(KENTUCKY, UNITED STATES) Kentucky Senate candidate Nate Morris has called for a complete immigration moratorium, tying his plan to mass deportations and escalating border concerns as he argues the U.S. immigration system is breaking down. In an interview published on October 26, 2025, Morris said his proposal would halt all new immigration until the government removes people he described as unlawfully present in the country.
“I have called for the implementation of an immigration moratorium, which would remain in effect until we deport every single illegal immigrant from this country,” he said, presenting the sharpest call yet for a total freeze in this year’s Senate races.
Morris framed his position as a response to what he called a system in disarray and a labor market under pressure. He said both major parties had benefited from high levels of migration, and he cast his stance as a defense of U.S. workers against what he described as corporate interests.
“My message to them is simple: I care a lot more about American workers and their well-being than I do about big corporate interests,” he said. He linked his push to national political currents, citing splits in polling in New York City’s mayoral race and arguing that the “system is breaking down” and that “illegal immigration threatens American jobs.”
The proposal lands at a time when federal immigration operations and policy are undergoing major shifts. After returning to office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders to, in the administration’s words, “marshal all available resources and authorities” to stop illegal immigration. Those actions included suspending refugee admissions and revoking earlier executive orders on humanitarian relief. The administration’s broader agenda emphasizes deportations and stricter border enforcement while also advancing measures that make legal immigration more expensive and harder to access. Some legal challenges are underway, including litigation over executive orders touching on birthright citizenship and humanitarian protections, with parts of some orders temporarily blocked in federal court.
Inside the system, operational strain is evident. Immigration courts are facing record-high backlogs, yet current legislation moving through Congress would cap the number of immigration judges at 800. With only about 700 judges on staff and a backlog measured in the hundreds of thousands of cases, the constraints would prolong already lengthy waits that can stretch over years. The Senate and House have both advanced spending bills that significantly increase enforcement budgets. The Senate plan directs $130.2 billion to the Department of Homeland Security and $3.3 billion to immigration-related activities at the Department of Justice, but it provides little new funding for the courts that process removal cases, meaning the bottlenecks are likely to persist.
The administration and its allies say tighter enforcement and quicker removals are needed to deter unlawful entry and to restore control at the border. Critics argue that without strengthening the adjudication system, enforcement alone will deepen delays for people who have legal claims to stay, including asylum seekers, while also sweeping up long-settled families during deportations. The numbers highlight this tension: lawmakers are committing far more money to detention, border personnel, and investigative units, but not to the judge corps that determines who can remain and who must depart. For immigrants waiting in line, time is money—and the costs are rising.
New fees and barriers affect people pursuing protection and work authorization as they wait in the backlog. Proposals would impose a $100 application fee for asylum, charge $100 per year while the application is pending, and require $550 for employment authorization. For an asylum seeker waiting five years for a decision, those charges would total at least $1,150 just to apply and maintain work permission—not including legal costs and other filings. Advocates say these fees will push many low-income applicants into impossible choices, while supporters of the changes argue the system must recover costs and discourage what they view as frivolous claims.
Morris’s case for an immigration moratorium is rooted in these pressures. By tying a total freeze on new arrivals to the completion of nationwide removals, he is staking out an uncompromising position that aligns with the White House’s focus on deportations and border control. The candidate argues that mass migration depresses wages and strains public services, and he is attempting to channel voter frustration into a hard stop that he says would reset the system. He has also criticized leaders in both parties for allowing the system to reach this point, while underscoring what he casts as a simple test of priorities.
“My message to them is simple: I care a lot more about American workers and their well-being than I do about big corporate interests,” he said.
Opponents say such a moratorium would harm employers, separate families, and stifle sectors that rely on international talent, from agriculture to healthcare and technology. They note that legal immigration channels—which include family reunification, employment visas, and humanitarian admissions—vary widely in scope and are governed by different statutes and standards. A total halt would not only block new entries but could also shut down consular processing and disrupt lawful permanent residents seeking to bring close relatives, even as U.S. companies face labor shortages in some fields. Critics also warn that linking a freeze to the completion of nationwide deportations sets an open-ended condition with no clear endpoint, given the size of the undocumented population and the limited capacity of the courts.
Democrats have sought to draw a contrast with the administration’s approach. Senator Alex Padilla of California, a leading voice on immigration policy, condemned the White House’s deportation agenda and accused the administration of using punitive measures as a political tool.
“It’s not just the general public that has seen the cruelty and the overreach of Trump’s deportation agenda. The vast majority of the American people see it for what it is and they support immigration,” he said. Padilla and other Democrats argue that enforcement without expanded legal pathways and court capacity will prolong backlogs and drive more people into precarious situations.
