*Documentos, invitación presentación libro y notas de prensa sobre migraciones*

Califican de absurdo lo dicho por LF sobre condena CIDH
Amnistía Internacional acusa a RD de violar históricamente derechos humanos de minorías
El Nuevo Diario, 24 11 2014
Santo Domingo, 24 nov (EFE).- Amnistía Internacional (AI) acusó hoy al Gobierno dominicano de discriminar y violar históricamente los derechos humanos de un grupo importante de sus ciudadanos, en respuesta a un artículo publicado por el expresidente de este país Leonel Fernández en el periódico español El País.

De acuerdo a un comunicado de la oficina para el Caribe de esa organización, lo publicado por el exgobernante, de que en República Dominicana no hay apatridia, es "absurdo" y exime al Gobierno de asumir sus responsabilidades internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos.

Las declaraciones del expresidente de la República Dominicana, Leonel Fernández, en un artículo publicado el 19 de noviembre en El País, son un reflejo de la negligencia del Gobierno dominicano de enfrentar la histórica discriminación y violaciones a los derechos humanos de un grupo importante de ciudadanas y ciudadanos", dice Amnistía Internacional.

La directora para las Américas de AI, Erika Guevara Rosas, dijo en el documento, que de lo que Fernández y otros en el actual Gobierno (dominicano) no hablan, "es que esta profunda discriminación racial" tiene nombres e historias.

"Durante meses, Amnistía Internacional ha recogido el testimonio de docenas de personas cuyas experiencias son un reflejo del grave impacto al ejercicio de los derechos humanos de miles de dominicanos y dominicanas en el país", dijo la ejecutiva de Amnistía.

Para apuntalar su enjuiciamiento, Guevara sostuvo que en 2007 dos expertos de Naciones Unidas sobre minorías y sobre racismo visitaron la República Dominicana y concluyeron que "existe un profundo y arraigado problema de racismo y discriminación que afecta en general a la población negra y en particular a los dominicanos de ascendencia haitiana y los haitianos".

En el comunicado, Amnistía Internacional cita unos tres casos de lo que, aseguró, se discrimina a ciudadanos dominicanos o de origen haitiano, solo por ser negros.

Amnistía también critica la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional (TC) dominicano, emitida en septiembre de 2013, que define los parámetros de la nacionalidad y afirma que el organismo ha "legitimado" la discriminación racial en la sociedad dominicana.

De acuerdo a su criterio, Guevara Rosas afirma que la sentencia del TC ofrece una definición de la nacionalidad dominicana basada en criterios "históricos, lingüísticos, raciales y geopolíticos".

"Nadie niega a las autoridades de República Dominicana el derecho de definir sus reglas de adquisición de la nacionalidad, pero el derecho internacional prohíbe expresamente la discriminación, y diversos organismos internacionales, como la Corte Interamericana, han alertado sobre lo que esta sentencia supone", dijo el comunicado.

Guevara Rosas estimo que si el Gobierno dominicano decide "abrir sus ojos" y ver que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, como cientos de voces de la sociedad civil dominicana y organizaciones internacionales, le ofrece un camino para resolver el problema de la "enraizada e histórica discriminación" que existe en el país. EFE


Eileen Truax

Jill Anderson

Maru Ponce

Nancy Landa

Brisa Ceccon

Gretchen Kunher

Mónica Jacobo

Marcela Arteaga

William Pérez

Acompáñenos en el Instituto Mora o síganos via www.mora.edu.mx

La Unidad Académica de Estudios del Desarrollo

de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

tiene el agrado de invitarlo

a la presentación del libro

Persiguiendo un espejismo.

Migración y movilidad social en Cochabamba


Jorge Miguel Veizaga Rosales

Egresado del Doctorado en Estudios del Desarrollo

Miércoles 26 de noviembre 2014

14:00 horas

Auditorio de la Unidad Académica de Estudios del Desarrollo

Vino de Honor

Bigger Than Immigration – The New Yor Times Opinion Pages

NOV. 23, 2014

Don’t let yourself get lost in the weeds. Don’t allow yourself to believe that opposition to President Obama’s executive actions on immigration is only about that issue, the president’s tactics, or his lack of obsequiousness to his detractors.

This hostility and animosity toward this president is, in fact, larger than this president. This is about systems of power and the power of symbols. Particularly, it is about preserving traditional power and destroying emerging symbols that threaten that power. This president is simply the embodiment of the threat, as far as his detractors are concerned, whether they are willing or able to articulate it as such.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last week found that the public “wants immigration policy along the lines of what President Barack Obama seeks but is skeptical of the executive action.” When The Journal looked at some of the people who “say they want to see a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants — which is beyond what Mr. Obama’s executive order would do — but say they disapprove of presidential executive action,” it found that the group was “overwhelmingly white and more likely to be Republican than not” and some said that they simply “don’t like anything associated with the president.”

Speaker John Boehner has accused Obama of acting like a “king” and an “emperor.” Representative Louie Gohmert referred to Obama’s “ new royal amnesty decree.”

Andrew C. McCarthy, in National Review, went further, suggesting that Obama’s legal justification was a slippery slope to all manner of crime and vice:

“Can the president make fraud and theft legal? How about assault? Cocaine use? Perjury? You’d have to conclude he can — and that we have supplanted the Constitution with a monarchy — if you buy President Obama’s warped notion of prosecutorial discretion.”

There is no denying the insinuations in such language: a fear of subjugation by people like this president, an “other” person, predisposed to lawlessness.

As usual, issue-oriented opposition overlaps with a historical undercurrent, one desperate for demonstration (of liberal folly) and preservation (of conservative principles and traditional power).

From this worldview, liberalism isn’t simply an alternate political sensibility, but a rot, an irreparable ruination, a violation of the laws of the land as the founding fathers (most of whom owned slaves at some point) envisioned, but also of the laws of nature, which they see as being directed by God. There are so many examples of this: opposition to L.G.B.T. rights, to the science undergirding climate change and efforts to arrest that change, and to allowing women a full range of reproductive options.

Maybe that’s why the president cited Scripture when laying out his immigration plan: “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.”

But that is surely to have fallen on deaf ears, if not hostile ones. Conservatives slammed the usage, and Mike Huckabee went so far as to accuse the president of trying to rewrite the Bible while bizarrely invoking the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations:

“I always thought that Scripture was eternal and unchanging, but apparently, now that Obama is president, Scripture gets rewritten more often than Bill Cosby’s Wikipedia entry.”

As Paul Ryan put it in 2012, the president’s policies put us on a “dangerous path,” one that “grows government, restricts freedom and liberty, and compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place.”

Senator Tom Coburn upped the rhetoric last week, suggesting to USA Today that there could be a violent reaction to the president’s actions:

“You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy.”

He added, “You could see violence.”

This is not completely unlike the language used by Joni Ernst, just elected senator in Iowa, who spoke during a 2012 N.R.A. event of her gun and the “right to defend myself,” possibly “from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

Make no mistake: This debate is not just about this president, this executive order or immigration. This is about the fear that makes the face flush when people stare into a future in which traditional power — their power — is eroded, and about their desperate, by-any-means determination to deny that future.

The Opinion Pages | Editorial |​NYT Now

Mr. Obama’s Wise Immigration Plan


People gathered in New York to watch President Obama’s speech. Credit Kevin Hagen/Getty Images

President Obama’s speech Thursday night on immigration ended on a high, hopeful note. Mr. Obama, quoting Scripture’s admonition to welcome and protect the stranger, told millions who have lived and worked here for years, many of them Americans in all but name: We cannot fix your situation yet, but for now we will not expel you, because we have better hopes for you here.

A speech is not a solution, of course, and now that it is over, the hard work begins. Efforts over the last decade to repair immigration have repeatedly ended in failure, leaving the meanness of the broken status quo.

Now, though, there are reasons for encouragement, tempered with caution. Mr. Obama’s plan to register and give working papers to perhaps four million to five million people has rightly gained the most attention, but he and the Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, have also declared a sweeping reordering of immigration enforcement. They are ending Secure Communities, a blighted program that used local police to funnel arrested immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In theory, this widened the dragnet for dangerous criminals. But in practice, it terrorized the innocent, alienated immigrant neighborhoods from their police protectors and encouraged — nationalized — Arizona-style campaigns of indiscriminate immigration crackdowns and racial profiling.

