pentagon — The Pentagon says it has nearly $6 billion in funding for Ukraine left that could expire at the end of this month unless Congress or the State Department acts to extend the military’s authority to draw weapons from its stockpiles to send to Kyiv.

“We have $5.9 billion left in Ukraine Presidential Drawdown Authority, all but $100 million of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year,” Pentagon press secretary Major General Pat Ryder said Friday. “The department will continue to provide drawdown packages in the near future and is working with Congress to seek an extension of PDA [presidential drawdown] authorities beyond the end of the fiscal year.”

A defense official, who spoke to VOA on the condition of anonymity, said Congress’ monthslong deadlock in passing the supplemental funding bill for Ukraine was a “contributing factor” as to why billions of dollars for weapons remained unspent.

The money was expected to be allocated for Ukraine last year, but the U.S. House was unable to pass the $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan until late April of this year. Of that, about $61 billion was earmarked for Ukraine.

The official said the delay left the Pentagon with less time to identify and send military aid to Kyiv from its stockpiles. The nearly $6 billion left in funding amounts to less than 10% of the aid allocated in April to address the conflict in Ukraine.

Speaking in response to a VOA question earlier this month, deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh said the Pentagon would “use everything we can that’s available to us to make sure that we are continuing to provide Ukraine what it needs, both in the short term and the long term.”

“We’re in this fight with Ukraine for the long haul,” she said.

Two ways to ensure access

There are two ways to make sure that access to the remaining funds will not expire at the beginning of October, Mykola Murskyj, director of advocacy for the NGO Razom for Ukraine, told VOA.

The first is that Congress has to approve it again. This requires lawmakers to pass a provision that would extend the authority to use the remaining amount in the next budget year.

House members from both sides of the aisle have expressed support for extending the authorities so that all the allocated funding for Kyiv can be used.

“If we need to extend it, we’ll extend it,” Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told VOA.

Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, added that he would “push to get it done” if the funding was not all spent by the deadline.

The second way to ensure the military can access the remaining funds is for the State Department to notify Congress of its intent to use the funds, according to Murskyj. In this case, lawmakers will not need to vote on the extension, but formal notification must be issued by the secretary of state, as has been done in the past.

A State Department spokesperson would not comment on whether it would issue the extension, saying it would not discuss communications with lawmakers and their staffs, but would continue “to coordinate closely with Congress concerning the steadfast support that the United States, our allies and our partners worldwide are providing to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked and unjustified war.”

Murskyj told VOA his advocacy group was working with members of Congress to extend the funds.

“However, I am not going to put all of my eggs in that basket,” he said, because “it is very difficult to predict what Congress will do, and there’s always the potential for some kind of last-minute derailment.”

In a letter to the administration, members of pro-Ukrainian nongovernmental organizations said extending these funds “would send a powerful message to Ukraine, Russia and American voters that the administration wants Ukraine to win.”

Kateryna Lisunova of VOA’s Ukrainian Service contributed to this report.
…

…

Washington — When Kamala Harris and Donald Trump met in a presidential debate on Tuesday, they spoke about a range of foreign policy issues, including China and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

But while the debate attracted large audiences and coverage in the United States and Europe, Beijing and Moscow’s state-run media were relatively quiet on the event.

The minimal coverage is a contrast to the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Trump in June.

Chinese media

After that debate, Beijing-run outlets — like media around the world — were flooded with coverage of Biden’s poor performance.

But Harris-Trump coverage was noticeably slimmer in state-run outlets such as Xinhua, the Global Times and the People’s Daily newspaper, China media analysts say.

The shift is a subtle but significant distinction, according to China media analysts, that reflects how the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, employs its propaganda apparatus.

The relative lack of coverage wasn’t all that surprising to Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab in Washington.

The Chinese government is probably still figuring out how to move forward following Biden’s abrupt withdrawal, said Thibaut. She believes that’s a primary reason for the reduced coverage of this week’s debate.

