The Navigator – Issue #10 Immigration & Global Mobility Update (July 1–12, 2025)
Enforcement Surge Meets Legal Resistance: Border Numbers Plummet as Courts Challenge Executive Power
Executive Summary
The first two weeks of July 2025 saw pivotal shifts in immigration and mobility policy. In the United States, a sweeping budget reconciliation bill was enacted, pouring unprecedented funding into border security and enforcement while imposing new fees on immigration applications. The administration's hardline stance deepened, from aggressively pursuing denaturalization of citizens to opening a massive new detention center in Florida in partnership with the state.
Federal courts, however, served as a check on executive overreach – blocking an asylum ban and scrutinizing novel deportation tactics – even as the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions. At state and local levels, clashes escalated: Florida aligned closely with federal enforcement efforts, whereas California's largest city was targeted by the DOJ for its pro-immigrant "sanctuary" policies.
Beyond U.S. borders, global mobility trends veered toward restriction. Major destination countries like the UK and Canada unveiled policies to scale back immigration levels and tighten visa rules, prioritizing domestic labor and security concerns. These moves come amid intense international competition for talent and record-high displacement worldwide, forcing policymakers to balance economic needs with political pressure to control migration.
Key Highlights (July 1–12, 2025)
U.S. Legislation
Historic Enforcement Bill Enacted: Congress passed, and President Trump signed, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," a massive budget package providing ~$150 billion for border wall construction, ICE detention beds, and deportations, while hiking fees on asylum claims, work permits, and other immigration benefits. Advocates warn it fuels a "ruthless deportation machine" at the expense of community programs.
U.S. Courts
Asylum Ban Blocked: A federal judge halted the administration's new asylum restrictions based on an "invasion" proclamation, ruling the policy exceeded presidential authority and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. (The order is stayed 14 days pending appeal.) Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit heard arguments on using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport alleged gang members – a first-of-its-kind test likely bound for the Supreme Court.
State/Local
Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' & LA Showdown: Florida, with White House backing, opened a 3,000-bed immigration detention camp in the Everglades on July 1. Dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz," the complex will detain immigrants arrested by newly deputized state officers under an expanded 287(g) program. In California, the DOJ sued Los Angeles over its sanctuary policies as ~4,800 federal troops were deployed to quell unrest after mass immigration raids. LA's mayor blasted the lawsuit as an attack on immigrant communities, setting the stage for a major state–federal legal clash.
Border & Enforcement
Record-Low Crossings, Ramped-Up Deportations: Border Patrol reported ~6,070 illegal border encounters in June – the lowest monthly total on record, down ~93% from last year. For a second straight month, zero migrants were released into the U.S. interior, and "gotaways" (undetected entries) dropped 90% compared to 2024. The administration credits its aggressive enforcement (no parole releases, rapid removals) for the "extraordinary" decline. Officials aim to leverage the new budget to finish the border wall, hire thousands of agents, and facilitate up to 1 million deportations per year.
Asylum/Refugees
Refugee Ban & Bias Concerns: The administration moved to apply its latest travel ban to refugees, effectively barring about two-thirds of a court-approved group of 160 refugees from entering the U.S. Advocates call this an unlawful end-run around injunctions and note it further stalls the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (largely suspended since January). Officials defend the restrictions on security grounds despite research showing refugees do not increase crime. At the same time, the government is fast-tracking the resettlement of 1,000 white South African (Afrikaner) refugees by September, raising allegations of discriminatory preferences in humanitarian policy.
Global Mobility
Visa Policies Tighten Abroad: The UK confirmed major immigration rule changes to curb inflows – effective July 22, employers will no longer be able to sponsor many medium-skilled workers (RQF 3–5) or any foreign care workers, and post-study work visas will be cut from 2 years to 18 months. London also plans to double the qualifying time for permanent residency (from 5 to 10 years) and raise English-language and salary requirements to "restore control" over migration. In Canada, the government's new plan for 2025–27 slashes annual permanent resident targets to 395,000 (down from 500,000) and seeks to cap temporary resident visas at ~5% of the population. This marks a sharp reversal of Canada's pro-immigration growth strategy, as officials cite housing pressures and integration capacity.
