《在野党》杂志记者 贾嘉
2026年9月27日 洛杉矶
一、距离中期选举仅剩五周，美国政治风向正在发生变化
2026年美国中期选举进入最后冲刺阶段。11月3日，美国选民将投票选出全部435名众议员以及35名参议员。当前国会仍由共和党控制，但进入9月以来，民主党在全国性民调中的表现明显改善，众议院翻蓝的可能性越来越大，参议院也逐渐进入真正的激烈竞争阶段。
Cook Political Report最新判断认为，民主党在参议院可能净增1至5席，但要重新取得参议院控制权，需要至少净增4席，因此参议院竞争依然存在很大不确定性。
与此同时，全国国会通用选票调查已经出现明显的民主党优势。近期一项Emerson College民调显示，民主党在国会通用选票中以53%对42%领先共和党11个百分点；另一项Reuters/Ipsos调查则显示民主党领先共和党8个百分点。
因此，一个越来越值得讨论的问题是：
如果11月3日民主党真的实现“蓝色横扫”，同时控制众议院和参议院，那么特朗普政府过去两年的移民政策会不会出现重大转折？
答案是：会，但不会是简单的政策翻转。
美国移民政策并不是由总统单独决定，而是总统行政权、国会立法与拨款权、联邦法院司法权共同作用的结果。
如果白宫仍由特朗普控制，而国会转为民主党控制，美国移民政策真正可能发生的变化，不是“民主党立即开放边境”，而是行政权受到更强的国会监督，移民执法与人道主义保护之间重新出现政治拉锯。
二、最直接的变化：国会可能开始“管住”移民执法
即使民主党同时控制参众两院，特朗普仍然拥有DHS、ICE和CBP的行政指挥权。
因此，民主党无法仅凭中期选举结果取消ICE，也无法直接命令白宫停止遣返。
但国会有一个非常现实的武器：拨款权。
ICE、CBP、移民拘留设施、遣返行动以及大量边境项目，都需要国会提供资金。
这意味着，如果民主党控制国会，移民政策最先发生变化的地方，很可能不是法律条文本身，而是预算谈判。民主党可能要求增加执法预算必须同时附带监督条件，例如：
强化执法人员身份识别；加强执法录像和监督；提高被拘留者获得法律援助的机会；改善拘留地点和被拘留者信息透明度；对公民被误捕等事件进行调查；要求DHS定期向国会报告拘留、遣返以及执法行动数据。
因此，民主党最现实的做法并不是“废除ICE”，而是：利用国会的拨款和监督权，对ICE的执法方式设置更多制度约束。
这将成为2027年白宫与国会之间最直接的一场权力较量。
三、第二个战场：庇护制度可能重新成为移民政策核心
如果说ICE代表特朗普政府的“执法端”，那么庇护制度则可能成为民主党重新布局的“保护端”。
过去一年，特朗普政府明显收紧庇护政策，包括限制申请、加速遣返以及扩大第三国遣返等措施。第三国遣返政策已经引发法律和政治争议，并面临联邦法院挑战。
如果民主党控制国会，预计会重点推动：恢复更完整的庇护申请程序；强化credible fear审查；增加移民法庭资源；提高被拘留者获得律师和法律咨询的机会；重新评估人道主义假释政策；对部分TPS政策进行重新审查；恢复或扩大难民安置项目。
这里真正值得注意的是一个政治逻辑：民主党未必能够直接取消特朗普的行政政策，但可以通过立法、预算和国会监督，把庇护制度重新拉回政治议程中心。
因此，对于正在等待庇护程序的人来说，国会易手可能带来的最大变化，不一定是“立即获批”，而是程序环境、法律资源和行政执行方式可能逐步改变。
四、Dreamers可能迎来新的立法窗口
DACA和Dreamers问题，则可能成为民主党最容易形成政治共识的移民议题之一。
民主党长期希望把DACA这种行政保护转化为国会正式立法，为童年时期来到美国的无证年轻人提供更加稳定的法律身份。
如果民主党同时控制众议院和参议院，Dream Act或者类似的Dreamer保护法案重新进入立法议程的可能性将明显增加。
但这里也不能过度乐观。
即便民主党控制两院，是否能够通过大规模移民改革，仍然取决于民主党内部是否团结，以及参议院具体的政治结构。因此，更现实的路线可能是：先从Dreamers等政治上较容易形成共识的群体入手，再逐步讨论更广泛的身份调整。
这比一次性推动全面移民特赦更符合美国国会的政治现实。
五、TPS、人道主义项目与合法移民：可能出现“政策修复”
特朗普政府近年来收紧TPS、humanitarian parole以及难民项目。如果民主党控制国会，这些领域可能出现一定程度的政策修复。
TPS
重新审查部分国家的TPS终止决定。
Refugee
提高难民项目的接纳和安置能力。
Humanitarian Parole
恢复部分人道主义入境渠道。
与此同时，民主党也可能把注意力扩大到合法移民。