“This is really reflective of how China handles changes in foreign policy issues,” Thibaut said. “They just stick to very fact-based coverage, basically restating what the candidate said, until they — the propaganda department and such — can figure out basically how to cover it globally and domestically.”

Another reason for the reduced coverage may have to do with democracy itself, according to China experts.

“The presidential debate is important for U.S. democracy, and democracy is always a sensitive topic for the CCP,” Anne-Marie Brady, a professor and specialist in Chinese politics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told VOA in an email.

Jonathan Hassid, an Iowa State University professor who specializes in Chinese media, agreed.

“Chinese media does not like covering democratic successes,” Hassid told VOA. “Democratic failures are highlighted, but the successes are not.”

That helps explain the difference between the coverage of the two debates. During the first debate, which by many accounts was a fiasco, Biden sounded hoarse and frail, and his repeated fumbles highlighted concerns over the 81-year-old’s capacity to serve another four-year term as president.

In coverage of that debate, Chinese state media relied on narratives about how democracy doesn’t work well, Hassid said.

For instance, Hu Xijin, a Chinese media commentator and former state media editor, wrote, “Objectively speaking, the low-quality performance of these two old men was a negative advertisement for Western democracy.”

By contrast, Hassid said, this week’s debate may have been perceived as a better display of democracy.

Still, China also didn’t even feature that largely in the latest debate.

While Harris didn’t go into much detail, she said that “a policy about China should be in making sure the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century.” Trump, meanwhile, has previously proposed tariffs up to 100% on Chinese products.

When asked about Harris and Trump’s views about tariffs on imports from China, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning on Wednesday said she had no comment.

“The presidential elections are the United States’ own affairs,” she said. “That said, we are opposed to making China an issue in U.S. elections.”

A spokesperson for China’s Washington embassy replied to VOA’s request for comment with a similar statement: “On the issue of the U.S. election, China’s position is consistent and clear. China has no intention and will not interfere in it. At the same time, we hope that the U.S. side will not make accusations against China in the election.”

Russian media

Russia — another propaganda powerhouse — also didn’t offer much coverage of the debate. “But that doesn’t mean that they don’t drop in plenty of spin,” according to Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub.

Based on his analysis of Russian state media coverage of the debate, Linvill said outlets such as RT and Sputnik were focused on downplaying Harris and playing up Trump.

There were some outliers, such as a Sputnik article in which a psychiatrist claimed Harris was trying to “hide her imposter syndrome” during the debate. But most of the coverage was subtler, Linvill said.

Articles tended to be anodyne and not necessarily critical of either side, Linvill said, but they still reveal Moscow’s well-documented preference for Trump.

U.S. officials are again warning about Russian efforts to influence this year’s election. Last week, the Justice Department accused two Russians who work at the Kremlin-backed RT of money laundering by funneling nearly $10 million to a conservative Tennessee-based media outlet that is a leading platform for pro-Trump voices.

While it’s important to monitor disinformation in the lead-up to and during an election, according to Thibaut, the period immediately after is perhaps even more important, especially if the election is close.

“This is a prime time for threat actors to take advantage of information, the polarizing narratives, the charged-up atmosphere to really sow social division,” Thibaut said.

“We have to really remain vigilant after the election as well.”
…

Ukraine is preparing for winter, which energy experts predict will be the most difficult since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Russia’s intense rocket attacks over the spring and summer destroyed 90% of Ukraine’s thermal generation capacity, and Ukrainians are rushing to restore damaged power plants. Lesia Bakalets in Kyiv reports on those efforts. Camera: Vladyslav Smilianets
…

Washington — United States President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are meeting Friday amid an intensified push by Ukraine to loosen restrictions on using weapons provided by the U.S. and Britain to strike Russia. 

The talks come amid signs that the White House could be moving toward a shift in its policy, and as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons would put NATO at war with Moscow. 