U.S. Immigration Legislation & Policy
Enforcement-First Budget Bill Becomes Law
In a landmark legislative development, Congress finalized a massive immigration and border security package through budget reconciliation just before the July 4 holiday. The Senate approved its version of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" by a 51–50 vote on July 1, mirroring the House's razor-thin passage (215–214) in late May. President Trump signed the Act on July 4, cementing into law an unprecedented injection of funds for immigration enforcement.
The law allocates nearly $150 billion in supplemental funding for border and interior enforcement – including tens of billions for border wall construction, expanded ICE detention capacity (45,000+ beds), and scaled-up deportation operations. It also imposes hefty fees on immigrants across the board: asylum seekers, DACA applicants, work visa holders, and others now face new charges to file claims or appeals.
GOP lawmakers hail the measure as a long-overdue security investment, but immigrant advocacy groups decry it as a "blueprint for mass deportation and fear," noting that money is being funneled into harsh enforcement at the expense of humanitarian and integration programs. Notably, by using reconciliation – a budget process – Congress sidestepped the usual appropriations debate, fast-tracking enforcement funds outside of normal annual limits.
Denaturalization Push and Internal Policy Shifts
The administration is quietly expanding its focus on stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans with criminal or security red flags. An internal Department of Justice memo dated June 11 directs the Civil Division to prioritize denaturalization cases, particularly against individuals accused of terrorism links, war crimes, major fraud, or other "egregious" conduct.
The memo elevates civil denaturalization to one of DOJ's top five enforcement priorities – a remarkable departure from past practice, where revoking citizenship was exceedingly rare and reserved for extreme cases (e.g. former Nazis or blatant fraud). Now, DOJ attorneys have broad discretion to pursue any naturalized citizen whose conduct falls under a vague range of offenses.
Legal scholars warn this creates "two levels of citizenship," subjecting naturalized Americans to constant uncertainty that native-born citizens don't face. Because denaturalization is a civil proceeding, targets have limited due process protections (no right to a public defender and a lower burden of proof for the government). Critics argue that the new aggressive stance – justified by the administration as protecting national security – could be misused for political purposes or to instill fear in immigrant communities.
Other Policy Notes
No new comprehensive immigration reforms advanced in Congress during this period aside from the reconciliation package. Several standalone Republican-backed bills introduced earlier remain stalled in committee. On the executive side, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department continued tightened visa vetting protocols announced in the spring, but faced ongoing lawsuits over due process after hundreds of student and scholar visas were abruptly revoked without clear cause earlier this year.
Meanwhile, the Biden-era humanitarian parole programs for certain nationalities are being wound down: following a Supreme Court order in late June, DHS is preparing to terminate parole for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who had been allowed to enter under a 2023 initiative. This represents the largest rollback yet of the prior administration's inclusionary programs, underscoring the current leadership's philosophy of deterrence over relief.
Court Rulings and Legal Updates
Judge Blocks Asylum Ban Tied to "Invasion" Proclamation
In a significant check on executive power, D.C. District Judge Randolph Moss on July 2 struck down the administration's new asylum bar at the southern border. The policy in question stemmed from President Trump's January 20 "invasion" proclamation, which attempted to suspend asylum access by declaring a national security emergency at the border.
Judge Moss's 128-page ruling was unequivocal: neither the Constitution nor federal law permits the President to bypass Congress's asylum laws simply by invoking an "invasion." He wrote that the proclamation sought to create "an alternative immigration system" with no legal basis, and reaffirmed that the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the "sole and exclusive" framework for removing individuals – a process that includes the right to seek asylum.
The court ordered the administration to once again allow migrants at the border to apply for protection before being deported. Importantly, anticipating appeals, Judge Moss fashioned the relief as a nationwide class of asylum-seekers rather than a broad injunction. This was to work around the Supreme Court's recent guidance disfavoring nationwide injunctions.
