The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[ZRagone]

I want America the Melting Pot, not America the "BIG SALAD".

In a melting pot, disparate parts get added in and meld into the overall substance. Hints of the items individual tastes and texture may be found within the final product, but the item is inseparable from the whole. The new ingredients help to bring a new taste or twist to the dish, but ultimately become PART of the dish.

That's the American immigration style I like, that's the melting pot, that's assimilation. It's people coming to America to be American. Some of their old culture likely stays with them and over time gets assimilated into the overall American culture, but first and foremost they are American and seek to live and embrace that. Immigration into this country should not simply be a change in one's home, but a change in their lifestyle and mentality.

In a BIG SALAD, the various parts simply get added on top of each other. You can have a bite of lettuce with some ranch and some peppers; or if you wanted you could just have the peppers. You could eat the salad with the tomato, or you could remove the tomato entirely. Everything is disjointed except for the fact that they're all present on the plate. Some things may compliment the tastes or textures of each other, but ultimately you recognize you're eating a number of different things on top of each other.

This is more along the lines of a multi-cultural style of immigration. One where, rather than assimilating into the host culture, individuals are encouraged to maintain their ethnic identity first and foremost and to celebrate it. Where the country that is being entered is simply a host, simply a location that one is now living, rather than a new lifestyle or culture to embrace as your own. To live and work in one country, but to continue to primarily associate with those of your old country, speak the language of your old country, celebrate the holidays and events of your old country, enjoy the entertainment of your old country, and even continue to identify primarily or equally with your old country.

I don't think the later style of immigration should be barred from occurring in the US, but it's the style that I believe should be discouraged and in which our laws should not be set up to promote. I believe that immigration can and does strengthen the US, but primarily through assimilation. In a sense, I'm of a similar mind to Teddy...

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-family-deportation-raids-217329

Obama administration kicks off family deportation raids

 

The Obama administration confirmed Monday that it began a new wave of arrests of Central American immigrant families over the weekend, moving forward with deportations of mothers and children despite an outcry from immigrant rights groups and potential political fallout for Democrats.

 

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement that 121 people were taken into custody in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina in recent days and will soon face deportation.

 

"This past weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) engaged in concerted, nationwide enforcement operations to take into custody and return at a greater rate adults who entered this country illegally with children," Johnson said. "This should come as no surprise. I have said publicly for months that individuals who constitute enforcement priorities, including families and unaccompanied children, will be removed."

 

White House press secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged "some discussions" between the White House and DHS over policy matters related to the raids, but did not get into specifics. He said President Barack Obama supports deportation of those who recently entered the U.S. illegally.

 

"Some operations have taken place that have been focused on individuals, deporting individuals that have recently crossed the border. That is consistent with the kinds of enforcement priorities that the president and the secretary of homeland security discussed more than a year ago," Earnest said at the daily briefing for reporters. "Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws."

 

Johnson said the batch of deportees were among immigrants who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since May 2014. That's when the U.S. began experiencing a surge of families and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Officials say such crossings decreased by early last year, but began to pick up again in recent months.

The disclosure kast month of the planned raids drew immediate criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley condemned the planned actions, while frontrunner Hillary Clinton issued a more muted statement through a spokeswoman, who said Clinton had "real concerns" about the plans. Word of the planned raids also highlight a political predicament for Clinton, who endorsed quick return of illegal immigrant children in 2014 but is also trying to court Latino voters.

 

On Monday, Clinton's camp seemed uncomfortable with the scope of the enforcement drive the Obama administration has embarked on.

 

"Hillary Clinton believes the United States should give refuge to people fleeing persecution, and should be especially attentive to the needs of children," spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said. "Families who arrive here should be guaranteed due process on their asylum petitions, including a full and fair opportunity to tell their stories. She believes we should not be conducting large-scale raids and roundups that sow fear and division in our communities."

Edited January 4, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/syrian-refugees-find-a-safe-haven-in-amish-country/

Syrian refugees find a safe haven in Amish country

 

As people debate allowing Syrian refugees to enter the United States, Farhan Al Qadri and his family are actually doing it.

 

The Al Qadris — Farhan, his wife Muna, and four of their nine children — moved to the United States in June. Their first glimpse of the U.S. was the inside of JFK Airport in New York, before they were shuttled to the farmlands of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where they now live in a three-bedroom rowhouse in the heart of the city.