美国移民政策并不仅仅是非法移民问题。留学生、H-1B工作者、科研人员、医生、工程师、企业家，以及家庭和职业移民，同样受到签证处理、排期和行政政策变化的影响。
因此，民主党如果重新掌握国会，可能推动：改善职业移民排期；缓解家庭移民积压；增加USCIS处理资源；改善高技能人才签证制度；保护部分留学生和国际人才。
对华人社区而言，这一点尤其重要。因为华人移民群体并非单一的“庇护群体”，其中同样包括大量留学生、技术移民、职业移民、投资移民和家庭移民。
六、但民主党不会简单走向“开放边境”
这是判断未来政策时最容易被误解的一点。如果民主党重新控制国会，并不意味着美国边境政策会完全转向。事实上，民主党内部过去几年已经出现一个越来越明显的现实主义趋势：保护移民权益，同时承认边境必须受到有效管理。
民主党过去推动的两党边境方案，本身就包含增加边境人员、技术设备、移民法庭资源以及边境管理能力等内容。
因此，2027年民主党更可能寻找的是一种新的政治组合：
边境继续管，严重犯罪继续执法；但减少无差别式执法，同时恢复庇护、人道主义和合法移民渠道。
这与“开放边境”并不是一回事。
而这恰恰可能成为民主党未来几年重新塑造移民议题的核心。
七、真正的权力冲突：白宫与国会谁说了算？
假设11月3日民主党同时拿下众议院和参议院，美国将进入典型的分裂政府状态：
白宫是共和党，国会是民主党。
这意味着特朗普仍然可以通过行政权：指挥ICE和CBP；调整DHS政策；发布行政命令；调整部分签证和边境政策。
而民主党控制的国会则可以：控制拨款；举行听证；调查行政部门；传唤政府官员；要求政府提交文件；修改移民法律；对行政部门形成持续监督。
因此，2027年美国移民政策最值得关注的，不是某一项政策会不会立即被取消，而是：总统的行政权与国会的立法、拨款和监督权将发生正面碰撞。
而在这场碰撞中，联邦法院又会成为第三个重要角色。
换句话说，美国移民政策很可能形成：
白宫 VS 国会 VS 联邦法院，三方博弈。
八、为什么参议院翻蓝尤其重要？
如果只看众议院，民主党翻蓝已经足以改变华盛顿的政治气氛。
众议院可以加强调查、举行听证、推动拨款谈判，并提出新的移民法案。
但如果谈到真正意义上的立法改革：
参议院才是关键。
目前民主党需要净增至少4席才能控制参议院。因此，即使民主党成功夺回众议院，也不意味着它能够自动推动新的移民法律。
这也是为什么2026年中期选举需要分开观察：
众议院翻蓝
意味着特朗普政府将面对更强的调查和监督。
参议院翻蓝
意味着民主党获得更大的立法和人事任命影响力。
参众两院同时翻蓝
才真正意味着特朗普政府的移民政策面临系统性的国会制约。
九、对华人移民而言，真正需要关注什么？
对于华人社区而言，与其简单讨论“民主党好还是共和党好”，不如把自己的移民身份放进不同政策类别观察。
已经拥有合法身份的人
包括永久居民、DACA、TPS以及各种合法工作身份持有人。最值得关注的是政策稳定性、身份续期以及行政审查方式。
正在移民程序中的人
包括庇护申请者、工作许可申请者、移民法庭案件以及家庭和职业移民申请者。如果未来国会增加USCIS、移民法院和法律援助资源，程序效率和法律服务环境可能有所改善。
没有合法身份、也没有正在进行有效移民程序的人
不能简单理解为“民主党赢了就安全”。民主党仍然会支持边境管理和一定程度的移民执法。
未来真正可能形成的区别，更可能体现在执法优先级、程序保障和个案处理方式上，而不是完全停止执法。
十、2027年最值得观察的五个信号
如果以《在野党》记者的角度观察，选举之后真正值得追踪的，不是竞选口号，而是以下五件事情：
第一，民主党能否控制参议院。
这是移民立法能否真正推进的第一道门槛。
第二，ICE和DHS预算谈判。
这是白宫与国会争夺移民政策实际控制权最直接的战场。
第三，Dreamer立法是否重新启动。
这可以观察民主党究竟选择“小步立法”还是继续追求全面移民改革。
第四，庇护、TPS和人道主义政策是否出现制度性恢复。
这将直接影响移民保护体系。
第五，联邦法院如何处理行政部门的移民权力。
如果法院进一步限制总统单方面改变移民政策的空间，国会的作用将更加重要。
十一、我们的判断：不会“全面翻转”，但可能发生一次再平衡
如果民主党最终实现参众两院“双翻蓝”，最可能发生的不是美国突然进入“开放移民时代”，而是一场持续两年的政策再平衡。
特朗普政府过去强调的是：
边境控制、移民执法、拘留与遣返。
民主党控制国会后，可能试图增加：
国会监督、程序保障、庇护、人道主义保护和合法移民改革。
两者之间不会迅速分出胜负。
