail Shahtakhtinski · Founder & Managing Attorney

I.S. Law Firm · Founder and Investor Immigration

Confidential One-on-One Strategy Review

P.: (703) 527-1779

E.: law@islawfirm.com

W.: islawfirm.com