The ruling is temporarily stayed for 14 days to let the government appeal, and the Justice Department has already signaled it will seek an emergency reversal. If upheld, this decision would reopen avenues for asylum that have been effectively closed since the "invasion" policy took effect, marking a major victory for immigrant rights groups.
Showdown over Alien Enemies Act Deportations
On June 30, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a high-profile case challenging the administration's novel use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA). The Trump administration has invoked this centuries-old wartime statute – historically used only during declared wars to detain or remove enemy nationals – to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang (Tren de Aragua) from the U.S.
Government lawyers contend that the gang's presence in over 40 states constitutes an internal "invasion," thus justifying presidential use of the AEA powers. The three-judge panel (all Republican appointees) appeared somewhat skeptical of the challengers: Judge Andrew Oldham questioned whether courts can "countermand" a President on matters he deems national security.
DOJ attorneys argued the situation meets the AEA's criteria, while lawyers for the deportees noted the law has only been used three times in U.S. history, always during formal wars. They also pointed out that multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have disputed any operational links between the gang and Venezuela's government – undercutting the "enemy nation" premise.
This case is widely expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court, especially if the Fifth Circuit sides with the administration. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already signaled interest, remarking in a separate opinion that the Court should provide a "prompt and final resolution" on the scope of the Alien Enemies Act in immigration. A ruling upholding the AEA usage could hand the President extraordinarily broad powers to remove groups of noncitizens unilaterally, while a ruling against it would rein in a bold legal gambit not seen in two centuries.
Supreme Court Curbs Nationwide Injunctions & Other Litigation
The Supreme Court's recent term has quietly reshaped the legal landscape for immigration litigation. In Trump v. CASA (decided June 27, 2025), the Court's conservative majority limited the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions in immigration and other cases. The 5–4 decision held that trial courts generally cannot grant relief beyond the plaintiffs before them, rejecting the idea of universal injunctions absent class certification.
This ruling arose from a challenge to President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order, a highly contentious policy that remains tied up in lower courts. While the Court's injunction decision did not address birthright citizenship merits, it vacated broad orders that had blocked the policy nationwide, sending the case back for a more limited scope of relief.
Immigration advocates worry that the curtailment of nationwide injunctions will make it harder to halt unlawful policies in the future, potentially allowing harmful rules to stay in effect in large parts of the country even if one judge finds them unlawful.
State and Local Developments
Florida Partners with Feds on Hardline Detention Strategy
Florida has emerged as a key ally in the federal government's enforcement drive. On July 1, President Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis jointly opened a sprawling new immigration detention complex in South Florida's Everglades – a facility pointedly nicknamed "Alligator Alcatraz." The $450 million center, consisting of hardened structures and tent camps, can hold up to 3,000 detainees. It is designed to incarcerate noncitizens arrested by Florida's own law enforcement, in addition to federal detainees.
In recent months, Florida expanded its cooperation under the 287(g) program, empowering state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. Governor DeSantis has even moved to deputize Florida National Guard Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers as immigration judges to speed up deportation proceedings for those arrested. Civil liberties groups argue this quasi-state-run deportation pipeline raises serious due process issues.
At the Alligator Alcatraz opening ceremony, officials touted it as a model of state-federal synergy on immigration enforcement. However, human rights observers immediately condemned the facility's harsh conditions – thousands of migrants housed in tent barracks in hurricane-prone swamp terrain – drawing comparisons to concentration camps in public protests.
The human toll of such detention is under scrutiny: at least 13 people have died in ICE custody in the first six months of 2025, already exceeding all deaths in 2024. Nonetheless, state and federal leaders in Florida remain unapologetic. When pressed about a 75-year-old Cuban detainee's recent death, White House "Border Czar" Tom Homan responded, "people die in custody," dismissing calls to improve medical care.