 

They are part of the fallout of a grueling nearly five-year civil war in Syria that has killed more than 200,000 people and forced millions from their homes.

The Al Qadris fled their hometown of Daraa in southwestern Syria with the few clothes they could carry after their house was caught in the crossfire between government and rebel forces.

 

Sitting on a flower-patterned sofa one afternoon in December, Farhan Al Qadri scrolled through photos on his phone showing the busted windows of his family’s whitewashed home in Syria, lamenting what they left behind that day in August 2012 when they had to cross the border into Jordan.

 

The family is safe now in Pennsylvania, but face a whole new set of challenges in a foreign land. He shakes his head at a water leak above the window in the kitchen, where his wife is making a huge batch of yogurt and fresh soup with onions and spinach for dinner.

 

He’s hoping to earn enough at his $10.50 per hour job washing equipment at an egg processing plant to eventually move into a nicer home, something closer to what his family was accustomed to in Syria. There, he owned a grocery store and an olive grove. But they hold no hopes of returning. “In Syria, it’s very bad now, lots of fighting,” he said in halting English.

Many of his friends have gone to Canada, which has promised to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees. “They help with money, a house and clothes. It’s good for Syrians,” he said. “But here now, it’s difficult, I don’t know about the U.S.A.” because of the current backlash.

 

“Some think Muslims are not good, and some Muslims aren’t good,” points out his teenage daughter, Maha. “But it’s the same with Americans. Some are good and some aren’t good.”

 

Maha, 19, who is learning how to drive and is a fan of Adele’s song “Hello,” is looking forward to attending college and possibly becoming a doctor. “Here, there is a future,” she said in the small bedroom she shares with her younger sister.

The Al Qadris were the first of three families to arrive this year in Lancaster, a city of about 60,000 people.

 

They underwent two years of security and health screenings. During that time, his 19-year-old son Ahmed turned 21. No longer a dependent, he will have to apply to come to the United States on his own. Four other children are grown and live elsewhere: two sons are in Germany, another in Kuwait and a married daughter lives in the United Arab Emirates.

 

When families apply for refugee status from the United Nations, they go through a multi-level process to verify their identities, background and the threats they face at home. The United States requires another 13-step process for admission, including security clearances, in-person interviews and FBI fingerprinting.

 

The Syrian families are high priority because they involve children, said Stephanie Gromek, a community resource coordinator with Church World Service in Lancaster, one of the nonprofits that helps resettle immigrants. Still, the vetting process is long and involved, she said. Each family member undergoes the 13 checks and if any step expires before the process is completed, they must redo that portion.

 

The approved cases are then brought before nine U.S. resettlement agencies, and they determine which of the 360 U.S. cities that offer resettlement has the capacity to take the families, based on medical needs or other resources the city can provide.

 

Once the families are accepted somewhere, the International Organization for Migration is notified and coordinates their transportation. The family pays back the travel costs after they are settled and start acquiring income.

[grhqofb5]

Without reading the 9 prior pages, my personal opinion based up life experiences, and based upon what I have "heard" about other countries/regions, the United States is better at the multi-racial, multi-ethnic, live amongst each other thing than anywhere else on Earth.  Some of these other countries have barely started the "melting pot" process, and we're 200 years into it. Hopefully they'll be able to look at our history and avoid most of our problems, but we can see some of these growing pains in other places. I think we're ahead of the pack. This isn't say there are not still problems of course, but we are far ahead of the game. No time to relax though, progress must continue and problems must be taken seriously.

Edited January 8, 2016 by grhqofb5

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/congress-visa-waiver-iran-iraq-syria-sudan-217714

Lawmakers move to protect Iran, Arab diaspora from new visa rules

 

There’s bipartisan movement in Congress to roll back a recent change made to the U.S. visa program amid growing concerns that it discriminates against people based on their ethnicity.

 

On Wednesday, Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Democratic Rep. John Conyers, both of Michigan, introduced a bill that would eliminate a provision aimed at restricting the entry of dual nationals of Iran, Syria, Sudan and Iraq. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also are expected to announce they will put forth a similar bill.

 

The changes to the visa program passed late last year, with the backing of the Obama administration, as part of the omnibus spending package. They placed new restrictions on people from 38 mostly European countries who otherwise would be allowed to visit America without a visa. The goal was to stop would-be terrorists with Western passports from exploiting the program and reaching U.S. shores.