Ukrainian officials renewed their pleas to use Western-provided long-range missiles against targets deeper inside Russia during this week’s visit to Kyiv by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Blinken said he had “no doubt” that Biden and Starmer would discuss the matter during their visit, noting the U.S. has adapted and “will adjust as necessary” as Russia’s battlefield strategy has changed. 

The language is similar to what Blinken said in May, shortly before the U.S. allowed Ukraine to use American-provided weapons just inside Russian territory. The distance has been largely limited to cross-border targets deemed a direct threat out of concerns about further escalating the conflict. 

While the issue is expected to be at the top of the leaders’ agenda, it appeared unlikely that Biden and Starmer would announce any policy changes during this week’s visit, according to two U.S. officials familiar with planning for the leaders’ talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the private deliberations. 

In addition to Blinken, Biden also has hinted a change could be afoot. In an exchange with reporters earlier this week about whether he was ready to ease weapons restrictions on Ukraine, he responded, “We’re working that out now.” 

Putin warned Thursday that allowing long-range strikes “would mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia. … If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.” 

His remarks were in line with the narrative the Kremlin has actively promoted since early in the Ukraine war, accusing NATO countries of de-facto participation in the conflict and threatening a response. 

Earlier in the year, Putin warned that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets in response to NATO allies allowing Ukraine to use their arms to attack Russian territory, saying it “would mark their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, and we reserve the right to act the same way.” 

Starmer, in response to the Russian leader’s Thursday comments, said on his way to the U.S. that Britain does not seek any conflict with Russia. 

“Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia could end this conflict straight away,” Starmer told reporters. “Ukraine has the right to self-defense and we’ve obviously been absolutely fully supportive of Ukraine’s right to self-defense — we’re providing training capability, as you know.” 

“But we don’t seek any conflict with Russia — that’s not our intention in the slightest,” Starmer said. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pressed U.S. and allied military leaders to go much further. He argues that the U.S. must allow Ukraine to target Russian air bases and launch sites far from the border as Russia has stepped up assaults on Ukraine’s electricity grid and utilities ahead of the coming winter. 

Zelenskyy also wants more long-range weaponry from the United States, including the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, for strikes in Russia. 

ATACMS wouldn’t be the answer to the main threat Ukraine faces from long-range Russian glide bombs, which are being fired from more than 300 kilometers (185 miles) away, beyond the ATACMS’ reach, said Lt. Col. Charlie Dietz, Pentagon spokesperson. 

American officials also don’t believe they have enough of the weapon systems available to provide Ukraine with the number to make a substantive difference to conditions on the ground, one of the U.S. officials said. 

During a meeting of allied defense ministers last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said he did not believe providing Ukraine with long-range weapon systems would be a game-changer in the grueling war. He noted that Ukraine has already been able to strike inside Russia with its own internally produced systems, including drones. 

“I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive, and I stand by that comment,” Austin said. 

“As of right now, the policy has not changed,” Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, Pentagon press secretary, said Thursday. 

Starmer said he was visiting Washington for “strategic meetings to discuss Ukraine and to discuss the Middle East.” It’s the prime minister’s second meeting with Biden since his center-left government was elected in July. 

It comes after Britain last week diverged from the U.S. by suspending some arms exports to Israel because of the risk they could be used to break international law. Both countries have downplayed their differences over the issue. 

Biden and Starmer’s meeting also comes ahead of this month’s annual meeting of global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly. The Oval Office meeting was scheduled in part to help the two leaders compare notes on the war in Ukraine, languishing efforts to get a cease-fire deal in Gaza and other issues ahead of the U.N. meeting. 

The White House also has sought in recent days to put a greater emphasis on the nexus between the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East sparked after Iranian-backed Hamas militants in Gaza launched attacks on Israel on Oct. 7. 

The Biden administration said this week that Iran recently delivered short-range ballistic weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine, a transfer that White House officials worry will allow Russia to use more of its arsenal for targets far beyond the Ukrainian front line while employing Iranian warheads for closer-range targets. 

In turn, the U.S. administration says Russia has been tightening its relationship with Iran, including by providing it with nuclear and space technology. 