Alongside tightening conditions, officials have restricted congressional access to detention sites – a new policy now requires lawmakers to give a week's notice before visits, defying a federal law that grants them immediate inspection authority. Florida's approach signals how some states are not only cooperating with but actively amplifying federal enforcement, even as oversight is curtailed.
DOJ Sues Los Angeles over Sanctuary Policies
On the opposite end of the spectrum, California is in a showdown with the Trump administration over its immigrant sanctuary protections. On June 30, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, its mayor Karen Bass, and the City Council, aiming to invalidate LA's sanctuary ordinances. The complaint alleges that Los Angeles' rules – which limit police cooperation with ICE and protect undocumented residents who report crimes – violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and "interfere with federal immigration enforcement."
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted sanctuary policies as "the driving cause of violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement" in LA, explicitly linking them to a recent spike in crime. Mayor Bass fiercely rejected those claims, noting LA's long history as "a city built by immigrants" and arguing that trust between immigrant communities and police is essential to public safety.
This legal confrontation comes amid extraordinary events in Los Angeles: approximately 4,800 federal troops (including National Guard units) have been deployed in the city since late June on President Trump's orders. Their mission has been to support law enforcement during large-scale immigration sweeps that have resulted in over 1,600 arrests of undocumented individuals in Southern California in the span of a month. These raids sparked mass protests in LA, prompting the deployment of military personnel to "restore order."
Now, even military leaders are expressing concern – one Army general requested to reassign 200 National Guard troops away from immigration duty and back to wildfire firefighting, as California enters peak fire season. The Los Angeles sanctuary lawsuit is poised to be a bellwether: if the federal government succeeds in curtailing local autonomy on immigration, other sanctuary jurisdictions (from New York to Chicago) could face similar pressure.
Other State-Level Updates
Across the country, state legislatures and governors continue to stake out divergent immigration stances. Texas has mirrored Florida in taking aggressive action – earlier this year Texas authorized state troopers and Tactical Border Force units to repel and arrest migrants at the border, pushing legal bounds. Texas's 2025 legislative session saw proposals to create a state-level crime for illegal entry and to empower local police to remove migrants to Mexico, although courts have yet to weigh in.
New York City, by contrast, is struggling under a continued influx of asylum-seekers bused from border states; in early July, Mayor Eric Adams pleaded for more federal aid and loosened right-to-shelter rules as city shelters hit capacity. Meanwhile, Illinois implemented a law (effective July 1) banning immigration detention contracts with private jails, part of a trend of blue states seeking to limit ICE's footprint.
These disparate actions illustrate the ongoing "patchwork" of immigration environments across the U.S. – with red states emboldened to partner in enforcement crackdowns, and many blue jurisdictions doubling down on immigrant protections, all against the backdrop of the federal policy whiplash.
Asylum, Refugee, and Border Updates
Border Crossings Plunge Amid Enforcement Surge
By early July, the U.S.–Mexico border has seen a dramatic drop in unauthorized migration, a development the administration touts as a policy victory. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported only about 6,070 migrant encounters in the month of June, the lowest level in decades. This represents a stunning 93% decrease from mid-2024, when monthly crossings regularly exceeded 100,000. Daily apprehensions now sometimes number in the hundreds, not thousands – on June 28, Border Patrol recorded just 137 crossings nationwide, an all-time one-day low.
The White House attributes the collapse in numbers to its "robust border enforcement policies and aggressive deportation measures." Key among those: virtually all migrants are being detained or turned back – for the second consecutive month, Border Patrol released zero asylum seekers or other border crossers into the U.S. interior pending hearings. This is a stark shift from prior practice (under the last administration, tens of thousands were paroled or given dates to report later due to capacity issues).
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security has implemented rapid screening and removal programs (like expanded expedited removal and hardline "Remain in Mexico" protocols), aiming to send a clear deterrent message. As a result, the number of "gotaways" – migrants who evade capture – has also reportedly dropped by 90% compared to the same period last year, since far fewer are attempting the journey.