The replacement for Secure Communities will be called the Priority Enforcement Program, and it is meant to pursue only high-priority deportation targets. The local police will no longer routinely be asked to detain immigrants on ICE’s behalf — in violation of the Fourth Amendment — but asked instead simply to notify ICE when a wanted suspect is about to be released.

This could fulfill Mr. Obama’s promise to use the deportation machinery only against real threats. But history is littered with similar efforts at reprioritizing that failed. It is unclear how this fixes the problems of abusive and discriminatory policing that arise before an immigrant is jailed. Immigrant advocates are right to greet this apparent improvement with caution.

Other worries are administrative. There is a crying need for legal representation for immigrants, and adding an immense new program covering millions will burden the system still more. Many gaps are filled by energetic networks of nonprofit and low-cost legal advocates, but also by fraudsters. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in New York, where a groundbreaking effort, the Immigrant Justice Corps, has announced that it is doubling its outreach — with 50 lawyers and 30 community advocates — in response to the Obama plan.

Other advocacy groups nationwide are helping immigrants as they start collecting documents and saving money for what is expected to be an expensive application process. Executive action will be a big undertaking, and it’s reasonable to be concerned about the ability of the administration and legal services organizations to handle it.

But these are good worries to have. Mr. Obama’s initiative is a real gain, which must be held against the blowback from Republicans, who are grasping for justification to match their outrage and to block him on legal grounds. Presidential precedent, the law and Supreme Court affirmation all favor Mr. Obama.

The reality of the status quo is paralysis, in which nobody is ever legalized and most people are never deported. That is another form of amnesty — the amnesty of inaction — though none on the right who oppose reform would ever admit it. The White House is beginning a campaign to defend its action by stressing the economic and law enforcement benefits of bringing millions in from outside the law. The most immediate and profound benefit is the lifting of fear in immigrant communities, even though perhaps half of the undocumented population will still be left out. Many parents will be excluded, and many families will be broken. Their struggle will continue.

A version of this editorial appears in print on November 22, 2014, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Mr. Obama’s Wise Immigration Plan.

Sufrid, niñitos


El Museo de los Apartamentos, en Lower East Side, es uno de los sitios que más me gustan de la ciudad de Nueva York. Se trata de un edificio antiguo de la época de la Guerra Civil que dio cobijo a varias oleadas consecutivas de inmigrantes, y en el que han restaurado algunos apartamentos para que tengan exactamente el mismo aspecto que tuvieron en distintas épocas, desde la década de 1860 hasta la de 1930 (cuando el edificio fue declarado inhabitable). Cuando uno recorre el museo, se queda con la fuerte sensación que produce la inmigración como experiencia humana, la cual —a pesar de los muchos malos momentos, a pesar de un entorno cultural en el que a los judíos, los italianos y otros se los consideraba a menudo una raza inferior— ha sido en su mayoría positiva.

El apartamento Baldizzi de 1934 me impresiona especialmente. Cuando les describí su distribución a mis padres, ambos afirmaron: “¡Yo crecí en ese apartamento!”. Y los inmigrantes actuales son iguales, en cuanto a sus aspiraciones y su comportamiento, que mis abuelos; gente que busca una vida mejor y que, en su mayoría, la encuentra.

Por eso es por lo que apoyo sin reservas la nueva iniciativa sobre inmigración del presidente Obama. No es más que una cuestión de decencia humana.

Eso no quiere decir que yo, ni la mayoría de los progresistas, estemos a favor de unas fronteras completamente abiertas. Se puede ver una razón importante ahí mismo, en el apartamento Baldizzi: la foto de F. D. Roosevelt en la pared. El New Deal convirtió Estados Unidos en un lugar inmensamente mejor, aunque probablemente no habría sido posible sin las restricciones inmigratorias que entraron en vigor tras la Primera Guerra Mundial. Por un lado, sin esas restricciones, se habría hablado mucho, con razón o sin ella, de toda la gente que llegaba en tropel a Estados Unidos para aprovecharse de las ayudas gubernamentales.

Además, la inmigración libre significaba que muchos de los trabajadores peor pagados de Estados Unidos no eran ciudadanos y no podían votar. Una vez que entraron en vigor las restricciones a la inmigración, y los inmigrantes que ya estaban en el país obtuvieron la ciudadanía, esa clase inferior privada del derecho al voto se redujo rápidamente, lo que contribuyó a crear las condiciones políticas necesarias para un colchón de seguridad social más fuerte. Y sí, los inmigrantes poco cualificados probablemente influyan un poco en la bajada de los salarios, aunque los datos que tenemos indican que esa influencia es bastante pequeña.

Mis padres tuvieron la vida que tuvieron porque EE UU estuvo dispuesto a tratarlos como personas

De modo que la política sobre inmigración se enfrenta a algunos problemas complejos. A mí me gusta decir que, si no nos sentimos en conflicto respecto a esos problemas, es que hay algo en nosotros que no va bien. Pero algo con lo que no debemos tener ningún conflicto es la propuesta de que deberíamos ofrecer un trato decente a los niños que ya están en nuestro país (y ya son estadounidenses en todos los aspectos importantes). Y de esto es de lo que trata la iniciativa de Obama.

¿De quiénes hablamos? En primer lugar, hay más de un millón de jóvenes en este país que llegaron —sí, ilegalmente— cuando eran pequeños y han vivido aquí desde entonces. En segundo lugar, hay un gran número de niños que han nacido aquí —lo que los convierte en ciudadanos estadounidenses, con los mismos derechos que tenemos ustedes y yo— pero cuyos padres llegaron ilegalmente y, según la ley, pueden ser deportados.

¿Qué debemos hacer con estas personas y sus familias? Hay ciertas fuerzas en nuestra escena política que quieren que los tratemos con mano de hierro; que busquemos y deportemos a jóvenes residentes en EE UU que no nacieron aquí pero que nunca han conocido otro hogar; que busquemos y deportemos a los padres indocumentados de niños que son estadounidenses, y obliguemos a estos niños a exiliarse, o bien a arreglárselas solos.

Pero eso no va a pasar; en parte porque, como nación, no somos en el fondo tan crueles; en parte porque esa clase de campaña exigiría unas medidas que se parecerían a las de un Estado policial; y en gran medida, siento decirlo, porque el Congreso no quiere gastar el dinero que se necesitaría para algo así. En la práctica, los niños indocumentados y los padres indocumentados de niños con papeles no se van a marchar.

La verdadera pregunta, por tanto, es cómo vamos a tratarlos. ¿Seguiremos adelante con nuestro actual sistema de abandono perverso, les negaremos derechos comunes y corrientes, y los someteremos a la amenaza constante de la deportación? ¿O los trataremos como a los conciudadanos nuestros que ya son?

La verdad es que el puro interés personal nos dice que actuemos con humanidad. Los niños inmigrantes de hoy son los trabajadores, contribuyentes y vecinos del mañana. Condenarlos a vivir en la sombra significa que tendrán una vida doméstica menos estable de lo que deberían, que se les negará la oportunidad de adquirir una educación y formarse, que contribuirán menos a la economía y desempeñarán una función menos positiva en la sociedad. El hecho de no actuar es autodestructivo sin más.

Por lo que a mí respecta, no me preocupa demasiado el dinero, ni siquiera los aspectos sociales. Lo que de verdad importa, o debería importar, es la humanidad. Mis padres pudieron tener la vida que tuvieron porque Estados Unidos, a pesar de todos los prejuicios de aquella época, estuvo dispuesto a tratarlos como a personas. Ofrecer esa misma clase de trato a los niños inmigrantes de hoy es la manera práctica de actuar, pero también, y esto es fundamental, es lo correcto. Así que aplaudamos al presidente por ello.

Paul Krugman es profesor de Economía de la Universidad de Princeton y premio Nobel de Economía de 2008.