“This is obviously deeply concerning,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said of the missile transfer. “And it certainly speaks to the manner in which this partnership threatens European security and how it illustrates Iran’s destabilizing influence now reaches well beyond the Middle East.” 

 
…

…

Singapore — Pope Francis wrapped up an arduous 12-day tour of the Asia-Pacific on Friday, defying health concerns to connect with believers from the jungle of Papua New Guinea to the skyscrapers of Singapore.

The 87-year-old pontiff flies home to Rome from Singapore, completing his longest trip in duration and distance since he became head of the world’s estimated 1.4 billion Roman Catholics more than 13 years ago.

The Argentine pope has relied on a wheelchair since 2022 because of knee pain and sciatica. He had a hernia operation in June 2023, and earlier this year he battled flu and bronchitis.

Occasionally, during his four-nation trip, the pope struggled to keep his eyes open when listening to late-night liturgical readings or to remain engaged during formal military parades.

But he was clearly energized by more freewheeling exchanges — cheerfully goading young people to shout out their agreement with his calls to help those in need.

In a lively final inter-religious meeting with young Singaporeans, the pope urged them to respect other beliefs, avoid being slaves to technology and to get out of their comfort zones.

“Don’t let your stomach get fat, but let your head get fat,” the pope said, raising a laugh from his audience.

“I say take risks, go out there,” he said. “A young person that is afraid and does not take risks is an old person.”

The historic tour, initially planned for 2020 but postponed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has included 43 hours of flight time and a distance of 32,000 kilometers.

But neither the pace — 16 speeches and up to eight hours of time difference — nor the heat, nor multiple meetings have forced any rescheduling of his international odyssey.

On a trip that took him to the outer edges of the church’s world, the pope delivered a sometimes uncomfortable message for leaders not to forget the poor and marginalized.

In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority state, he visited the Istiqlal Mosque to deliver a joint message against conflict and climate change.

In sweltering Papua New Guinea, he donned a bird of paradise headdress in a remote, jungle village where he told inhabitants to halt violence and renounce “superstition and magic.”

Addressing political and business leaders, he insisted that the country’s vast natural resources should benefit the entire community — a demand likely to resound in a nation where many believe their riches are being stolen or squandered.

And in staunchly Roman Catholic East Timor, he addressed nearly half the population, drawing about 600,000 rapturous believers in the tropical heat to a celebration of mass on the island’s coast.

Francis addressed East Timor’s leaders, hailing a new era of “peace” since independence in 2002.

But he also called on them to do more to prevent abuse against young people, in a nod to recent Catholic Church child abuse scandals.

In the affluent city-state of Singapore, the pope called for “special attention” to be paid to protecting the dignity of migrant workers.

“These workers contribute a great deal to society and should be guaranteed a fair wage,” he said.

There are an estimated 170 million migrant workers around the world. Most live in the Americas, Europe or Central Asia.

But the Argentine pope was otherwise full of praise for the “entrepreneurial spirit” and dynamism that built a “mass of ultra-modern skyscrapers that seem to rise from the sea” in his final destination.

Sandra Ross, 55, a church administrator in Singapore, said she was still “feeling the warmth and joy” after attending mass led by the pope.

“I was deeply touched by Pope Francis’ courage and dedication to his mission, despite his health challenges. His spirit and enthusiasm are truly inspiring,” she said.
…

…

…

KYIV, Ukraine — After spending years in what she described as “boring, sedentary” roles in the offices of several Ukrainian companies, Liliia Shulha landed her dream job as a truck driver with Ukraine’s leading retailer, Fozzy Group.

“I always dreamed about big cars. Instead of (playing with) dolls, I drove cars when I was a child,” she told Reuters.

“Now the situation is such that they take people without experience and they train. I was lucky,” said Shulha, 40, wearing a company uniform in front of a large truck.