While these statistics indicate a temporarily "controlled" border, critics note they come at a steep humanitarian price. Migrants are now either stuck in dangerous conditions in Mexico or held in austere U.S. detention camps if they cross.
Asylum System Overhaul and Legal Limbo
The right to seek asylum in the U.S. is hanging by a thread of litigation. On paper, U.S. law still allows anyone on U.S. soil to apply for asylum, but in practice the administration has layered multiple barriers that sharply limit who can even make a claim. One such barrier – the attempt to categorically refuse asylum under the "invasion" emergency – was blocked by Judge Moss's ruling (see Court Rulings section above). If that injunction survives on appeal, thousands of migrants who would have been summarily expelled may get a chance to have their asylum cases heard.
However, other restrictive policies remain, creating a de facto overhaul of the asylum process. Notably, a transit ban regulation (requiring most asylum-seekers to first seek protection in Mexico or another country) has been in effect since May; it too is being challenged in court by immigrant advocates.
The administration has also heavily relied on the CBP One mobile app for asylum appointments at ports of entry – a strategy meant to funnel applicants to official crossings in an orderly way. While it has reduced uncontrolled entries, the app's limited slots and tech glitches have left many in limbo at border camps, unable to secure appointments. As of early July, reports indicate tens of thousands of people are waiting in northern Mexico, hoping for a chance to present themselves.
Refugee Admissions at a Standstill (Except for Select Few)
The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) remains effectively frozen under a Trump executive order issued in January that halted all refugee resettlement pending new extreme vetting measures. This pause has persisted for over six months, and recent legal maneuvers suggest the administration is doubling down.
In a pending case (Pacito v. Trump), a coalition of resettlement agencies won a court order in May requiring the government to "immediately" resume processing for 160 refugees who were protected by prior injunctions. Rather than comply fully, government lawyers announced this week that the June 4 travel ban (a presidential ban on entries from several predominantly Muslim and African countries) will be applied to those refugees – barring roughly two-thirds of them from coming because they hail from now-banned countries.
The International Refugee Assistance Project called this move an "unlawful barrier" and an evasion of court orders. The upshot is that apart from a trickle of cases, the U.S. refugee pipeline remains nearly shut.
Ironically, one notable exception is a group that aligns with certain political narratives: the administration is expediting the resettlement of 1,000 Afrikaner refugees from South Africa (white farmers citing persecution) by the end of September. This fast-track effort – reportedly to "rescue" South African Boers from violence – contrasts sharply with the blanket ban on refugees from many Muslim-majority countries and the stalling of long-approved refugees from places like Syria or DR Congo. The disparity has drawn sharp criticism, with observers accusing the administration of racial and religious bias in humanitarian policy.
Humanitarian Impact and Response
The humanitarian fallout of current policies is considerable. Migrant shelters in Mexico are overwhelmed as U.S. entry remains largely closed; aid groups warn of deteriorating conditions for families camped in Reynosa, Matamoros, and Tijuana under the summer heat. Within U.S. detention facilities, the surge in population (due to "no release" policies) has strained medical care, contributing to the spike in deaths noted earlier.
As a response, Democratic lawmakers in early July introduced a symbolic bill (with slim chances in the GOP-controlled House) to mandate minimum health and safety standards in ICE detention and to restore congressional facility access, citing the recent clampdown.
Global Mobility and International Visa Policy
UK Implements Post-Brexit Immigration Crackdown
The United Kingdom is moving forward with sweeping changes to its immigration rules, following through on the government's promise to "take back control" of borders. In May, Prime Minister Yvette Cooper's cabinet unveiled a White Paper titled "Restoring Control over the Immigration System," outlining numerous restrictive measures aimed at sharply reducing net migration. Now, concrete rules are coming into effect.
As of July 22, 2025, Britain will dramatically narrow its Skilled Worker visa criteria: employers will no longer be allowed to sponsor foreign workers in occupations deemed medium-skilled (Regulated Qualifications Framework level 3–5) unless an exemption is recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee for true shortages. This means sectors like hospitality, retail, and some healthcare positions will largely lose access to overseas labor.