© 2014, New York Times Service.

Workers in Silicon Valley Weigh In on Obama’s Immigration Action

By VINDU GOEL – NOV. 23, 2014

Laks Srini, the chief technology officer at Zenefits, who is from India, has been unable to upgrade his visa to reflect his role. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley’s constant stream of new apps and services depends on hundreds of thousands of foreign-born engineers to help create them. So the technology industry has been pushing for changes to the nation’s immigration policy for more than a decade to allow more skilled workers into the country.

President Obama’s executive action on immigration last week falls well short of what both immigrants and industry leaders were seeking. The most vexing issues they face, like speeding up the process for obtaining permanent residency and getting more visas for high-skilled technology work, would require an act of Congress.

Nonetheless, some immigrants working in technology were heartened by the president’s actions and said they could potentially make life and work in the United States easier.

One of Mr. Obama’s initiatives, for example, would give entrepreneurs starting a company a special founder’s visa, provided that they raise outside funding. That appeals to Laks Srini, a founder of the San Francisco start-up Zenefits.

Right now, the law is so Kafkaesque that Mr. Srini, who is from India, had to get his American co-founder, Parker Conrad, to officially hire him as Zenefits’ database administrator simply to transfer his visa from his previous employer so they could create the company.

In less than two years, the two of them have built Zenefits, an online service that helps companies manage their employee benefits, into a company with 450 employees.

But Mr. Srini, the chief technology officer, still has not been able to upgrade his visa to a more flexible type that reflects his role at the company. He is applying for a visa for people of extraordinary talent — nicknamed the “I am awesome” visa because it essentially requires applicants to meet about a dozen requirements to prove eminence in their fields.

Gesturing at the cluster of desks around his own open-plan work space, Mr. Srini said the American visa restrictions had also crimped his ability to hire talented engineers. Because the primary visas used to hire software workers, known as H-1B visas, run out in a few days when the lottery is opened every April, he really has one chance a year to hire foreigners. And if they don’t win the lottery, they have to wait another year, often forcing Zenefits to find someone else.

“When you’re a start-up, you live and die by speed,” Mr. Srini said.

Zenefits plans for now to divert some potential San Francisco jobs to Vancouver, where Canadian immigration laws make it much easier to bring in foreign engineers.

He said that immigration was a “gnarly problem” but one thing the politicians fighting in Washington don’t understand is that for every foreign engineer Zenefits hires, it also hires more than 10 American citizens or permanent residents to do various jobs.

Two of the Obama administration’s other proposals could help Zenefits and other Silicon Valley companies with their recruiting.

One would extend the amount of time that someone who has earned an American science or technology degree could work at a company after graduation. Currently the limit for such “optional practical training” is 29 months. Mr. Obama has directed immigration officials to begin a formal process to set more permissive rules for the program.

A longer training period would help companies hire more workers than the current annual cap of 85,000 new H-1B visas allows.

Mr. Srini said provisions that would allow spouses of high-tech visa holders to work would also help. Zenefits has lost promising overseas job applicants because they had wives who did not want to give up the ability to work so that their husbands could take jobs in the United States.

Glynn Morrison, a Scotsman on an H-1B visa who was one of Zenefits’ earliest employees, said his wife, a South Korean citizen, is still unable to work after nearly two years in the United States. She wants to be an accountant, but cannot legally work even as a basic bookkeeper. Although she has a bachelor’s degree, she is considering a second degree just to get a work permit, he said.

Glynn Morrison, a Scotsman, is an engineer at the start-up. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

“It doesn’t make sense to have so many people in America not working,” Mr. Morrison said. “You want them to pay taxes.”

While Mr. Srini and Mr. Morrison will most likely find ways to stay in the United States for the long term, the future is more hazy for Charlotte Brugman, a Dutch citizen who is working at Samahope, a small San Francisco nonprofit that provides medical services in developing countries.

Ms. Brugman said that she and her Swiss husband, an M.B.A. student at the University of California, Berkeley, were trying to figure out what Mr. Obama’s proposals meant for them.

Charlotte Brugman, a Dutch citizen, can work because her husband’s Fulbright scholarship entitles him to a more permissive visa. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Ms. Brugman’s ability to work is tied to the visa of her husband, Johannes Koeppel, who is on a Fulbright scholarship that entitles him to a more permissive visa. The spouses of other foreign students at the Berkeley business school cannot work at all.

Although Mr. Koeppel is also building an online travel start-up with two American co-founders, when he finishes his business degree next year, it’s unclear how much longer he and his wife can stay in the country. Without a change in visa status, they would have to leave after 18 months.

Mr. Koeppel is hoping to qualify for the founder’s visa that Mr. Obama has proposed. But based on the details released so far, he may be in a Catch-22: It’s difficult to get that visa without raising money from investors, and it’s difficult to raise money if the investors don’t know if the founder can stay in the country.

Confounding everyone is the vagueness of the president’s proposals. While it’s clear that he cannot solve the biggest problems without going to Congress, people in the tech industry said they still did not understand how exactly his proposals would play out. In many cases, the president has outlined broad ideas, which have been assigned to the immigration agencies and various task forces to figure out.

“The two lines in the speech did not really give us much more clarity about what it will mean for us,” Ms. Brugman said.

Collectively, the president’s visa proposals for highly skilled workers would add about 147,000 people to the work force by 2024, according to an analysis by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.

That’s too little, too late for many in the technology industry.

Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents most of the region’s large tech companies, said the industry was disappointed that Mr. Obama never followed through on his original campaign promise to pass comprehensive immigration legislation in his first year in office.

“He talked eloquently and in depth about low-wage workers, and I appreciate that,” Mr. Guardino said, referring to the president’s speech on Thursday. “But from an innovation economy perspective? I wasn’t expecting a lot, and it lived up to my expectations.”

Correction: November 24, 2014

An earlier version of this article, and its headline, misidentified the legal authority President Obama used to propose changes to immigration policy. They are executive actions, not an executive order. The article also misstated how long Johannes Koeppel can work legally in the United States after graduating from the University of California, Berkeley. He can work for up to 18 months; he does not have to leave immediately.

A version of this article appears in print on November 24, 2014, on page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: Workers in Silicon Valley Weigh in on Obama’s Immigration

Turmoil Over Immigration Status? California Has Lived It for Decades


Esther Cervantes held Willie Morales, her grandson, at her home in Bakersfield. “I was expecting this to help me,” she said of the president’s plan. “But for me, there’s nothing.” Credit Matt Black for The New York Times

LOS ANGELES — There may be no better place than California to measure the contradictions, crosswinds and confusion that come with trying to change immigration law.

For 30 years, California has been the epicenter of the churn of immigration — legal and not — in the nation. It was California where Pete Wilson, the Republican governor, championed in 1994 a voter initiative known as Proposition 187, which severely restricted services to immigrants here illegally. And it was California where just last year, Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, held a celebratory, dignitary-filled signing of legislation permitting unauthorized workers to obtain driver’s licenses.

Gov. Jerry Brown, center, with city officials at a Los Angeles ceremony for the signing of a law permitting unauthorized workers to obtain driver’s licenses. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times

One-third of the immigrants in the country illegally live in California, which has a 125-mile border with Mexico, much of it guarded by long stretches of border fence. They work on farms in the Central Valley, in manufacturing jobs in Los Angeles, and as housekeepers and gardeners in Silicon Valley, alongside a steady stream of young legal immigrants who hold high-skilled jobs in Northern California’s critical tech industry.

They come mostly from Mexico but also from Central America, the Philippines, South Korea and Japan. Commercial boulevards in the heart of Los Angeles are a riot of Korean-language signs, and in many neighborhoods in San Francisco the talk on the street is as likely to be in Spanish or Chinese as it is English.

San Diego

The Impact of Obama’s Immigration Plan Across California

The patchwork of regulations in President Obama’s executive action will resonate in different ways for foreign workers in Silicon Valley, farmworkers in the Central Valley and entrepreneurs in Los Angeles. The changes may prevent deportation of more than half of the roughly 2.5 million who are in the state illegally.