As the war with Russia drains the labor force, businesses are trying to cover critical shortages by hiring more women in traditionally male-dominated roles and turning to teenagers, students and older workers.

With millions of people, mostly women and children, abroad after fleeing the war, and tens of thousands of men mobilized into the army, the jobs crisis could endanger economic growth and a post-war recovery, analysts say.

Ukraine has lost over a quarter of its workforce since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, central bank data showed.

Nearly 60% of businesses said finding skilled workers was their main challenge, an economy ministry survey of over 3,000 companies showed.

“The situation is indeed critical,” said Tetiana Petruk, chief sustainability officer at steel company Metinvest, one of Ukraine’s largest employers with a workforce of about 45,000. It has about 4,000 vacancies.

“The staff deficit that we feel has an impact on our production,” Petruk told Reuters in an online interview.

“We are not the only ones who feel the staff shortages, all companies in the regions feel that, including our contractors.”

Reuters spoke to representatives of nine Ukrainian companies, from big industrial firms to retail groups and small private entrepreneurs. All said staff shortages and a growing mismatch of skills were big challenges.

Businesses said they were changing recruitment and business practices, automating, rotating existing staff and expanding their job descriptions, re-hiring retirees and offering more benefits, especially for younger workers.

They also have had to increase wages. The average monthly wage now is about $470 compared to about $350 a year ago.

“There is a noticeable shift away from gender and age bias in candidate selection as employers adjust criteria to attract needed employees,” said the Kyiv School of Economics. “This trend also extends to entrepreneurship, where the share of female entrepreneurs is growing significantly.”

More women

Male-dominated industries are more affected by staff shortages, the central bank said.

The construction sector, transport, mining and others have all suffered because of military mobilization, for which men aged 25 to 60 are eligible. To keep the economy running, the government provides full or partial deferrals for critical companies.

In the energy and weapons production sectors, 100% of staff are eligible for draft deferral. In some other sectors, firms can retain 50% of male staff. But the process to secure deferral is long and complicated.

As the government toughened mobilization rules this year, the number of men preferring informal employment – allowing them to stay off public data records – grew, some enterprises said.

In the agricultural southern region of Mykolayiv, women are being trained as tractor drivers. Women are also increasingly working as tram and truck drivers, coal miners, security guards and warehouse workers, companies say.

“We are offering training and jobs for women who have minimal experience,” said Lyubov Ukrainets, human resources director at Silpo, part of Fozzy Group.

Including Shulha, the company has six female truck drivers and is more actively recruiting women for other jobs previously dominated by men, including loaders, meat splitters, packers and security guards.

The share of female employees is growing in industries such as steel production. Petruk said female staff accounted for about 30-35% of Metinvest’s workforce and the company now hired women for some underground jobs. Metinvest was unable to provide comparative figures for before the war.

Some other women are unable or unwilling to join the workforce because of a lack of childcare. Shulha, who works 15-day stretches on the road, has moved back in with her parents to ensure care for her 14-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter.

Young people

Businesses and economists expect labor market challenges to persist. Employers are turning their attention to young people by offering training, job experience and targeted benefit packages.

Metinvest, which previously focused on students, is now increasingly working with professional colleges, Petruk said.

Silpo is more actively hiring teenagers for entry-level jobs in supermarkets and has launched a specialized internship program for students.

Mobile phone operator Vodafone repackaged its youth program, creating an opportunity for about 50 teenagers in 12 cities to get their first job experience.

“We want to offer the first proper experience of the official job to this young audience. Another objective is to build a talent pool,” said Ilona Voloshyna of Vodafone Retail.

“Also we want to understand the youth,” she said in a Vodafone shop in Kyiv as six teenagers consulted with visitors.

The government and foreign partners have launched several programs to help Ukrainians reskill.