 

One new restriction requires that any passport-holders from those 38 countries who have visited Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan since March 2011 must get a visa before coming to the United States. That drew howls of protest from European aid workers, businessmen and others, while also drawing complaints from Iranian leaders who said it undermined the international nuclear deal reached with their country in mid-2015.

 

But the change to the visa rules that particularly incensed many people, including civil liberties activists, was one that required a U.S. visa for people who are dual nationals of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan. The problem, the critics said, is that because of a lack of international agreement on dual nationality laws, numerous citizens of Europe and other countries are considered dual nationals merely because of their ethnic heritage.

Edited January 13, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/borzou

From now on US will discriminate against Western human rights researchers & aid workers who travel to Syria & Iraq. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/01/251577.htm
3:57 PM

Edited January 22, 2016 by visionary

[Larry]

This popped up in my Disney news feed, but it's really an immigration issue.  Thought people might like to see it. 

 

Fortune:  Disney Lawsuit Reveals an H-1B Visa System that Heavily Favors Outsourcing Companies

 

When about 250 workers at Disney’s dis data systems hub in Florida were laid off a year ago, the pain of the pink slip was made worse by a condition of their severance pay that required some of them to train their replacements—workers from India who were in the United States on H-1B visas. 

 

On Monday, two of the laid-off workers sued the entertainment behemoth for colluding to violate the law by using H-1B visas—temporary work permits for the highly-skilled—to use foreign workers even though they would displace American employees. Also named in the complaints are two lesser-known consulting firms HCL and Cognizant, which import workers on H-1B visas and then contract them out to U.S. firms—in this case, Disney.

 

 
 

The Disney incident draws attention to companies’ practice of booting American workers for foreign replacements, and it highlights outsourcing companies’ significant role in the fierce competition for a limited supply of H-1B visas. Thirteen global outsourcing companies were among the 20 firms that received the most H-1B visas in 2014, according to The New York Times, which cited the analysis of federal records by Howard University professor Ronil Hira. Those top 20 companies were awarded 40% of the visas available—some 32,000. Outsourcing companies are winning an outsize share of H-1Bs for a simple reason: the visa procurement process is a game of numbers, and they are going big.

 

A maximum of 85,000 H-1B visas are issued by the United States each year—65,000 are allotted to first-time applicants and 20,000 are for graduates from American colleges and universities with advanced degrees. The system was set up in the 1990s so that companies that wanted to hire a highly skilled foreign worker could simply apply for a visa and receive it. And it used to be that easy.

But the information technology boom of the late 2000s and, now, the recovering economy have made the process of securing an H-1B visa increasingly difficult, says Neil Ruiz, executive director for the Center for Law, Economics, and Finance at George Washington University. For the past three years, the number of H-1B visa petitions has exceeded the 85,000 slots within a few days of the start of the annual application window every April. 

 

The visas are awarded by lottery to companies that apply during that period. And, like buying tickets for a Lotto or Powerball drawing, the more applications a company files, the better its odds of winning. 

 

“[Outsourcing companies] put in a huge number of petitions, and that’s all it comes down to,” says Jonathan Rothwell, a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. 

 

Startups or smaller companies are at a disadvantage because they may file visa applications that reflect their anticipated need—perhaps a software engineer or two. And they may very well lack the legal resources of a large corporation. Smaller firms may get lucky and secure the visas they applied for, but the numbers are not in their favor. 

 

Congress has taken some action that could curb outsourcing firms’ dominance of the H-1B visa process. The $1.1 trillion Omibus spending bill, which President Barack Obama signed into law in December, increased the fee that large employers pay for new H-1B visas to $4,000 from $2,000.

 

 

My perspective is that I thought the claim (which I suspect is often fictitious) used to justify H-1B is "there aren't enough Americans to fill these jobs". 

 

Seems hard to reconcile with "we're firing Americans and replacing them with H-1B." 

 

I also thought that supposedly H-1B workers are supposed to be paid market wages.  Somehow I doubt that Disney is firing tech workers and replacing them with H-1B workers, and paying the new workers the same pay. 

 

Edit: 

 

For those who want to make things political: 

 

Some members of Congress—including GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz—have sought to increase the minimum wage paid to foreign workers to lessen the visa’s appeal to American companies looking for less expensive labor. Others have called for a reduction in the number of H-1B visas made available each year. 