Sources: Joseph Hayes, Hans P. Johnson, Laura E. Hill, Public Policy Institute of California (estimates of undocumented population); Neil Ruiz, Elizabeth Kneebone, Jill Wilson, Audrey Singer, Brookings Institution; California Immigrant Policy Center; Migration Policy Institute; Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, University of Southern California

And while many undocumented immigrants take pains not to draw attention to their status, California nonetheless offers the prospect of a more open existence than much of the country does, albeit in an ask-no-questions fashion. Given the way many of these immigrants are already treated by the state, be it with the issuing of driver’s licenses or some health insurance, President Obama’s executive action on immigration was almost anticlimactic to many people here.

“We are the state that has the most settled immigrant population in terms of people who have been in the country for 10 years,” said Manuel Pastor, a co-director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at the University of Southern California. “We went through our Prop. 187 moment. We are at the other end. People will be eager to make this happen, because they realize we are going to get comprehensive immigration reform at some point.”

Los Angeles

Unauthorized immigrants in Los Angeles are among the most settled in the country — many have been here at least 10 years. They contribute to about 7 percent of the region’s economy. This area, which has more than one million unauthorized immigrants, had the largest number of people who were approved for a two-year deportation deferral under the president’s initial program that began in 2012.

Indeed, more than half the undocumented immigrants in California have lived here at least 10 years — far more than anyplace else in the country — and one-sixth of the children in California have at least one parent here illegally, according to Mr. Pastor’s center. That was illuminated by Mr. Obama’s expansion of the deportation protection program, since it was based largely on how long immigrants have resided here and whether they have American-born children.

“My parents are going to be able to qualify under this program,” said Paola Fernandez, 28, a representative of the Service Employees International Union who lives in Bakersfield. She was brought here as a child and got permission to stay under Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. She has two younger siblings who were born here, which bodes well for her parents.

“We’ve been here close to 25 years,” Ms. Fernandez said. “On a very personal level, this is a very amazing moment.”

At the same time, the extent of the illegal immigrant population here spotlighted limitations in what the president had to offer last week. Most notably, farmworkers in the Central Valley found themselves divided between those whose children were born in the United States or who are permanent legal residents — and thus eligible for the blanket of Mr. Obama’s action — and those who had children in their home country or not at all.

Central Valley

Nearly 40 percent of immigrants in the Central Valley are estimated to be here illegally, and nearly half of them are employed in agriculture. Some farmworkers may benefit from the president’s executive action because they have children born in the United States. But for the many farmworkers who have no family here, their status will remain the same.

Parents eligible for new

deferred action program

1.1 million

Rest of U.S.


“I’m scared that my family will be torn apart,” said Maria Ramos, 21, who moved here from Zacatecas, Mexico, in 1994 and was granted a deferral in 2012 while her parents remained here illegally. “It’s scary to think my mom could get deported. They’re going to tear our family apart. I wouldn’t want that for other people to experience.”

There are few states where immigrants are as integral to the economy, whether in farming, manufacturing or basic services. And many analysts suggested that those different forces were reflected in the White House’s attempt to parse the differing demands of, in particular, Silicon Valley, with its thirst for high-end technology workers, and the Central Valley, with its overwhelming demand for inexpensive labor to work on the farms.

The Bay Area and Silicon Valley

While there are a significant number of unauthorized workers in this area, much of the focus has been on legal, temporary workers. San Francisco and San Jose are among the top areas that request H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, and the president’s plan disappointed the tech community by not increasing the cap on the number of H-1Bs issued. The plan does help fill science and technology jobs by expanding a program that allows foreign students to remain in the country temporarily for training.

In Silicon Valley, Mr. Obama offered a limited promise to open the doors to high-skilled legal immigrants brought here by technology companies, while making it slightly easier for those already here and eager to switch jobs without putting their immigration status in jeopardy.

Sujoy Gupta, an Indian immigrant who came to the United States in 2003 to study and now works at a start-up called AppDirect in San Francisco, said the current visa rules made it difficult for him and his wife, Pooja Madaan, who works in marketing, to change employers, travel or buy a home.

“So every time I change my job, I have to reapply for my visa,” he said in an interview in his San Francisco home on Friday. That is likely to change now.

Pooja Madaan and her husband, Sujoy Gupta, reported difficulty obtaining skilled-worker visas. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

These changes were less than what Silicon Valley business leaders wanted but stood in contrast with agriculture, where the White House resisted requests to create a waiver for farmworkers. Half the agriculture workers in the Central Valley have immigrated here illegally.

“A major part of the work force that harvests the crops is undocumented, and it’s time we just recognized that,” said Greg Wegis, the president of the Kern County Farm Bureau.

Esther Cervantes, 53, who came here illegally nearly 20 years ago and packs the grapes her husband picks, paid to have her children brought over in 2000; they all received deportation deferrals under Mr. Obama’s earlier act and are thus assured a future here.

“I was expecting this to help me,” she said. “But for me, there’s nothing. I don’t have children who are citizens or residents.”

There has been a thriving underground economy across the state involving undocumented immigrants: the child care workers for wealthy software developers in Silicon Valley, where 8 percent of the work force is unauthorized, or the gardeners for estates in Beverly Hills. Presumably, that will come more into the open and, with it, promises for more job stability, an increased ability to change jobs and less fear of harassment by employers taking advantage of their vulnerability, said Reshma Shamasunder, the executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Jacopo Bruni, a Border Patrol agent, monitoring the border fence near San Diego. Credit Kirsten Luce for The New York Times

“It’s going to be an important contribution to the California economy both in terms of raising revenues, but also the security of the work force,” she said.

While other states may resist Mr. Obama’s initiative, California officials are already looking to expand existing programs to help immigrants here illegally. At La Raza Community Resource Center in San Francisco’s Mission District, which instructs immigrants on what kinds of documents they may need to apply for legal status, officials are preparing to help people take advantage of the new policy.

“Once people know more about it, there will be a lot of interest,” said Carl Larsen Santos, the center’s immigration program coordinator. “The psychological impact of having a work permit and not living in fear will be a huge boon to the community.”

A farmworker picking strawberries in Oxnard, Calif. Credit Gus Ruelas/Reuters

California has had some notable pockets of resistance to immigrants, most recently over the summer when protesters carrying signs and American flags met three buses of immigrant mothers and children in the city of Murrieta. But over all, this is a state that has embraced measures intended to make it easier for immigrants to live and work within its borders. A survey by the Pew Research Center last week found that of the 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States, 2.5 million live in California.

“California is more politically and emotionally evolved on this topic than the rest of the country,” said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former long-term aide to Mr. Wilson. “We have been through this for 20 years now. It’s the California existence: You are familiar with illegal immigration, you probably tapped into it in some way — hiring someone illegally to look after your children or tend your lawn.”

Matt A. Barreto, a professor of political science at the University of Washington in Seattle, said that even before the president’s action, California held itself forth as a model on immigration. “Across a variety of issues and policies, California has been a laboratory for the nation, forecasting and foreshadowing what might happen nationally,” he said.

Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles; Ian Lovett from Bakersfield, Calif.; and Vindu Goel from San Francisco. Reporting was contributed by Richard Pérez-Peña from San Francisco, and Matt Hamilton, Brandon Shaw and Kimiya Shokoohi from Los Angeles.

A version of this article appears in print on November 23, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Immigration’s Turmoil? California Has Lived It.

In Alabama Town, Obama Immigration Move Brings Hope and Sneers


Albertville residents at a McDonald’s discussed President Obama’s immigration actions. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times

ALBERTVILLE, Ala. — Residents here have long grown accustomed to the bright flourish of Hispanic flavor that has come to define their otherwise traditional Southern downtown: The bustle of La Popular, the supermarket stocked with coconut and mango, across from the sober white steeple of the First Baptist Church. The restaurant called El Sol King Pollo, with its tripe tacos and menudo, across Main Street from the Paisley Patch Boutique, with its gingham backpacks and monogrammed gifts for children.

The wave of Latinos hit this small North Alabama town in the 1990s. Many were undocumented immigrants willing to kill and cut fowl on the lines of the region’s plentiful chicken plants.