Furthermore, an exemption that previously allowed recruitment of overseas care workers is being ended outright on July 22 – closing the door on a category that had been a vital patch for the UK's social care labor shortage.
Other impending changes include:
A reduction of the post-study Graduate Route visa (for international students) from 24 months to 18 months of work eligibility
Higher English-language requirements for visa applicants and even their dependent spouses
Plans to double the qualifying period for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) from 5 years to 10 years for most work visa holders
These moves represent a stark tightening of one of the world's historically liberal immigration systems. UK business leaders, especially in tech and research, have voiced alarm that stricter rules and reduced post-study opportunities could drive international talent elsewhere.
One slight silver lining: the White Paper does mention making the UK more attractive for the "best and brightest," pledging to ease bureaucracy for the Global Talent and High Potential Individual visas to ensure truly exceptional workers can still come. It remains to be seen how much those elite routes can compensate for the broad closures being imposed across ordinary work and study pathways.
Canada Retreats from Ambitious Targets
In a notable shift, Canada – which in recent years championed immigration growth – has charted a course to reduce immigration levels beginning in 2025. On November 1, 2024, the Canadian government announced its 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, and the numbers marked a clear reversal.
Instead of ramping up to 500,000 new permanent residents in 2025 as previously envisioned, Canada will target 395,000 PR admissions in 2025, then drop further to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. These cuts, roughly a 20% reduction from prior goals, were driven by concerns over housing shortages, healthcare capacity, and voter sentiment about rapid demographic change.
Crucially, the 2025 plan also for the first time sets explicit targets for temporary residents – a recognition that the ballooning number of international students and temporary foreign workers has impacts on infrastructure. The government aims to cap the temporary resident population at around 5% of Canada's total population by end of 2026.
To do this, officials project that in 2025 Canada will see 445,000 fewer temporary residents (through a combination of people finishing studies/work and leaving, and tighter new intake). Measures already underway include:
A controversial move to limit study permit approvals (effectively capping international student inflows, particularly at low-quality private colleges)
Tightening rules for post-graduation work permits and spousal open work permits
Raising the income and advertising requirements for employers to bring in temporary foreign workers
These shifts mark a dramatic policy pivot: Canada throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s steadily increased immigration to fuel economic growth and labor force needs, but now faces political backlash amid high housing costs and infrastructure strain. Minister of Immigration Marc Miller stated that the pause is temporary and that immigration will remain a "key driver of Canada's prosperity" in the long run, but for now the focus is on "getting our own house in order."
Notably, even as overall numbers are cut, Canada continues to innovate in attracting targeted talent. For instance, in 2023 it launched a Tech Talent Strategy including an open work permit program for H-1B visa holders in the U.S. – which saw enormous interest, filling its 10,000 application quota in under 48 hours. Such initiatives show Canada still recognizes the value of skilled immigrants, even as it pumps the brakes on volume.
Global Talent Competition and Policy Divergence
The moves by the UK and Canada to tighten immigration are part of a broader global rebalancing in mobility policy. Across Europe and Asia-Pacific, governments are recalibrating immigration postures in response to economic conditions and political pressures.
For example, Australia recently introduced a new "Skills in Demand" visa intended to streamline hiring of foreign talent in critical industries, but by mid-2025 the rollout has faltered due to bureaucratic backlogs, leaving employers frustrated as labor shortages continue. Some countries, like Germany, are taking a different tack – implementing more welcoming policies (a points-based system and easier recognition of foreign qualifications) to attract desperately needed workers amid an aging population.
This divergence means international talent has options: even as the U.S. and UK become more restrictive, Canada (despite its cuts) still offers relatively straightforward permanent residency for skilled workers, and countries such as New Zealand and Ireland remain open and actively recruiting in tech and healthcare fields.