更可能出现的是一种新的政策组合：边境安全继续存在，移民执法继续存在，但执法的范围、优先级和程序受到更多国会限制；与此同时，庇护、Dreamers、人道主义保护和合法移民渠道重新获得政治空间。
这可能是2027年美国移民政策最重要的变化方向。
所以，中期选举改变的，是移民权力的分配方式
2026年中期选举表面上是在决定435个众议院席位和35个参议院席位。但如果从移民问题来看，这场选举真正决定的，是未来两年谁能够约束总统、谁能够控制预算、谁能够推动立法，以及谁能够决定移民政策的政治议程。
如果共和党继续控制国会，特朗普政府目前的移民政策将获得更大的制度支持。
如果民主党只夺回众议院，最大的变化将是调查、监督和预算博弈。
如果民主党同时夺回参众两院，那么美国移民政策才可能真正进入一个新的阶段：
白宫继续强调执法，国会开始重新强调程序、人道主义和合法移民改革。
因此，11月3日真正值得观察的，不只是“蓝色浪潮是否出现”，而是：美国移民政策的权力中心，会不会从白宫重新部分转回国会。
这，可能才是2026年中期选举对美国移民政策最深远的影响。
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：毛一炜 翻译：戈冰
“Red vs. Blue: The Future of U.S. Immigration Policy After the 2026 Midterm Elections”
By Jia Jia, Reporter for Zaiye Dang (The Opposition Party)
September 27, 2026, Los Angeles
Section I. With Merely Five Weeks Remaining Before the Midterm Elections, the American Political Climate Is Shifting
The 2026 U.S. midterm elections have entered their final sprint phase. On November 3, American voters will go to the polls to elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 members of the Senate. At present, Congress remains under Republican control, but since entering September, the Democrats’ performance in national polling has improved markedly; the possibility of the House flipping blue is growing ever larger, and the Senate is gradually entering a stage of truly fierce competition.
The latest dynamic assessment by the Cook Political Report considers that the Democratic Party may achieve a net gain of 1 to 5 seats in the Senate, but to regain Senate control, a net gain of at least 4 seats is required, meaning that competition for the Senate still retains high uncertainty.
Meanwhile, national generic Congressional ballot surveys have already demonstrated a distinct Democratic advantage. A recent Emerson College poll shows the Democratic Party leading the Republican Party by 11 percentage points in the generic Congressional ballot, at 53% to 42%; another Reuters/Ipsos survey shows the Democrats leading the Republicans by 8 percentage points.