 

At the same time, several tech companies and their leaders, most notably Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, have called for an increase in the number of H-1B visas. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has also voiced support for upping the maximum.

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Larry

[TheGoodBits]

Working for a tech startup based in Silicon Valley, I can say with absolute certainty that the H-1B program is absolutely critical to the success of that flourishing sector. Not about cheap labor, it's about the skill requirements.

Same goes for rural hospitals bringing over foreign doctors. Those rural areas aren't exactly churning out MDs, and the jobs that are open there pay a lot less than those elsewhere in the country.

[Larry]

Same goes for rural hospitals bringing over foreign doctors. Those rural areas aren't exactly churning out MDs, and the jobs that are open there pay a lot less than those elsewhere in the country.

Pointing out that you just stated that they need H-1B visas, because they're paying below market wages.

[TheGoodBits]

Pointing out that you just stated that they need H-1B visas, because they're paying below market wages.

Because they CAN'T offer competitive wages, not because they're looking to cut costs.

[mcsluggo]

Pointing out that you just stated that they need H-1B visas, because they're paying below market wages.

 

that isn't what he said.   he said that the local market wage (and other non wage inducements) is below the market wage in other localities, and that bleeds doctors out of rural areas.

 

It is hard to attract people with skills that are very in demand, and very transferrable to rural areas.  it always has been.   You can make more money in San Diego, than in Podunkwhereverthehell ... and 9 out of 10 people with the means to do so would rather live in San Diego anyway.   but Podunkwhereverthehell needs doctors also.  

 

 

(i totally made up those numbers... so shoot me!)  

[Larry]

Because they CAN'T offer competitive wages, not because they're looking to cut costs.

 

There's a law that mandates a maximum salary for rural Doctors? 

[Larry]

that isn't what he said.   he said that the local market wage (and other non wage inducements) is below the market wage in other localities, and that bleeds doctors out of rural areas.

Then it isn't the market wage.

The market wage is not defined as "whatever wage the buyer feels like paying, take it or leave it". It's the wage which buyer and seller agree on. 

 

[TheGoodBits]

Larry- I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

You started off postulating that companies were bringing in foreign workers on H-1Bs as a way to cut costs.

I responded with two very real examples of H-1Bs being used to fill needs for particular skills that aren't available in the labor market.

If your argument about the rural doctor shortage is "well poor rural areas should pay doctors MORE than their suburban counterparts as a way to try to get them to relocate to bum-****-nowhere," then we won't make any progress in this discussion, but you simply aren't being realistic.

There is a skills gap in the labor market that is being filled by H-1Bs. In the rural doctor example, it's because not enough American doctors want to live in rural areas. They aren't in THAT labor market. Foreign doctors, who are looking to come to America, might not care as much about where they reside.

[mcsluggo]

and some markets don't clear.   

 

 

that is fine if it is a battery maker in New York City  (the factory moves elsewhere, because the manufacturer can;t afford the cost of operating there).  But do we as a society accept the result if it means that medical care in whole portions of the country just disappears?

There is a skills gap in the labor market that is being filled by H-1Bs. In the rural doctor example, it's because not enough American doctors want to live in rural areas. They aren't in THAT labor market. Foreign doctors, who are looking to come to America, might not care as much about where they reside.

 

or, surving a particular market for x- amount of time can be a condition of the visa.    An MD in the USA is a ticket to awesomeness.... many are willing to pay the price of serving a slightly less awesome rural locality for 5 years as a pay-in to the US market.

[TheGoodBits]

or, surving a particular market for x- amount of time can be a condition of the visa. An MD in the USA is a ticket to awesomeness.... many are willing to pay the price of serving a slightly less awesome rural locality for 5 years as a pay-in to the US market.

That's exactly what happens. There are waiver programs that streamline the visa requirements if the candidate is going to work in a medically underserved area.

[Larry]

Larry- I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

You started off postulating that companies were bringing in foreign workers on H-1Bs as a way to cut costs.

And provided a clear cut, obvious example of it. A large American company laying off 250 tech workers, not because there aren't enough American workers. 

 

Not because there aren't enough Americans to fill the demand.  Americans already were filling the demand.  Because the foreigners were cheaper.  (At least, that's the obvious conclusion I have to come to, since I cannot think of any other possible explanation.) 

