É com satisfação que o Centro Scalabriniano de Estudos Migratórios – CSEM publica o relatório MULHER MIGRANTE: Agente de resistência e transformação, a qual inaugura a linha de pesquisa Mulher migrante.
O objetivo foi o de identificar as dificuldades enfrentadas por mulheres migrantes ao se estabelecerem em outros países e o de compreender as estratégias por elas desenvolvidas para a superação das diversas situações de dificuldade que encontram na vivência em outro país, o que chamamos de resistência, partindo do entendimento de que são agentes de transformação.
Participaram da pesquisa mulheres paraguaias no Brasil, brasileiras nos Estados Unidos, haitianas na República Dominicana, colombianas no Equador, filipinas na Itália e nicaraguenses na Costa Rica. Esses países e fluxos foram selecionados por existir neles um trabalho pastoral da Congregação das Irmãs Missionárias Scalabrinianas junto aos migrantes.
A análise envolve as dimensões: afetiva, profissional, social e religiosa, no que se refere ao âmbito pessoal e íntimo da mulher migrante. Além dessas, é possível destacar três fatores que perpassam o universo da pesquisa: a mobilidade social, as redes sociais e a dimensão do retorno.
Além de apresentar uma descrição e análise dos dados da pesquisa, pretende-se com este relatório apontar as lacunas e aspectos que precisam ser aprofundados em estudos futuros sobre as mulheres no contexto das migrações internacionais, uma vez que pretende aprofundar um debate que contribua com a formulação de políticas públicas orientadas para a proteção das mulheres migrantes e suas famílias.
European study reports on the use of detention across the EU
December 6, 2014
A new synthesis report published by the European Migration Network has reviewed the situation with regard to immigration detention across the EU. It recorded the fact that 92,500 people were detained for immigration reasons in the region during 2013.
During that year the country which detained the highest number of non-citizens was France (including French overseas territories) (38,266), followed by Spain (9,020), Hungary (6,496), Bulgaria (6,303), and Belgium (6,285). On the other hand, the lowest number of immigration detainees was reported in Estonia (94), Slovakia (204), Latvia (221), and Lithuania (243).
In terms of variations of the number of detained migrants, between 2009-2013 the highest increase was observed in Bulgaria (by more than 600 percent) and Hungary (by 226 percent). On the other hand, the greatest decrease was recorded in Slovakia (by 65 percent) and the Netherlands (by 53 percent).
With regard to length of detention, the report found that average length of detention for 2013 across these (Member) States was around 40 days. The highest average detention period in 2013 in 17 member states for which data was available was recorded in (180 days) and Estonia (58 days), while the lowest average number of days was observed in Sweden (5 days) and Finland (11.8 days) and in metropolitan France (11.9 days).
The EU Reception Conditions Directive has been amended to include a list of circumstances which justify detention of asylum seekers. The deadline for transposition of the list is set for July 2015 and to date only a handful of countries have already transposed it.
The report defines immigration detention as a non-punitive administrative measure. Yet two out of the listed grounds appear to go beyond administrative migration-enforcement rationale. Critics have argued that these grounds, the individual posing a threat to national security and public order and risk that the non-citizen will commit a criminal offence, should be subject to criminal rather than migration laws. Conflating the functions of these distinct branches of law creates confusion and feeds negative perception about migrants amongst the public.
De Blasio to Host Mayors at Immigration Forum
By KIRK SEMPLE – DEC. 6, 2014
Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York spoke on Friday about immigration reform at the third annual Local Progress forum at City Hall. Credit Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times
If Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York heard the death knell for comprehensive immigration reform this year, he is paying it no heed.
Undaunted by Republican resistance in Congress and the midterm election results, Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, is trying to marshal a lobby of the country’s municipalities, led by a coalition of Democratic mayors, to jump-start the campaign to overhaul immigration legislation.
“The only way to get to comprehensive legislation is to intensify that fight,” he said. But largely absent from the struggle, he added, has been what he called “the voice of cities.”
To that end, 20 Democratic mayors from around the country, as well as top officials from several other cities, will gather Monday in New York City for a one-day summit meeting that will be part campaign planning session, part pep rally.
The initiative, part of Mr. de Blasio’s push to galvanize the progressive elements of the Democratic Party, echoes a task force of mayors that he formed over the summer to address income inequality. In an interview on Friday, he expressed confidence that a lobby for the reform of immigration legislation could still get traction in Washington well before the next presidential election.
“I think we’re in a very fluid dynamic,” he said. “We’ve seen a lot of things change in the national debate very rapidly.” As an example, he cited the drastic shift in the national conversation about marriage equality. In a similar way, he argued, immigration politics on Capitol Hill lagged behind sentiment in the rest of the country.
An impetus for the summit meeting, which will take place at Gracie Mansion on Monday after a reception on Sunday night at City Hall, was President Obama’s recently announced executive actions that will provide protection from deportation and work permits to as many as five million immigrants who are in the country illegally.
While a longer-term goal of the mayoral coalition, named Cities United for Immigration Action, will be to push for comprehensive reform legislation, a more immediate goal will be to help put Mr. Obama’s initiatives into effect.
“What we’re trying to do is amplify a historical moment,” Mr. de Blasio said. “We’re trying to take the president’s actions, defend it and support it.” Though planned last month, the meeting comes days after a group of 20 states filed a federal lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s decision.
Mr. Obama’s initiatives, which were announced on Nov. 20 and are scheduled to go into effect next year, will demand extraordinary coordination between municipal and state agencies, as well as immigration service providers, as millions of immigrants seek to apply for the benefits.