Therefore, an increasingly worthy question for discussion is:
If on November 3 the Democratic Party truly accomplishes a “Blue Wave Sweep,” simultaneously controlling both the House of Representatives and the Senate, will the Trump administration’s immigration policy of the past two years experience a major turning point?
The answer is: Yes, but it will not be a simple policy reversal.
American immigration policy is not determined by the President alone, but is the combined result of the presidential executive power, congressional legislative and appropriations power, and federal court judicial power acting together.
If the White House remains under Trump’s control while Congress shifts to Democratic control, the real changes that could occur in U.S. immigration policy will not be “the Democratic Party immediately opening the borders,” but rather the executive power being subject to stronger Congressional oversight, and a renewed political tug-of-war emerging between immigration enforcement and humanitarian protection.
Section II. The Most Direct Change: Congress May Begin to “Rein In” Immigration Enforcement
Even if the Democratic Party simultaneously controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Trump still retains executive command authority over DHS, ICE, and CBP.
Therefore, the Democratic Party cannot abolish ICE solely on the basis of the midterm election results, nor can it directly order the White House to halt deportations.
However, Congress possesses a highly pragmatic weapon: the power of the purse.
ICE, CBP, immigration detention facilities, deportation operations, and a vast array of border projects all require Congress to provide funding.
This means that if the Democratic Party controls Congress, the place where immigration policy changes first will very likely not be the text of the law itself, but budget negotiations. The Democratic Party may demand that any increase in the enforcement budget must simultaneously carry oversight conditions, such as:
Strengthening identity verification for enforcement personnel; enhancing enforcement video recording and oversight; increasing detained individuals’ access to legal aid; improving the transparency of detention facilities and detainee information; launching investigations into incidents such as the wrongful arrest of citizens; and requiring DHS to regularly report detention, deportation, and enforcement operation data to Congress.
Therefore, the most realistic approach for the Democratic Party is not to “abolish ICE,” but rather to leverage Congress’s power of the purse and oversight authority to impose more institutional constraints on ICE’s enforcement methods.
This will become the most direct contest of power between the White House and Congress in 2027.
Section III. The Second Battlefield: The Asylum System May Once Again Become the Core of Immigration Policy
If ICE represents the “enforcement end” of the Trump administration, then the asylum system may become the “protection end” of the Democratic Party’s redeployment.
Over the past year, the Trump administration has noticeably tightened asylum policy, including measures such as restricting applications, accelerating deportations, and expanding third-country deportations. The third-country deportation policy has already sparked legal and political controversy and faces federal court challenges.
If the Democratic Party controls Congress, it is expected to focus on promoting: restoring more complete asylum application procedures; strengthening credible fear screenings; increasing resources for immigration courts; improving detained individuals’ access to attorneys and legal counsel; reassessing humanitarian parole policies; conducting re-examinations of certain TPS policies; and restoring or expanding refugee resettlement programs.
What is truly worthy of attention here is a political logic: the Democratic Party may not necessarily be able to directly revoke Trump’s executive policies, but through legislation, budget allocation, and congressional oversight, it can pull the asylum system back into the center of the political agenda.
Therefore, for individuals currently waiting in asylum proceedings, the greatest change that a change of hands in Congress may bring is not necessarily an “immediate approval,” but rather that the procedural environment, legal resources, and executive implementation methods may gradually change.
Section IV. Dreamers May Usher in a New Legislative Window
The DACA and Dreamers issue may become one of the immigration topics where it is easiest for the Democratic Party to form a political consensus. The Democratic Party has long sought to transform executive protection like DACA into formal congressional legislation, providing undocumented young people who arrived in the United States during childhood with a more stable legal status. If the Democratic Party simultaneously controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the likelihood of the Dream Act or similar Dreamer protection legislation re-entering the legislative agenda will increase markedly.
However, one cannot be overly optimistic here either. Even if the Democratic Party controls both houses, whether it can pass large-scale immigration reform still depends on whether internal Democratic solidarity holds, as well as the specific political structure of the Senate. Therefore, a more realistic path might be: starting first with politically easier-to-agree-upon groups such as the Dreamers, and then gradually discussing broader status adjustments.
