Artifact 4: Texas Governor Bolsters Border

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/us/perry-to-deploy-national-guard-troops-to-mexico-border.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22Rl%3A15%22%7D&_r=0

Immigration policies have always provoked political debate, and have sometimes even left the country completely divided. This is certainly true with the current border crisis. Nobody is quite sure how to fix the problem, and unity is nearly impossible, even within the political parties. Should we be trying to prevent teens from crossing the border? Or making it easier for them to cross legally and become citizens? How should we be treating them if they do make it across? These are just a few questions among many raised by the border crisis. And like all ethical questions, there are no simple solutions.

Artifact 3: Children at the Border

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/us/questions-about-the-border-kids.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A18%22}&_r=0

This interactive article is purely based on facts, without nearly any opinion. It is about the border crisis. This is taking place along the U.S.-Mexico border, although it clearly affects the entire country. The article has many different visual aids, including graphs, diagrams, and maps, which helps the reader understand this crisis through a different perspective.

To give some background on the border crisis, in the past few years, millions of children have attempted to cross the border. This has lead to drastic measures having to be taken, including the construction of several temporary shelters, each with 1,000 beds. This spike in teens trying to cross the border has also sparked argument over whether we should do what is morally right, or what is lawfully right, as the two aren't necessarily the same in this case.

Artifact 2: Obama Changes Immigration Rule

http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/a/Obama-Changes-Immigration-Rule.htm

When people form or speak their personal opinions on immigration, they often do not think about the consequences faced by immigrants and their families. About two years ago, Obama made a major change in the immigration rule. Before this reform, illegal immigrants could be deported back to their country for 3-10 years. Until this time had passed, hopeful immigrants weren't allowed to re-enter the country, legally, or apply for citizenship.

President Obama modified this administrative rule in order to eliminate this ban time. Now, immigrants can immediately apply for a hardship waiver and, after that is approved, apply for a green card.

Artifact 1: Obama Has Big Options for Green Card

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249614/Obama_has_big_options_for_green_card_H_1B_reform_without_Congress_

This article is mainly about green cards visas, and plans to improve them. A green card is a permit allowing an immigrant or foreigner to live in the U.S. and be legally employed. In short, Obama wants to pass a series of laws which would allow the government to give out more green card visas.  As the law stands now, dependents (children and spouses) are counted against the cap (the total amount of green cards given). In some cases, this rule has torn families apart because of restrictions on the amount of green cards able to be given out. If Obama changed the law and made it so that only the principals (the people being employed) were counted, then more green cards would be given out. Therefore, it would be much easier for immigrants to obtain one.

For example, right now there is a cap of 140,000 green cards. With the current laws, only 65,000, or only 46%, go to the principals. This article explains that if this "law" or "interpretation" were implemented, then all 65,000 green cards would go to the principals, and their dependents would automatically be given green cards, too. This is a very unique way of changing the law, because instead of having to pass an entirely different law, you just change the interpretation. Another big point this article mentions is that the President, using his executive privilege, can change this all on his own, without having approval from congress. This seems like a better idea than having to make up a whole different law because a new interpretation can be put into effect much more quickly than a new law.