Eventually Albertville, a city of 21,000, settled into its new reality, whether people liked it or not. And many have not.

“It’s been contentious at times, because it’s brought a lot of the unknown,” said Elizabeth Summers, managing editor of The Sand Mountain Reporter, a local paper. “And people don’t deal well with the unknown.”


What Is President Obama’s Immigration Plan?

The plan would grant as many as five million unauthorized immigrants temporary reprieve from deportation and provide many of them with authorization to work in the U.S.

OPEN Graphic

Like those in cities and towns across the country, people in Albertville Friday were trying to make sense of what will change and what will not after President Obama announced his executive action extending protections from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants.

For the group of early-bird regulars having breakfast at the local McDonald’s, the news was expected and unwelcome.

Joey Hartline, a local contractor, called Mr. Obama’s action an act of “domestic terrorism.”

“He needs to be arrested and tried for treason,” he said.

Others are already daring to hope. A few hours later at El Sol King Pollo — just before a lunch rush that would see the restaurant fill to capacity with white customers — Maria Garcia, a waitress, said that she hoped that Mr. Obama’s action would change her neighbors’ opinions about people like her.

“A lot of people don’t like us because we’re illegal,” said Ms. Garcia, 29. “But now we can emerge from the shadows, we can go into the streets without fear.”

White people, she said, often say that people like her do not pay taxes. No more.

“Now we will pay like any other person,” she said, adding: “It’s going to change this place a lot.”

The most important element of Mr. Obama’s action, announced Thursday night, will give temporary protection to immigrants like Ms. Garcia, who have lived in the country for five years, and whose children are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents (they must also prove that they have not committed serious crimes).

For the Latinos of Albertville, it marks a dramatic turnaround from 2011, when state legislators passed one of the nation’s toughest laws targeting illegal immigrants.

La Popular, the supermarket stocked with coconut and mango. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times

The goal, a sponsor said at the time, was to “make their lives difficult and they will deport themselves.” In Albertville, many Latino families vanished.

But the federal courts eventually rolled back many aspects of the law, and soon the immigrants were back, it seemed, in full force.

Those unable to lay low enough found themselves paying steep fines for driving without a license. Or worse.

“It has been the saddest thing for so many people who were here, and in every other way following the laws,” said Alejandro Silvestre, 36, a Guatemalan-born father of three and an owner of a strip-mall cellphone shop. “But they got grabbed and sent back to Guatemala or Mexico and their families stayed here. Sometimes their kids were raised by others. For me, thank God, that has never happened. But one is always thinking of that.”

Mr. Silvestre is among those who are hoping their lives will be transformed by Mr. Obama’s action. On Thursday evening, just before the president’s speech, he imagined the places in the United States he may soon visit without fear of being deported. “This is a great country,” he said, “but what does it matter if we are unable to travel and enjoy it?”

Other Hispanics were more skeptical. “Pura mentira” — pure lies, said José Perez, 37, a construction worker from Oaxaca, Mexico, on Thursday night. “It’s just going to be nice words. I doubt it’s going to change anything.”

The next morning, Gabriela Watson, an immigration attorney in downtown Albertville, said her phone had been ringing off the hook with clients who wanted to know when and how to apply.

She was telling them to gather their tax records, their children’s report cards, and other documents they could use to prove they had been here for five years.

“This new thing gives them hope,” she said.

But many whites said they felt stung by what they see as an audacious and unconstitutional move by a president that they never much cared for in the first place. Some worried that the action would trigger a new wave of illegal immigrants.

Maria Garcia, 29, a self-described illegal immigrant and a waitress at El Sol King Pollo. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times

Terry Chandler, a retired insurance agent, was sitting in the McDonald’s Friday morning with Mr. Hartline and a group of white and mostly older men.

A number of them said they were proud and respectful of the immigrants who elected to go through the legal and time-tested process of naturalization. But Mr. Obama’s action, they said, felt like a cheat.

Mr. Chandler said that the undocumented immigrants had been stressing the local health and school systems here without paying their way. It pained him that they were now being rewarded.

“It’s wrong,” piped in Julian Campbell, 80. “What about the people who come here and done it right?”

Elsewhere, opposition to the order was more visceral.

“Well, hell yeah, a big majority of them’s dirty,” said Kyle Davis, a former state trooper, perched on a folding chair in an auto supply shop. He was asked what effect the action might have on Albertville.

“It’s not going to get any better,” he said. “That’s pretty simple.”

But others had a more complex view. “I’m mixed about it,” said Jeff Richards, 50, a project manager at Carmon Construction. Mr. Richards said that he had a good friend who was undocumented, and a hard worker. “I’d probably have him in a supervisory role if he were legal, but I can’t,” he said.

Mr. Richards did not know if his friend would be eligible to stay in the country under Mr. Obama’s plan. But he said he wondered whether there were enough jobs to support all of the immigrants who will now enter the legitimate job market.

It was one reason to worry. But Alvaro Jaramillo on Friday only wanted to talk about the reasons to hope.

A 50-year-old waiter from nearby Guntersville, Ala., he figures he will be covered under the new amnesty. Once he knows he is shielded from deportation, he said, he plans to apply for a small-business loan and open his own restaurant.

“People will see it will be good for the country,” he said. “This will allow us to enter normal life along with them. And the economy will grow.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 22, 2014, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: In Alabama Town, Obama Immigration Move Brings Hope and Sneers

Amid Attacks, Obama Presses Congress to Move on Immigration



President Obama boarding Air Force One en route to a rally Friday at a Las Vegas high school. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

LAS VEGAS — President Obama opened up a campaign on Friday to convince Americans that five million undocumented immigrants should be protected from deportation as he told an audience of mostly Latino high school students that Congress had to revamp what he called the nation’s broken immigration system.

It was the same Las Vegas school where nearly two years ago Mr. Obama laid out principles that eventually became the core of a bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013, helped along by Republican worries that they were rapidly losing traction in states like Nevada, where Hispanic voters are among the fastest-growing constituency.

“Pass a bill,” Mr. Obama thundered to Republicans as he spoke at a rally of about 1,600 people in the Del Sol High School gymnasium. “You don’t need me to call a vote to pass a bill. Pass a bill.”

In Washington, Republicans continued to harshly criticize the executive actions the president announced on Thursday that will allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country and work legally without threat of deportation. Speaker John A. Boehner said Mr. Obama was “damaging the presidency itself” by abusing the power of his office, and accused the president of trying to “deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms that he claims to seek.”

Mr. Obama’s decision to act unilaterally on immigration, announced in a prime-time address on Thursday night, came after months of congressional gridlock, in which the broad immigration overhaul that passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support died in the Republican-controlled House.

On Friday, the president said he had no choice but to act on his own.

“It has now been 512 days, a year and a half, in which the only thing standing in the way of that bipartisan bill and my desk, so I can sign the bill, is a simple yes or no vote in the House of Representatives,” Mr. Obama told the enthusiastic crowd.

The president said that he had repeatedly urged Mr. Boehner to let the Senate bill come to a vote on the floor of the House, but to no avail. He said that he believed the Senate bill would have passed in the House if Mr. Boehner had let the full membership vote.

“I cajoled, and I called, and I met,” Mr. Obama said. “I told John Boehner I would — ‘Yeah, I’ll wash your car, I’ll walk your dog. Whatever you need to do, just call the bill.’ That’s how democracy is supposed to work. And if the votes hadn’t been there, then we would have had to start over, but at least give it a shot. And he didn’t do it.”

White House aides called the trip back to Del Sol High School an example of political “symmetry.” They said the president was eager to return to declare that he had made good — at least in part — on the promise he made on his earlier visit, in January 2013.

As an indication that the president’s actions fall short of what he and activists have long sought, Mr. Obama was interrupted during his speech by a heckler who appeared to yell that not all undocumented immigrants would be helped under the actions Mr. Obama announced Thursday.

“I heard you, and what I’m telling you is, we’re still going to have to pass a bill,” Mr. Obama said. “What I’m saying is, this is just a first step.”

