Leave, Stay, or Fight? What Immigrants Should Expect After the November Elections

Overview

Immigration attorney Ismail Shaktakinski argues that the Trump administration aims to sharply restrict immigration and pursue mass deportations—not only of undocumented immigrants, but also by limiting legal immigration. He describes five overlapping strategies:

1. Direct enforcement: Expanding ICE activity and immigration-court capacity. Shaktakinski says the immigration-court backlog has fallen from roughly four million cases to about 3.4 million, while remaining very large.
2. Fear and uncertainty: Making enforcement highly visible and unpredictable, including through operations in public places and arrests at or near immigration proceedings. In his view, this may discourage immigrants—including people with lawful status or pending applications—from traveling, attending appointments, or pursuing benefits.
3. “Suffocation” of lawful immigrants: He argues that delays and limits affecting work authorization and temporary humanitarian protections make it harder for people admitted lawfully to support themselves, potentially pressuring them to leave. He cites Ukrainian parolees and TPS holders as examples, pointing to uncertainty around renewals and work permits.
4. Procedural obstacles and alleged trickery: He alleges that abrupt changes to forms and filing addresses, short deadlines, and confusing or late court notices can lead to rejected applications or missed hearings. He warns that missed hearings can result in deportation orders, even when a person did not receive or understand a notice.
5. Making the U.S. less attractive: He argues that enforcement, perceived limits on rights, and hostile public messaging may discourage people from coming to or staying in the country, reducing immigration beyond the effects of border enforcement alone.

Elections, Government Checks, and Courts

Shaktakinski says a Democratic takeover of Congress after the November elections would not, by itself, produce immigration reform or end the administration’s policies. Without the president’s signature, legislation would generally require a veto-proof supermajority, which he considers unlikely. A new Congress could conduct oversight, hold hearings, investigate administration actions, and potentially slow some activity. He also says much immigration-related funding has already been approved through 2029, limiting Congress’s ability to change spending quickly.

He distinguishes immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals—which he describes as part of the executive branch and Department of Justice—from independent federal courts. In his view, executive-branch immigration decisions are increasingly unfavorable to immigrants, making federal-court review an important remaining safeguard. He urges people with cases to keep building a complete record, since appeals often rely on evidence and testimony already submitted rather than new hearings.

Advice and Audience Questions

Shaktakinski’s central recommendation is that immigrants who still have a legal path not give up prematurely. He advises them to prepare their cases carefully, attend hearings, preserve appeal rights, and consult an experienced immigration lawyer. He notes that choosing to leave is ultimately a personal decision, but says continuing to fight may matter, particularly if a case can reach federal court.

During the Q&A, he addressed concerns about delayed work permits, citizenship applications, canceled naturalization interviews, travel by people with pending asylum cases, shortened evidence deadlines, and uncertainty around Ukrainian TPS and work authorization. He said USCIS may revisit a person’s prior immigration history during naturalization, but advised eligible applicants not to avoid applying solely out of fear.

He also discussed immigration-court continuances, SIJS cases, consular appointment problems, motions to reopen, and delayed visa cases. He recommended seeking case-specific legal advice and mentioned mandamus actions as a possible option for some prolonged delays. He repeatedly cautioned that his livestream responses were not individualized legal advice.

Presenters and Contributors

• Presenter: Ismail Shaktakinski, immigration attorney.
• Audience contributors with identifiable names: Sam, Alan, Maximus, Rich, Jean, Orurin, Fuzza, Vicki, and Shiva (surname unclear), among others whose names were unavailable or unclear in the subtitles.