Public opinion remains divided, reflecting the political fault lines Morris is trying to exploit. Some polls show growing frustration with the current strategy, particularly in cities facing shelter crises and school strains, while others indicate enduring support for tighter enforcement and faster deportations. Nationally, the foreign-born population has declined by more than a million people as of June 2025—the first such drop since the 1960s—marking a dramatic turn in migration patterns that analysts attribute to enforcement shifts, policy barriers, and processing slowdowns.
For people inside the system, the mechanics of enforcement, courts, and fees will shape daily life more than campaign rhetoric. The immigration courts, overseen by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, have long struggled with uneven funding and surges in caseloads. With a cap of 800 judges under the Senate bill and only about 700 currently on staff, case completions will likely continue to lag far behind new filings. That gap drives waits that can last years, during which applicants must navigate evolving policies, renewed background checks, and repeated documentation requests. Those delays also complicate deportations, since many removals depend on final court orders and coordination with destination countries.
On the ground, stricter rules and stepped-up deportations are reshaping the choices families face. The White House’s move to suspend refugee admissions and revoke earlier humanitarian measures has narrowed options for people fleeing conflict and persecution. The push to “marshal all available resources and authorities” has meant more personnel at the border, deeper coordination between federal agencies, and broader use of detention and expedited removal. In many communities, advocates report more frequent check-ins, tighter supervision, and the revival of tactics like workplace operations and collaborative enforcement with local authorities, though the scope varies by region and is constrained by court rulings and state policies.
Morris’s emphasis on an immigration moratorium revives a concept that has surfaced periodically in U.S. politics but rarely as a total freeze tied to deportations. Traditionally, even restrictive proposals have left room for certain categories—such as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, critical workers, or refugees from urgent crises. By contrast, Morris says new entries should stop entirely until removals are complete, regardless of category, aligning his platform more tightly with the deportation-first approach that has dominated the administration’s rhetoric. He points to worker protections and border control as the justification, and he is betting that voters in Kentucky and beyond will support a hard cutoff.
Business groups, labor unions, and immigrant advocates are parsing the practical effects. Employers in sectors with staffing shortages argue that a halt would worsen backlogs for work visas and hurt local economies. Unions are split; some leaders press for tougher enforcement to raise wages and protect members, while others support legalization and stronger labor standards to combat exploitation. Faith organizations and community groups warn that deportations and prolonged separations inflict lasting harm, particularly on U.S.-citizen children in mixed-status families. Across these debates, the absence of expanded court capacity looms large. Without more judges and support staff, the system cannot speed up final decisions, leaving both enforcement and relief suspended in years-long limbo.
The financial pressures are clearest for asylum seekers and applicants who need to work while they wait. The proposed $100 fee to file asylum, the annual $100 charges while cases are pending, and the $550 fee for work authorization amount to at least $1,150 over five years. For people living on tight budgets, those numbers represent rents deferred, utility bills missed, or school supplies cut. Supporters of higher fees say the system should not be free to use and that the costs will deter abuse. Opponents counter that genuine refugees will be priced out of status and pushed into underground work, which lowers wages and increases vulnerability to exploitation.
As the 2025 campaign accelerates, Morris’s proposal gives voters a stark choice on immigration policy. He is not trimming at the margins; he is urging a halt until deportations are complete and arguing that the “system is breaking down” in ways that demand drastic action. The White House’s policies have already reshaped the landscape—suspending refugee admissions, revoking prior humanitarian orders, and pumping money into enforcement—while the courts and Congress fight over the limits of executive power and the reach of birthright citizenship. Legal battles are likely to continue, especially as judges weigh emergency challenges to new orders and implementation rules.
For now, the question is less about the principles than the mechanics: whether a moratorium can be implemented, how long it would last, and what it would mean for families and employers caught in the middle. With immigration courts underfunded, a cap on judges at 800, and only about 700 currently serving, the timeline for completing removals is uncertain at best. Meanwhile, Senate and House bills are channeling billions toward enforcement—$130.2 billion to Homeland Security and $3.3 billion to Justice’s immigration-related work—without clearing the jam in the place where cases are decided. That mismatch sets the stage for more delays, more fees, and more lives on hold.
Morris is betting that voters want a decisive break—an immigration moratorium that, in his words, lasts
“until we deport every single illegal immigrant from this country.”
His allies see a country ready for harder lines and faster deportations. His opponents see a costly, open-ended freeze that would shut doors on legal immigrants, deepen court delays, and punish families while failing to fix the basic problem. Between them sits a stressed system, rising fees, and a national argument that shows no signs of ending.
This Article in a Nutshell
Nate Morris proposed a full immigration moratorium on Oct. 26, 2025, demanding that new entries stop until all undocumented immigrants are deported. His stance dovetails with the Trump administration’s enforcement-first agenda, which suspended refugee admissions and prioritized removals. Meanwhile, Congress is boosting enforcement funding—$130.2 billion for DHS and $3.3 billion for DOJ immigration work—without significantly increasing immigration-court capacity, leaving roughly 700 judges to handle a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases. New fees for asylum and work authorization would further burden applicants.