Around the country, Mr. Obama’s critics began searching for ways to block his action. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., an ardent opponent of immigration, said the president was granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants and filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking “to have the president and the other defendants obey the U.S. Constitution.”

In Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, the state attorney general, promised to file a similar lawsuit. In a statement, he called the president’s executive actions “ill-advised, unworkable, unlawful and brazenly political.”

“The American people are not stupid, and can see right through this blatantly political power grab on the part of the president,” Mr. Pruitt said.

But the president’s executive action — and his call for congressional action — thrust Republicans into a political challenge of their own. In the run-up to his announcement and in the hours afterward, Republicans struggled to balance their anger over what they say is Mr. Obama’s abuse of power with their fears that they could damage the party’s standing with Latino voters, the nation’s fastest-growing minority, and imperil their agenda when they take over control of both chambers of Congress next year.

So Republicans have focused their fury on the president for what they call “executive amnesty.” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader, warned on Thursday against the president’s “brazen power grab.”

Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that the president’s actions were not only unconstitutional but also “a threat to our democracy.” He promised to “use every tool at my disposal to stop the president’s unconstitutional actions from being implemented.”

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, a longtime opponent of a broad immigration overhaul, said in a phone interview that Congress should fight back by funding all of the government except those agencies carrying out the president’s order.

“The president is the one who is acting provocatively, not the Congress,” Mr. Sessions said. “The last thing this Congress wants to do is have this kind of fight, but at some point the institution has to defend itself.”

However, the agency that will carry out most of the president’s actions, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is funded with application fees and does not rely on a budget vote in Congress to keep it operating. Traveling on Air Force One from Washington, Mr. Obama’s top aides waved aside the legal criticism and released a letter from 10 legal scholars who wrote that the president’s actions were proper.

“We would not endorse an executive action that constituted an abdication of the president’s responsibility to enforce the law or that was inconsistent with the purposes underlying a statutory scheme,” the scholars wrote. “But these limits on the lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion are not breached here.”

Mr. Obama traveled to Las Vegas with several Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who will lose his title as majority leader when the new Republican-controlled Congress convenes in January.

The visit was a public relations event designed to build support for the president’s actions even as it could help Mr. Reid attract support among Hispanics. An analysis of voting patterns by Latino Decisions found that Mr. Reid won nine out of 10 Latino voters in his 2010 re-election bid.

Michael D. Shear reported from Las Vegas, and Ashley Parker from Washington.

A version of this article appears in print on November 22, 2014, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Defending His Decision, Obama Presses Republicans to Move on Immigration

HACIENDO POLITICA (Editorial Diario La Hora, Guatemala)

Aplicar la acción ejecutiva para pasar una política migratoria que afecta a cerca de la mitad de migrantes indocumentados en Estados Unidos, ha sido una decisión política agresiva del presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, pues ante la pasividad y el chantaje conservador usó su poder ejecutivo para romper el nudo.

Obama ha decidido que, basado en principios muy básicos de humanidad, se le puede brindar oportunidades a aquellos que no han cometido más "delito" que ingresar indocumentados, pero que son motores laborales que merecen recibir beneficios y certeza a cambio de la tranquilidad de no ser deportados y de pagar una justa carga tributaria.

La política es muchas veces el arte de retorcer elementales principios para que haya quienes puedan aceptar argumentos, que si se revisaran con total seriedad y frialdad, terminarían siendo descartados por la estupidez con la que han nacido.

Dijo el Presidente que Estados Unidos no puede ser una sociedad y un país que se dedique a arrancar a los niños de los brazos de sus padres. Pero ese argumento, por ejemplo, termina siendo incomprensible para la más conservadora rama republicana y del Tea Party que siempre han tenido esa doble cara, hipócrita y falsa postura hacia los hispanos.

Y vamos a concentrarnos en dos de ellos: El Speaker John Boehner y Ted Cruz. Para empezar, creemos que queda claro que ninguno de ellos dos tienen apellidos de alguno de los grupos de Nativos Americanos, por lo que en algún momento sus antepasados habrán sido migrantes y más pena para Cruz que tiene un apellido hispano.

Pero dice Boehner que Obama tomando una decisión ejecutiva está equivocado y que aunque no es un emperador parece que está actuando como uno. Lo que no se da cuenta Boehner es que nuestros países han quedado en condiciones de desventaja por irresponsables que no asumen las decisiones políticas que privilegien al ser humano. Más que Obama pareciendo un emperador, Boehner actúa como esos chantajistas del poder que tenemos en nuestros congresos latinoamericanos por medio de un liderazgo de destrucción en lugar de oposición.

Al fin de cuentas, millones de hispanos estarán beneficiándose de una orden ejecutiva que será el inicio de una forzada reforma para esos héroes que muchos solo ven como los motores de la economía, tanto de los Estados Unidos como de nuestros países. En el fondo son madres, padres, hijos que han tomado la decisión más difícil dejando su país y rompiendo sus familias. Y, para terminar, si a los extremistas conservadores no les gusta que Obama haga política, repetimos el pedido del Presidente: Pasen una ley. Gracias a quienes defienden a nuestros ciudadanos en el exterior porque es lo menos que merecen. Gracias Presidente Obama.

Amigas y amigos, familia y personas cercanas,

El jueves pasado, el Presidente Obama de Estados Unidos manifesto ante su pais su disposicion de hacer profundas transformaciones, desde el Poder Ejecutivo, en la politica de inmigracion estadounidense. La reaccion Republicana ha sido feroz y amenazan con acciones de rechazo a todos los niveles. De esta suerte, se avecina una lucha en Estados Unidos en la que los latinos estaremos en el centro de la tormenta.

La Red por la Paz y el Desarrollo de Guatemala (RPDG), voz de la Diaspora guatemalteca, se ha pronunciado con el mensaje que se acompana, el cual felicita la actitud y acciones de Obama; pero tambien senala que falta mucho mas por hacer. Daremos la batalla por mantener el ofrecimiento de bloquear la deportacion de 5.0 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados; pero daremos una batalla aun mayor por cambiar de manera humanitaria la inoperante, ineficiente e inhumana Ley de Inmigracion.

Les traslado tambien mi mas reciente articulo, publicado en La Hora, periodico de Guatemala, en el cual senalo que si bien el fenomeno migratorio es muy importante para Estados Unidos, pais receptor, es ignorado por el Gobierno de Guatemala, pais expulsor. Las y los migrantes de Guatemala somos totalmente despreciados por el Presidente Perez y sus secuaces.

Queremos sensibilizarles, porque tambien se avecinan batallas importantes en el interior de Guatemala.


Raul Molina Mejia

P.O. Box 4209 – Grand Central Station – New York, NY 10163-4209 – USA


La Red por la Paz y el Desarrollo de Guatemala (RPDG) está firmemente convencida de que, después de muchos años de descuidar la situación de los “no ciudadanos de cuarta clase”, es decir, las y los inmigrantes indocumentados, constituyen hechos positivos medidas como el anuncio de hoy del Presidente Barack Obama sobre “Acciones Ejecutivas para la Inmigración”, con el propósito de incorporar libremente a Estados Unidos a las personas de buena voluntad. Lamentamos, no obstante, que, desafortunadamente, estas disposiciones ejecutivas excluyan a la mitad de las familias inmigrantes no autorizadas a residir en Estados Unidos. Todos los millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, que viven una vida clandestina dentro de una atmósfera de temor, han contribuido ya al desarrollo de la economía de Estados Unidos y el bienestar de las y los ciudadanos estadounidenses. Es tiempo de que se tomen medidas de reciprocidad. La ruta para lograr la residencia y la ciudadanía puede ser distinta por razones válidas; pero debe erradicarse la discriminación por origen, edad, etnicidad, idioma o aspectos culturales, género y orientación sexual, situación social y económica u otras condiciones igualmente inconstitucionales.