The international student landscape is also shifting. With the UK clamping down on foreign student numbers and work options, institutions in countries like Australia, Canada, and even some EU states may benefit from a rebalancing of where students choose to study abroad. However, if multiple top destinations all tighten policies simultaneously – as is happening to an extent – there's a risk of a global contraction in mobility, which economists warn could stunt innovation and growth.
What to Watch Next
Supreme Court Showdowns on Immigration
Key cases are likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming months. Look for potential decisions on the "invasion" asylum ban (if the Justice Department appeals Judge Moss's ruling) and on the scope of the Alien Enemies Act if the Fifth Circuit upholds its use. The justices may also confront the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order, which could become one of the most consequential immigration rulings in decades. How the Court rules – and whether it continues to limit lower courts' ability to halt nationwide policies – will have sweeping implications for immigration policy and separation of powers.
Implementation of the Enforcement Budget
With the $150+ billion "One Big Beautiful Bill" now law, watch how quickly and to what effect the administration ramps up its enforcement apparatus. DHS is expected to announce plans to hire thousands of new Border Patrol and ICE agents, begin new border wall segments in Texas and Arizona, and roll out the newly authorized fees for immigration applications. Potential bottlenecks (e.g. hiring qualified staff, lawsuits over wall construction eminent domain, technology procurement issues) could slow the deployment of funds.
Additionally, there may be legal challenges or civil disobedience in response to some provisions – for example, immigrant advocates might sue to block the asylum application fee on grounds it infringes the right to seek refuge. Congress will also conduct oversight on how this money is spent; any reports of misuse or humanitarian consequences (like worsening detention conditions) might fuel political pushback even from some moderates.
State-Federal Dynamics and New Laws
Expect the tussle between conservative states and progressive localities to intensify. In Florida and Texas, officials are likely to further leverage their partnerships with federal agencies – potentially expanding state-led arrests of undocumented individuals and testing novel arrangements like state-run immigration courts or detention centers. Other red states could follow suit by signing more 287(g) agreements or introducing laws mirroring Florida's.
On the other side, sanctuary jurisdictions like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago will be watching the LA lawsuit closely. A court decision against LA could embolden the administration to target more cities, whereas a successful defense of local autonomy might check those efforts. Also watch state-level legal challenges: for instance, California is reportedly preparing a lawsuit arguing that the federal government overstepped by deploying troops for domestic law enforcement in LA.
Refugee & Asylum Developments
The fate of the U.S. refugee program and asylum system remains in flux. In the near term, keep an eye on compliance with court orders – will the administration be forced to admit the refugees covered by the Seattle judge's injunction despite the travel ban, and will it meet any deadlines set by courts? By September, the State Department must also propose the refugee admissions cap for FY 2026; traditionally this would be around 125,000 under prior frameworks, but given the freeze, the number and how it's justified will be telling.
Similarly, on asylum, if the "transit ban" rule is struck down by courts (a decision could come by late summer), the administration will need a fallback plan at the border. Any signs of increasing migrant arrivals (e.g. if word spreads about the asylum ban injunction) could trigger new policy moves or even another executive attempt at a travel ban or family separation.
Global Mobility Trends and Talent Flows
Globally, the second half of 2025 will reveal how restrictive policies are reshaping migration flows. In the UK, businesses and universities are bracing for the impact of the new visa rules taking effect; if critical labor shortages worsen (say, in care homes or agriculture), there may be political pressure to carve out exceptions or delays in implementation.
In Canada, all eyes will be on whether immigration reductions ease housing and infrastructure strains as intended – and whether public opinion truly shifts in favor of the cutbacks or if labor market gaps lead to backlash from employers. Countries like Australia and Germany, which are taking more liberal approaches to skilled immigration, might start to siphon off talent that would have otherwise gone to the U.S. or UK.
Notably, tech sector moves will be informative: the number of tech workers emigrating from the U.S. (frustrated by visa hurdles) to Canada or Europe could grow, especially with Canada's special open work permit for U.S. H-1B visa holders proving popular.
The Navigator is published bi-weekly to track developments in immigration and global mobility policy. For questions or comments, please subscribe
All Sources