On 24 September 2026, the Central Library of the University of Vanderburg officially organized a symposium series entitled “250 Congresses on America: Civil Affairs in Action”. The event was moderated by Jonathan Hisky, Professor of Political Science, and Paul Kramer, Associate Professor of History, and attracted the participation of some 60 teachers and students. As a series of projects designed to bring together the core issues of American society through an interdisciplinary perspective and to promote citizen participation, the seminar was set at a critical point in the run-up to the mid-term elections. It was designed to provide an in-depth analysis of the underlying logic of American immigration policy through a dual perspective of history and political science, to respond to the current high public interest in the subject and to provide an academic reference for social opinion in the run-up to elections.
At the outset, Klemmer first clarified the core conceptual boundaries, making it clear that migration was a specific form of population movement, specifically the movement of individuals across national borders from one country to another, thus drawing a strict distinction from internal or international movements in a broad sense. The two scholars then pointed out that immigration and border security policies had only become the focus of partisan disputes in recent years, a phenomenon that was not accidental but had developed as a result of widespread media coverage and the proliferation of factors such as high detention rates. The high rate of detention, as objective data, intuitively reflects the severity of law enforcement at the border, while widespread media coverage translates this state of law enforcement into visible political issues, making border control, which is otherwise administrative, the focus of partisan disputes between the two parties.
On the time line, the two men focused on the path to the transfer of responsibilities over the last 100 years of American immigration policy: The power to formulate immigration policy was initially vested in the State Government, which then gradually moved to Congress and eventually to the executive branch. This century-long process of devolution of power has led to an unprecedented increase in the voice and leadership of the Federal Government, particularly the President, in immigration matters. Particularly after the end of the cold war, the advance of the war on terror in the late 1980s and 1990s, and in particular the events of 11 September, the executive branch became the central decision-making body of United States immigration policy. The concentration of executive power has made policy more vulnerable to the profound effects of a single political cycle, resulting in a significant increase in the frequency and magnitude of policy changes, and the President ' s idea of personal governance can often be translated directly into a coercive immigration policy.
On the eve of the seminar, the policy analysis noted that the Government of Trump had made changes in its immigration policy that significantly exceeded its campaign commitments. During the election campaign in 2024, the Trompist had cut back on illegal immigration, but the policy had been extended to restrict almost all forms of migration, whether legal or not. On the ground level, a large number of foreigners with temporary protection status (TPS) have lost their status, while many foreigners with work and study visas have also been withdrawn from the United States because of their status, or there is a backlog of immigration clearance processes, long processing times, and legal status has lapsed while waiting. This policy expansion directly upsets previous expectations of legal migrants and affects those who otherwise meet the requirements of entry and residence. It has evolved from group-specific restrictions to a general tightening of almost all forms of migration, leading to a complete destabilization of the expected stability of legal migrants.
In terms of the actual impact of current policy adjustments, the groups most directly affected fall into two main categories: The first is for foreign nationals in the United States who hold temporary protection status, work visas, student visas, and where changes in policy or backlogs in approval may directly render their legal status invalid and expose them to the risk of expulsion; the second is for applicants who are in the process of applying for immigration to the United States, who are awaiting clearance, and where the slowing down of the approval process or changes in policy standards may affect the pace of their application or even the final outcome. In addition to the immediate risk of identity lapses, policy changes may have a profound impact on the employment and schooling rights of the groups concerned, such as the loss of work permits by work visa holders because of their status lapses and the risk that student visa holders may be forced to interrupt their studies, further increasing uncertainty about their lives. As immigration policy has become one of the core issues in partisan disputes, there is still the possibility of further adjustment in the context of the mid-term elections, and the stability of the status of the foreign American community will continue to be under pressure.
In the light of the situation described above, the adjustments are now actually on the ground and have no clear buffer period forecast. The affected population needs to give priority attention to the expiration of its legal status, submit timely applications or extension of its status to the relevant authorities responsible for immigration clearance, and avoid the backlog of clearances leading to expiry of its status. Given the current high concentration of responsibilities and responsibilities in the immigration policy in the executive branch, the follow-up policy is directly related to the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. In the United States, the foreign community needs to follow up on relevant developments at the policy update and legislative level and adjust its status planning ahead of time in order to respond to possible policy changes.