 

I responded with two very real examples of H-1Bs being used to fill needs for particular skills that aren't available in the labor market.

 

 

You responded by making an unsupported claim that there simply aren't enough American tech workers to fill the demand.  (Should I point at the above example, which specifically refutes that assertion?) 

 

And one clear cut case of an American industry offering below market wages, then saying "gee, Americans aren't taking the money we're offering, therefore we must use foreigners (to avoid actually having to up out offers.) 

 

If your argument about the rural doctor shortage is "well poor rural areas should pay doctors MORE than their suburban counterparts as a way to try to get them to relocate to bum-****-nowhere," then we won't make any progress in this discussion, but you simply aren't being realistic.

 

Funny, I have never once suggested that they pay more. 

 

You, OTOH, have flat out stated that they're offering considerably less. 

 

There is a skills gap in the labor market that is being filled by H-1Bs.

 

 

Funny, you haven't pointed at a "skills gap".  You've pointed at a "they don't want to take the low pay we're offering" gap. 

 

In the rural doctor example, it's because not enough American doctors want to live in rural areas.

 

 

. . . at a reduced pay. 

 

Same goes for rural hospitals bringing over foreign doctors. Those rural areas aren't exactly churning out MDs, and the jobs that are open there pay a lot less than those elsewhere in the country.

that isn't what he said.   he said that the local market wage (and other non wage inducements) is below the market wage in other localities, and that bleeds doctors out of rural areas.

It is hard to attract people with skills that are very in demand, and very transferrable to rural areas.  it always has been.   You can make more money in San Diego, than in Podunkwhereverthehell ... and 9 out of 10 people with the means to do so would rather live in San Diego anyway.   but Podunkwhereverthehell needs doctors also.

 

Two different people, saying that the reason Americans aren't taking those jobs, is because the pay is lower. 

 

Now maybe it's just me, but I really don't think our country ought to have special government programs who's purpose is to suppress the wages of American workers (by creating a "market" which includes "you'll take this pay, or I'll bring in a foreigner who will"). 

 

And maybe it's just me, but I reject the assertion that you're now trying to migrate your claims to, that American doctors wouldn't even work in rural hospitals if the pay were equal.  Granted, it's just an assumption, but I strongly suspect that if Doctors in Chicago and in Weatherford, Oklahoma, paid the same salary, that at least some doctors would be perfectly happy to live in Oklahoma over Chicago.  Not all of them, no doubt.  No doubt some of them would prefer Chicago for various reasons.  (More challenging cases.  Working around a much larger pool of coworkers.  Some people prefer city life.  Maybe better schools, or access to a University.) 

[TheGoodBits]

Oh goodie, a novel-length Larry argument. I'm not going to argue with you beyond this.

Your example was a Disney data center. Mine was innovative Silicon Valley tech companies that need the best and brightest to be competitive. I'll trust their CEOs on this. Not all tech jobs are equal.

RE: doctors working in Oklahoma vs Chicago or whatever... Nobody said there are no doctors in Oklahoma. But specific parts of the country, namely Appalachia, are significantly medically underserved. Know how I know? The Government has defined it as such.

[Larry]

RE: doctors working in Oklahoma vs Chicago or whatever... Nobody said there are no doctors in Oklahoma. But specific parts of the country, namely Appalachia, are significantly medically underserved. Know how I know? The Government has defined it as such.

And are now asserting that said shortage has nothing to do with the self-admitted fact that they are offering much lower pay, there. (It's because American doctors don't like rural America).

I'll even go further. Let's assume that it's true. American doctors simply will not work in rural hospitals, even if the pay were the same as in the cities.

All you've said is that the rural hospitals STILL aren't offering market wages.

Hypothetical: let's assume that doctors would really prefer working in Fairfax, compared to working in Baltimore.

Let's also assume that Baltimore General is offering to pay the same wages as Fairfax. And nobody is applying for the job. (Because Baltimore sucks).

This does not mean that there's a shortage of Doctors in Baltimore, therefore we must bring in foreigners, and pay them the "market wage" that the hospital is offering (and nobody is taking). It means that Baltimore General is not offering enough pay to get people to work in their ****hole city.

----------

Now, to stick with the Doctor market, if it's a case of there just aren't enough doctors IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, to fill the openings, that's another matter.