This conforms to the political reality of the U.S. Congress far better than pushing for a comprehensive immigration amnesty all at once.
Section V. TPS, Humanitarian Programs, and Legal Immigration: “Policy Repair” May Emerge
In recent years, the Trump administration has tightened TPS, humanitarian parole, and refugee programs. If the Democratic Party controls Congress, a certain degree of policy repair may emerge in these domains.
TPS Re-examining decisions to terminate TPS for certain countries.
Refugee Raising the intake and resettlement capacity of refugee programs.
Humanitarian Parole Restoring certain humanitarian entry channels.
At the same time, the Democratic Party may also expand its attention to legal immigration.
American immigration policy is not merely an issue of undocumented immigration. International students, H-1B workers, scientific researchers, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, as well as family and employment-based immigrants, are similarly impacted by visa processing, priority date backlogs, and executive policy changes.
Therefore, if the Democratic Party regains control of Congress, it may push to: improve employment-based immigration backlogs; ease family-based immigration backlogs; increase USCIS processing resources; improve visa systems for high-skilled talent; and protect certain international students and international talent. For the Chinese community, this point is especially important, because the Chinese immigrant community is not a singular “asylum group”; it similarly encompasses large numbers of international students, skilled immigrants, employment-based immigrants, investor immigrants, and family-based immigrants.
Section VI. Yet the Democratic Party Will Not Simply Head Toward “Open Borders”
This is the point most prone to misunderstanding when assessing future policy. If the Democratic Party regains control of Congress, it does not mean that U.S. border policy will undergo a total turnabout. In fact, over the past few years, an increasingly distinct realist trend has emerged within the Democratic Party: protecting immigrant rights while simultaneously acknowledging that the border must be subject to effective management.
The bipartisan border packages previously promoted by the Democratic Party themselves contained provisions such as increasing border personnel, technical equipment, immigration court resources, and border management capacity. Therefore, in 2027, what the Democratic Party is more likely to seek is a new political combination:
Border management continues, and enforcement against serious crimes continues; but indiscriminate enforcement is reduced, while asylum, humanitarian, and legal immigration channels are restored. This is not the same thing as “open borders.” And this precise approach may become the core of how the Democratic Party reshapes the immigration issue in the coming years.
Section VII. The Real Conflict of Power: Who Has the Final Say, the White House or Congress?
Assuming that on November 3 the Democratic Party takes both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the United States will enter a classic state of divided government: The White House is Republican, while Congress is Democratic.
This means Trump can still utilize executive power to: command ICE and CBP; adjust DHS policy; issue executive orders; and adjust certain visa and border policies.
Meanwhile, a Democratic-controlled Congress can: control appropriations; hold hearings; investigate executive branch departments; subpoena administration officials; demand that the administration submit documents; amend immigration laws; and exert continuous oversight over the executive branch.
Therefore, what is most worthy of attention in U.S. immigration policy in 2027 is not whether a particular policy will be immediately cancelled, but rather: the executive power of the President and the legislative, appropriations, and oversight powers of Congress will undergo a direct head-on collision.
And in this collision, the federal courts will once again serve as a third critical actor.
In other words, U.S. immigration policy is very likely to form a three-way dynamic game: The White House VS. Congress VS. Federal Courts.
Section VIII. Why Is the Senate Flipping Blue Particularly Important?
If one looks only at the House of Representatives, a Democratic flip to blue is already sufficient to alter the political atmosphere in Washington.
The House of Representatives can step up investigations, hold hearings, push appropriations negotiations, and introduce new immigration bills. However, when speaking of legislative reform in a true sense: The Senate is the key.
At present, the Democratic Party needs a net gain of at least 4 seats to control the Senate. Therefore, even if the Democratic Party successfully retakes the House of Representatives, it does not mean that it can automatically push forward new immigration laws.
This is precisely why the 2026 midterm elections need to be observed separately:
The House Flipping Blue Means that the Trump administration will confront stronger investigations and oversight.