Desafortunadamente la inmigración de personas indocumentadas continuará. Es muy poderosa la atracción que ejerce la economía de Estados Unidos, ya sea de manera abierta u oculta, y la pobreza, la marginación y la falta de condiciones mínimas continúan expulsando a nuestra población, particularmente a nuestra juventud, de nuestras tierras. Estamos perdiendo nuestros mejores recursos y el potencial para nuestro futuro, mientras que en Estados Unidos muchos encuentran solamente empleo básico y mal remunerado, así como condiciones terribles. Además, sectores de este país siguen criminalizando a la gente que escapa del hambre y, a veces, también de la violencia en sus lugares de origen. Mientras tanto, la industria privada de las prisiones sigue acumulando grandes ganancias con el encarcelamiento de las y los inmigrantes.

Es tiempo de volver a pensar la inmigración como un fenómenos positivo que Estados Unidos necesita para sobrevivir y desarrollarse. Necesitamos un enfoque nacional y estamos dispuestos a contribuir al mismo; pero el Gobierno de Estados Unidos debe conducirlo. Para disminuir la inmigración desde América Latina, hemos venido sugiriendo que se transfieran los fondos para construir barreras físicas o electrónicas a construir el “muro de desarrollo”. Un plan semejante al Plan Marshall que se utilizó en Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial generaría mejores condiciones de desarrollo para México y América Central. Así, la inmigración se desaceleraría y se transformaría con el tiempo en una alianza para generar empleo, es decir, se convertiría en el libre flujo de recursos humanos.

La RPDG insta al Presidente Barack Obama y al Congreso de Estados Unidos a seguir tomando acciones positivas y entrar en la historia como dirigentes valientes, humanitarios y sabios. El veredicto de la historia vendrá del pueblo y no de los minúsculos sectores conservadores de Estados Unidos. Tenemos la confianza de que el Presidente Obama y el Congreso de Estados Unidos se inspirarán para abordar la inmigración de manera nueva e innovadora y adoptar políticas transformadoras para dar seguimiento a las acciones ejecutivas que se acaban de anunciar. Confiamos en que un nuevo conjunto de medidas humanas encuentre, a plazo corto y de manera permanente, la solución más inteligente y profunda a la cuestión inmigratoria.


Nueva York, 20 de noviembre de 2014.

Comité Ejecutivo de la Red por la Paz y el Desarrollo de Guatemala (RPDG)


P.O. Box 4209 – Grand Central Station – New York, NY 10163-4209 – USA


New York, November 20, 2014

The Guatemala Peace and Development Network (GPDN) firmly believes that, after so many years of neglecting the situation of “fourth-class non-citizens”—the undocumented immigrants in this country–measures such as the announcement of President Barack Obama Executive Action on Immigration is a welcome development to freely incorporate people of good will into the United States. We regret that unfortunately this executive order excludes out half of the unauthorized immigrant families. All those millions of undocumented immigrants who live a clandestine life within a climate of fear have already contributed to the development of the U.S. economy and the welfare of citizens of the United States. It is time to reciprocate. The path to resident status and citizenship may be different for valid reasons, but discrimination in terms of origin, age, ethnicity, language or cultural background, gender and sexual orientation, social and economic status, or any other unconstitutional conditions should be eradicated.

Unfortunately undocumented immigration will continue. The attraction, open or hidden, exerted by the U.S. economy is too powerful, and poverty, marginalization, and lack of minimum conditions continue to expel our population, particularly our youth, from our lands. We are losing our best resources and potential future, while in the U.S. many find only basic, underpaid jobs and terrible conditions. In addition, sectors of this country continue to criminalize people escaping starvation and, often, violence back home. Meanwhile the private prison industry is making huge profits from jailing immigrants.

It is time to rethink immigration as a positive phenomenon that the United States needs in order to survive and develop. We need a national approach and we are ready to contribute. The U.S. Government must take the lead. To stem immigration from Latin America, we have been suggesting redirecting the funds for physical and electronic walls into a “wall of development.” A plan similar to the Marshall Plan used in Europe after World War II would generate better conditions for development in Mexico and Central America. Immigration will then slow down, and eventually transform itself into a partnership for jobs, the free flow of human resources.

The GPDN calls on President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress to continue to act, and to go down in history as brave, humanitarian and wise leaders. History’s verdict will come from the people, not small conservative sectors in the United States. We hope President Obama and the U.S. Congress will be inspired to approach immigration in a new and innovative manner, and to produce groundbreaking policies to follow-up on the Executive Action just announced. We expect a new set of humane measures in the near future to permanently find the most sensible solution to the immigration issue.


Executive Committee of the Guatemala Peace and Development Network (GPDN)

Ley de migraciones en Chile: gobierno estima presentarla el 2015

Según Rodrigo Sandoval, jefe nacional de Extranjería y Migración del Ministerio del Interior, después de procesos participativos con diferentes sectores, incluyendo a organizaciones migrantes, el gobierno elaborará las indicaciones sustitutivas al proyecto de ley que hoy descansa en el Congreso.

Por Leyla Noriega Z…

14 de Noviembre, 2014 16:11

Tras las denuncias de insultos xenofóbicos por parte de hinchas de O’Higgins al futbolista de San Marcos de Arica y seleccionado venezolano, Emilio Renteria, reveló una de las caras negativas de la sociedad chilena: la discriminación a las y los migrantes.

Casos como el que vivió el deportista, parecen más cotidianos de lo que nos imaginamos, ¿acaso estamos reconociendo que discriminamos o se denuncia en mayor cantidad?

“Tenemos un estudio que dan cuenta que de las y los chilenos encuestados, el 38 por ciento reconocer haber sido discriminador, y de esos el 25 por ciento señala haberlo sido por razones de nacionalidad”, citó Rodrigo Sandoval Ducoing, jefe nacional de Extranjería y Migración del Ministerio del Interior.

El personero de gobierno analizó que “es preocupante, pero es esperanzadora, porque si se hace una segregación etaria de esa cifra, se da cuenta que la población mayor que reconoce haber sido discriminadora se encuentra entre los 20 y 28 años, lo que podría ser preocupante. Yo creo que no, la población más joven es más exigente que los más adulta, entonces se dan cuenta con mayor claridad cuando discrimina”.

Sandoval argumentó que la gente más joven visualiza con mayor claridad “los lenguaje son ofensivos, que existen lógicas discriminatoria que son perversas, y que no corresponden a la sociedad que estamos construyendo”.

Y es en esa construcción de sociedad, donde la legislación actual en materia migratoria en Chile se ha quedado atrás. Hoy se hace necesario una ley que deje atrás solo la visión de control fronterizo por una ley con enfoque de derechos humanos, donde el Estado resguarde el derecho a migrar de las personas.

La herencia de Piñera

“Existe un proyecto de ley presentado en el gobierno anterior, valoramos el hecho que el gobierno anterior que tuviera el coraje sobre una materia que demanda una modificación profunda y urgente”, reconoció el jefe nacional de Extranjería y Migración.

Entonces ¿presentarán un proyecto nuevo o modificaciones al de Piñera?

“El proyecto de ley en sí mismo, tampoco nos merece reparos tan graves, da cuenta de una realidad migratoria que está bien analizada, sin embargo, en algunos aspecto del mensaje y sobre todo del contenido, nos parece algunas dudas, otros cuestionables y en otros estamos en contra, pero hay algunos otros que son favorables. Por lo tanto, la decisión del Ejecuto de momento es avanzar en una indicación sustitutiva profunda, importante y drástica del proyecto de ley que se encuentra en trámite, eso no descarta la alternativa que en algún momento se resuelva un proyecto de ley nuevo”.

¿Y cuándo conoceremos la indicación sustitutiva profunda?

“Comienza el proceso de discusión a nivel nacional con organizaciones de migrantes, después escucharemos a las empresas, organismos públicos, municipalidades. Para enero, febrero del 2015 vamos a estar redactando un proyecto de ley o las indicaciones sustantivas que será conocida por el Consejo de Política Migratoria. En marzo o abril estará en condiciones para el debate público respecto a un articulado completo. Y en la parte final del segundo semestre del 2015, es cuando queremos hacer ingreso de la nueva iniciativa legislativa en el Congreso Nacional”.

Y mientras tanto…

En la espera que tenga luz verde una nueva normativa en materia migratoria, los decretos, reglamentos y leyes vinculadas existente hoy en Chile se siguen aplicando con criterios, en ocasiones, cuestionados.