If it's a case of "well, yeah, Podunk could offer more money, and lure a doctor from Boston. But then there would be a shortage in Boston.", THEN I could entertain the assertion that there's a NATIONAL doctor shortage.

Although, I have difficulty with the assertion that America is simply incapable of CREATING enough doctors or tech workers or whatever it is that's claiming a shortage. I could see the assertion that maybe there's a short-term shortage. Some unexpected surge in market demand, and it will take a few years to create enough of whatever, to fill the need. Obviously America cannot simply make 10,000 more doctors, this year.

But that's not the way I see the H-1B program being used, now days. What I see, instead, are industries intentionally suppressing wages, to the point where Americans will not do that job (for that pay) any more. Then claiming that this is a "shortage", and demanding that the government intervene in the market, on their side.

[TheGoodBits]

You seem to be asserting that there is a single, uniform labor market for the entire United States, regardless of region and socioeconomic statistics. Needless to say, I disagree.

[Larry]

Uh, no, I've specifically said otherwise.

Now, my most recent post did point out that IF there is a NATIONWIDE shortage of a particular skill, AND said skill is a legitimate national need, then I could see a legitimate need for the government to interfere in the market by bringing in foreign workers. I would assert that that is the only time such intervention is justified.

I went on to assert my belief that it is impossible for said shortage to continue, long term. That I do not believe it is conceivable that there is any skill which Americans cannot create enough workers to fill the need. In most cases, within a relatively short time span.

That, if there's a legitimate shortage for software developers, then we can train enough people to fill that demand within 5 years or so. If the need is for doctors, then maybe it will take 10 years to "grow our own" enough to fill the demand.

[tshile]

That, if there's a legitimate shortage for software developers, then we can train enough people to fill that demand within 5 years or so. If the need is for doctors, then maybe it will take 10 years to "grow our own" enough to fill the demand.

Theoretically I agree. In practice... well, the tech boom was how long ago? How much longer do you need? the tech companies are begging congress to let more people in, specifically citing an inadequate labor pool.

 

And these are well paying jobs... it's not like they're having trouble hiring people because they can't afford them. They're throwing tons of money at the problem and they still feel the root of the problem is an inadequate labor pool...

 

-----------

 

Meanwhile, in Sweeden...

The Guardian - Sweden sends sharp signal with plan to expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers

 

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration-idUSKCN0Z91P4?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Split U.S. Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt President Barack Obama a harsh defeat by blocking his plan to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation in a split 4-4 ruling he called frustrating to those aiming to fix America's broken immigration system.

 

The ruling, coming seven months before Obama's term in office ends, marked the latest success that his Republican adversaries have had in thwarting a major policy initiative of the Democratic president. It also guarantees that immigration will remain a prominent part of the campaign ahead of the Nov. 8 election in which voters will pick his successor.

 

"For more than two decades now, our immigration system ... has been broken, and the fact that the Supreme Court was not able to issue a decision today doesn't just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country that we aspire to be," Obama said at the White House.

 

The 4-4 decision left in place a 2015 lower-court ruling blocking his executive action on immigration, which was never implemented.

 

Obama unveiled his plan in November 2014 and it was quickly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that Obama exceeded his presidential powers by taking the executive action and bypassing Congress.

 

Obama called the ruling frustrating to those who want to "bring a rationality" to the immigration system and to allow the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally to "come out of the shadows."

 

Obama's 2014 plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/93bae8f28c914583a32308c315e150af

The Latest: Obama reassures that deportation isn't looming

 

President Barack Obama is reassuring millions of people that they don't need to fear immediate deportation.

 

The Supreme Court's tie vote effectively kills Obama's plan to shield millions more immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation and granted them work permits.

 
But Obama says the opinion doesn't change his administration's enforcement priorities.

 

Obama says his administration will continue focusing its limited enforcement resources on people who have committed a crime and that deportation for long-term immigrants who aren't criminals will remain a low priority.

 

Still, Obama says the deadlock is frustrating for immigrants who want to work and contribute to the economy. He says it's "heartbreaking" for them.

Edited June 23, 2016 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

Surprised this isn't getting more attention.

[Larry]

Surprised this isn't getting more attention.

 

Yeah, me too. 

 

Maybe the dueling politicians will make it an issue.  (Although they kind of already have, too.)