“We provide the opportunity for everyone at state expense to obtain a new profession which is in demand on the labor market, or to raise their professional level,” said Tetiana Berezhna, a deputy economy minister.
…

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kyiv, Ukraine, this week, where they announced nearly $1.5 billion in additional aid. Kyiv in turn requested the two nations lift restrictions on using Western weapons to strike targets in Russia. VOA Eastern Europe Bureau Chief Myroslava Gongadze reports. Lesia Bakalets contributed to this report. (Camera: Daniil Batushchak, Vladyslav Smilynets)
…

washington — The future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program remains in limbo with another court hearing set for October 10.

Judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the case, initiated in 2018 by Texas and other Republican-led states seeking to end DACA. The program offers temporary protection from deportation and work permits to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who are often referred to as “Dreamers.”

The case centers on whether DACA exceeds presidential authority, immigration advocates from the coalition “Home is Here” said during a recent conversation with reporters.

“Our response to that is that presidential authority in the area of immigration, and particularly the discretion exercised by the executive branch, is very broad and certainly encompasses the type of program that DACA is, which is now a regulation,” Nina Perales, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said during the call.

A central issue in the case is whether Texas and other states have the standing to sue.

Texas and other Republican-led states have argued that DACA has harmed them financially because they are spending resources on education, health care and other services on undocumented immigrants who were allowed to remain in the country illegally.

But Perales, who will be one of the attorneys arguing the case in October, said that “Texas cannot show any injury as a result of DACA” because recipients contribute to their communities and states by paying taxes and more.

A final decision could take a while, said Perales, who noted the 5th Circuit could take “as long as 18 months” to rule.

And the case could end in several ways: The 5th Circuit might dismiss the case, send it back to the lower court or rule against DACA, which could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“One possible scenario is that the 5th Circuit decides [U.S. District] Judge [Andrew] Hanen didn’t evaluate the evidence properly and sends the case back to [him],” she said.

If that happens, Perales said, DACA recipients might benefit from the current case’s legal state, which allows recipients to continue renewing their DACA benefits while awaiting the courts’ final resolution. The Biden administration continues to accept new applications but does not process them.

How we got here

Former President Barack Obama, frustrated with congressional inaction on the Dream Act, created DACA by executive order in 2012. Some DACA recipients arrived legally, but their families later overstayed their visas; others arrived by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization. They are now in their mid-20s to late 30s, and they come from around the world.

In 2018, Texas and other Republican-led states sued the federal government, arguing not only that they were being harmed financially but also that only Congress has the authority to grant immigration benefits.

In 2022, the Biden administration revised the program in hopes of satisfying one of the arguments made in federal courts by Republican-led states — that the program was not created properly. Biden officials issued the new version of DACA in late August. It went through a period of public comments as part of a formal rule-making process to increase its odds of surviving this legal battle.

In a February 2023 statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, wrote in a statement on his website that “the Obama and Biden programs are practically indistinguishable in both the negative harms that they will have on this country and in the illegal means used to implement them. I am therefore calling for the new DACA rule to end in the same way that the Obama-era rule did: struck down as unlawful.”

But DACA has support. In October 2022, a coalition of dozens of influential corporations, including Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft, sent a letter to Republicans and Democrats in Congress urging a bipartisan solution for the almost 600,000 immigrants who are enrolled in DACA.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, DACA has “improved recipients’ employment outcomes, increased the labor force participation rates of those who are eligible, decreased their unemployment rates, and boosted earnings for those with the lowest incomes.”

MPI’s analysis shows that DACA holders contribute “nearly $42 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product each year and add $3.4 billion to the federal balance sheet.”

Bruna Bouhid-Sollod, a former DACA recipient and current senior political director at United We Dream, highlighted the emotional impact of the uncertainty.

“The importance of making [the impact] really clear is really important. … DACA recipients and their families are dealing with an extreme amount of stress,” she said.

With renewal periods lasting just two years, many recipients are in constant limbo, unsure if their work permits and deportation protections will remain intact.

There is a lot at stake, according to immigration lawyers and advocates.

“Unless you’re living in it … you don’t think about the impact it has on the people that are waiting for their lives to be decided by this case,” Bouhid-Sollod said.
…