“Tenemos que avanzar en las modificaciones legislativas, pero eso no son tiene que hacer olvidar que suceden cosas que no son la que corresponden en una República con vocación de acogida que queremos tener. Específicamente con la PDI, le hemos hecho presente la existencia de cuestionamiento de organizaciones desde derechos humanos con respecto a los migrantes”, comentó Sandoval,

Explicó que la “normativa tiene su forma de aplicar, ahí también hay un margen para el criterio, al que apelamos con respecto a ciertas situaciones en las cuales si es verdad que existe el argumento forma para impedir el ingreso a una persona, también existe la posibilidad de dar lugar formal al ingreso”.

Migraciones: Colombianos y españoles son los que más vienen al Perú a trabajar

Domingo 16 de noviembre del 2014 | 17:39

Los europeos vienen a trabajar en los sectores minería, hidrocarburos y pesca, mientras que los sudamericanos optan por la industria textil.

En este año llegaron unos 10.247 inmigrantes a trabajar de forma legal en Perú, en su mayoría colombianos y españoles, informó este domingo la Superintendencia Nacional de Migraciones.

Esta cantidad es mayor a la de 2013, que fue de 10.203 inmigrantes, y un 43% más que en 2012, que llegó a 7,135 personas.

En el 2014 los inmigrantes que llegaron a Perú para trabajar fueron 2.523 colombianos, 1.371 españoles, 878 argentinos, 738 chilenos y 715 ecuatorianos, entre otros, señaló Migraciones.

Los sectores que generan más interés para los españoles son la minería, los hidrocarburos y la pesca. En el caso de los colombianos, es la industria textil.

Ronald Ríos, gerente de Servicios de Migraciones de la Superintendencia, señala que el permiso para trabajar se da en un plazo de 60 días, siempre que tengan sus documentos legales.

“Existen trámites que demoran un año, pero se debe a que los trabajos a que llegan necesitan mayor fiscalización o porque provienen de países lejanos y su documentación demora en llegar”, dijo, el funcionario al diario El Comercio.

El permiso laboral se simplifica para los ciudadanos extranjeros cuyos países tienen acuerdos con Perú, como los del Mercosur (Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, y Uruguay), Argentina y España, informó Ríos.

Rescatan en selva de Perú a 60 mujeres víctimas de trata

Noviembre 18, 2014 0

La Policía Nacional de Perú rescató este fin de semana a 60 mujeres de cuatro prostíbulos en la región selvática de Madre de Dios durante una operación policial contra la minería ilegal, informó hoy un comunicado del ministerio del Interior.

Las mujeres, de entre 20 y 27 años, eran supuestamente víctimas de trata de personas y ejercían la prostitución en bares que funcionaban como prostíbulos en una zona denominada como La Pampa, donde existe una concentración de mineros ilegales.

En el operativo se detuvieron a doce personas y participaron 900 agentes, entre ellos 40 miembros de la Dirección de Investigación de Delitos de Trata de Personas y Tráfico Ilícito de Migrantes (Dirintrap).

Las presuntas prostitutas procedían de regiones cercanas a Madre de Dios, como Puno, Cuzco, Arequipa, Ucayali y Tacna, y fueron halladas en bares que se nombraban “La Caribeña”, “La Rica Miel”, “Bienvenidos” y “La Academia”, “donde en realidad se ejercía la prostitución”, según el comunicado.

Tras el operativo, doce de las sesenta mujeres rescatadas de los prostíbulos decidieron acogerse al programa de la Unidad de Asistencia a Víctimas y Testigos (Udavit) del la Fiscalía, mientras las 48 mujeres restantes prefirieron regresar a la zona de La Pampa.

Las doce mujeres que decidieron dejar la prostitución fueron acogidas en una casa refugio a cargo del gobierno regional de Madre de Dios y del Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables (MIMP), donde recibirán asistencia médica, psicológica y legal.

Las mujeres que regresaron a La Pampa están identificadas y, según el ministerio, tendrán un seguimiento a cargo de la secretaría técnica del grupo de trabajo multisectorial permanente contra la trata de personas para prevenir su reinserción en la prostitución en situación de explotación.

13/11/2014 14:55

Líderes inmigrantes se reúnen bajo el lema "ningún ser humano es ilegal"

El Encuentro Nacional de Líderes Inmigrantes en Argentina analizarán, en Neuquén, el viernes 14 y el sábado 15, la situación de los migrantes en el país.

Por Redacción LAVOZ

Bajo la premisa "Ningún ser humano es ilegal", se celebrará el Encuentro Nacional de Inmigrantes de Argentina en Neuquén, los días viernes 14 y sábado 15 próximos. La reuníón es la primera en su tipo.

La Pastoral de Migraciones del Obispado de Neuquén, junto con la Clínica de Migración y Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Nacional del Comahue y la Municipalidad de la ciudad de Centenario, organizan este evento con motivo de cumplirse el 10º aniversario de la sanción de la Ley nacional de Migraciones 25.871.

Jorge Muñoz, coordinador de la clínica de Migración y Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Nacional del Comahue, aseguró que pese a que este año se realizaron varias celebraciones por los 10 años de la ley, los inmigrantes no han hecho oir su postura. "Es por ello que representantes de ONG de migrantes de Neuquén, Cordoba, Mendoza y Buenos Aires hemos convocado a los compañeros para encerrarnos y discutir dos días sobre esta maravillosa ley y hacer un balance, no desde las oficinas gubernamentales, sino desde los barrios, las villas. De escuchar de alguna forma la voz del ciudadano a pie", subrayó Muñoz.

"Es un orgullo ser una de las instituciones que hemos convocado", dice la presienta de la Unión de Colectividades de Inmigrantes de Córdoba (Ucic), Marta Guerreño López "Creo que es muy valioso que seamos nosotros mismos quienes nos autoconvoquemos. No estamos esperando que solo los estudiosos y académicos piensen por nosotros, sino nosotros mismos pensarnos como ciudadanos con derechos a hacer oír también nuestra voz", agregó.

"Creemos que podemos aportar desde nuestras experiencias y pensar que los migrantes del interior tenemos también voz, es lo más importante. Por ejemplo la Mesa de Dialogo que se creó en Buenos Aires convoca a las ONG que están en la Capital Federal y el resto ni figuramos en las intenciones", puntualizó Guerreño López.

Este encuentro, es el primero pensado por los propios migrantes, la Dirección Nacional de Migraciones, la Cámara de Diputados, la Cámara Senadores y la Legislatura de Neuquén, entre otros. Varios municipios lo declararon de interés institucional

Ana Pimental , integrante del equipo de la pastoral de Neuquén informó que serán dos jornadas de trabajos intensos. Discusiones y debates, en torno a los avances de la Ley de Migraciones

Rescató que esta ley es muy “generosa”, comparándola con la anterior. No obstante, dijo que hay aun aspecto s a resolver, tales son las partes que se refiere al acceso a la salud.

Unos 150 Líderes estarán trabajando en Neuquén algunos durante dos días y otros cuatro días para pensar al migrante como un ciudadano con plenos derechos.

Qué es la mesa de diálogo. El 4 de junio de 2014 convocado por la Dirección Nacional de Migraciones (DNM) se formalizó el primer encuentro con Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil, para profundizar y fortalecer el espacio de interacción, identificar dificultades de consulta y concertación sobre acciones de gestión a emprender y su implementación , así como identificar dificultades, obstáculos o programas de la política actual y evaluar propuestas, iniciativas o proyectos sobre los distintos aspectos del proceso migratorio entre otros objetivos.

Hasta la fecha ninguna institución del interior recibieron invitación para ser parte, pese a que algunos como Ucic, manifestaron su ferviente deseo de ser parte.

Por Marta Guerreño López, presidenta de la Unión de Colectividades de Inmigrantes de Córdoba (Ucic).


Carta a Obama 21 nov castellano.pdf

Letter to Obama after his statement 21 nov.pdf

Migración tema central en EEUU e ignorado por el Patriota.docx



Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )


Conectando a %s