The Senate Flipping Blue Means that the Democratic Party gains greater legislative influence and clout over personnel appointments.
If both houses of Congress flip blue simultaneously, it will truly mean that the Trump administration’s immigration policy faces systemic congressional restraint.
Section IX. For Chinese Immigrants, What Truly Warrants Attention?
For the Chinese community, rather than simply debating whether “the Democrats are good or the Republicans are good,” it is better to observe one’s own immigration status within different policy categories.
Those Who Already Possess Legal Status Including permanent residents, DACA, TPS, and various legal work status holders. What warrants the most attention are policy stability, status renewals, and administrative vetting methods.
Those Currently in Immigration Proceedings Including asylum applicants, work authorization applicants, immigration court cases, and family and employment-based immigration applicants. If Congress increases resources for USCIS, immigration courts, and legal aid in the future, procedural efficiency and the legal service environment may see some improvement.
Those Without Legal Status and Without Ongoing, Valid Immigration Proceedings This cannot be simply understood as “safe as long as the Democrats win.” The Democratic Party will still support border management and a certain degree of immigration enforcement.
The difference that may truly form in the future is more likely to be reflected in enforcement priorities, procedural safeguards, and case-by-case processing methods, rather than a complete cessation of enforcement.
Section X. Five Signals Most Worth Observing in 2027
If observed from the perspective of a reporter for Zaiye Dang (The Opposition Party), what is truly worth tracking after the election is not campaign slogans, but the following five :
1, Whether the Democratic Party can control the Senate.
This is the first threshold determining whether immigration legislation can truly move forward.
2, ICE and DHS budget negotiations.
This is the most direct battlefield where the White House and Congress contend for actual control over immigration policy.
3, Whether Dreamer legislation is restarted.
This will allow one to observe whether the Democratic Party chooses “incremental legislation” or continues to pursue comprehensive immigration reform.
4, Whether asylum, TPS, and humanitarian policies experience institutional restoration.
This will directly impact the immigration protection system.
5, How the federal courts handle the executive branch’s immigration powers.
If the courts further restrict the scope for the President to unilaterally change immigration policy, the role of Congress will become even more crucial.
Section XI. Our Assessment: No “Total Reversal,” but a Rebalancing May Occur
If the Democratic Party ultimately achieves a “double blue flip” in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, what is most likely to happen is not the United States suddenly entering an “era of open immigration,” but rather a two-year-long policy rebalancing.
What the Trump administration emphasized in the past was:
Border control, immigration enforcement, detention, and deportation.
After the Democratic Party gains control of Congress, it may attempt to increase:
Congressional oversight, procedural safeguards, asylum, humanitarian protection, and legal immigration reform.
A winner will not be rapidly decided between the two sides.
What is more likely to emerge is a new policy combination: border security continues to exist, and immigration enforcement continues to exist, but the scope, priority, and procedures of enforcement are subject to more congressional restrictions; simultaneously, channels for asylum, Dreamers, humanitarian protection, and legal immigration regain political space.
This may be the most important direction of change in U.S. immigration policy in 2027.
Therefore, What the Midterm Elections Change Is the Way Immigration Power Is Allocated
On the surface, the 2026 midterm elections are deciding 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats. But viewed from the perspective of the immigration issue, what this election truly decides is who, over the next two years, will be able to constrain the President, who will be able to control the budget, who will be able to push forward legislation, and who will be able to set the political agenda for immigration policy.
If the Republican Party continues to control Congress, the Trump administration’s current immigration policy will gain even greater institutional support.
If the Democratic Party only retakes the House of Representatives, the greatest change will be investigations, oversight, and budget maneuvering.
If the Democratic Party simultaneously retakes both the House and the Senate, only then can U.S. immigration policy truly enter a new stage:
The White House will continue to emphasize enforcement, while Congress begins to re-emphasize procedure, humanitarianism, and legal immigration reform.
Therefore, what is truly worth observing on November 3 is not merely “whether a Blue Wave appears,” but whether the power center of U.S. immigration policy will partially shift back from the White House to Congress.
This, perhaps, is the most far-reaching impact of the 2026 midterm elections on U.S. immigration policy.
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