In a series of closed-door sessions on Monday, the mayors, joined by senior White House officials and Jeh C. Johnson, the Homeland Security secretary, plan to discuss the details of the executive actions and their implementation. Participants also intend to share the best practices for coordinating bureaucracies, collaborating with other government authorities and supporting community-based organizations that provide services to undocumented immigrants.
Staff members from the mayors’ offices will meet separately to discuss “the nuts and bolts of implementation, the boots-on-the ground effort,” said Nisha Agarwal, commissioner of Mr. de Blasio’s Office of Immigrant Affairs.
The participants will draw in part from their experiences with the immigration program started in 2012 by Mr. Obama that granted deportation protections to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. One of the biggest challenges was increasing the participation rates, especially in some states with large, diverse immigrant populations, like New York.
“This is the biggest news for America’s cities in a long time and I think it’s America’s mayors that will lead on this issue,” Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, a member of the coalition, said in an interview. “We’re going to share what works, we’re going to be a part of a nationwide chorus, letting people know that their city governments are ready, willing and able to assist.”
Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, another coalition member, said that as his city’s immigrant population continues to soar — it grew 20 percent from 2000 to 2012, he said, compared with less than 1 percent for the native-born population — his administration is eager to learn the best ways to foster a welcoming, diverse city.
“We are really on the front lines of integrating foreign-born residents into the life of the city and the region,” he said.
To further the long-term agenda — pressing for comprehensive immigration legislation — Mr. de Blasio will use the meeting to chart a plan for the coalition to demand congressional action.
He said he planned to form an office — called the “War Room of Mayors” to coordinate the effort, which would include reaching out to other municipal leaders, state officials and community groups; holding a national day of action; and pressing legislators.
Mr. de Blasio’s effort is reminiscent of an initiative by his predecessor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who also enlisted mayors of cities with large immigrant populations, along with top business leaders, to push for comprehensive immigration reform.
But while Mr. Bloomberg’s group, Partnership for a New America, included both Republicans and Democrats, Mr. de Blasio’s summit has an unabashedly partisan cast: No Republican mayors are attending. Some were invited but declined to attend, city officials said.
The absence of like-minded Republican mayors seemed to disappoint at least one member of the new coalition.
“I could have found him a couple,” Mr. Garcetti said. “I think whatever we can do to remind policy makers that this has the broadest possible support is critical to our success.”
Mr. de Blasio was unapologetic. “Our goal here is to build a coherent group of people,” he said. “Some gatherings prize bipartisanship so much that they achieve nothing.”
A version of this article appears in print on December 7, 2014, on page A30 of the New York edition with the headline: De Blasio to Host Mayors at Immigration Forum
Fleeing Violence in Honduras, a Teenage Boy Seeks Asylum in Brooklyn
By JOHN LELAND – DEC. 5, 2014
Alejandro Rodriguez in his neighborhood in Brooklyn. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
Here is Alejandro Rodriguez, 15, on a Sunday afternoon in Sunset Park, walking under a tree with his father, wishing he were playing soccer with his friends. And here he is on a rainy afternoon at Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School in Brooklyn, spiky bangs pushed down toward his dark brown eyes, raising his hand in a class for English-language learners.
“I eat pizza sometimes,” Alejandro said, filling in the last word.
He speaks guardedly around grown-ups, and stares into his smartphone when he gets bored or uncomfortable. He likes math, soccer and the band Linkin Park.
In one month this spring, gangs in his hometown in Honduras tortured and killed seven or eight children his age or younger, then threatened to kill him and his brother if they did not join the gang. The boys had no adults to protect them.
Now Alejandro, whose given name is Isaid, is in a deportation proceeding, one round face in the surge of unaccompanied minors who poured across the border from Central America this spring and summer.
Alejandro with his father, Luis Rodriguez. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
Immigration agents picked up 68,541 unaccompanied children at the southwest border in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, up 77 percent from the previous year. More than 5,000 were then transferred to family members or other sponsors in New York City and on Long Island.
Alejandro and his younger brother Jeffrey, 13, were two of that number, picked up along the border in July, then placed on a plane by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. They were two boys who had grown into teenagers in one of the world’s most dangerous environments, going to meet a father who had not seen them since they were little. Alejandro worried before the meeting, he said, speaking Spanish through an interpreter. “I didn’t know if I would recognize him,” he said of his father, even though they had communicated regularly by Skype.
For their father, Luis Rodriguez, 31, the arrival of his children at the border was both a danger and a gift — he had unlawfully come to the country around a decade ago and had avoided involvement with immigration officials. Now they had his name, address and phone number.
He, too, was anxious about the reunion. “My fear was that they weren’t going to have that love for their father,” he said, also speaking through an interpreter.
When Mr. Rodriguez saw Alejandro and his brother at the airport, he cried. “I felt their affection immediately,” he said. “I felt in the hug that they needed me.” He took risks by talking to Customs. But he said, “It was worth it because this will be our first Christmas together since he was 5.”
Alejandro and Jeffrey were born in San Pedro Sula in northwestern Honduras, the country’s second-largest city. Their mother was gone from their lives when they were quite young, and Mr. Rodriguez left for the United States when Alejandro was 5 or 6, planning to return after a few years. Even then, violence was a problem in San Pedro Sula, Mr. Rodriguez said.
It exploded after a 2009 military coup, as drug cartels and gangs waged open warfare in the streets. From 2011 to 2013, the city had the highest murder rate in the world, according to a Mexican research group, the Citizen Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice (the group’s study did not include the Middle East). Of the children detained by United States immigration agents, more come from San Pedro Sula than from any municipality in the world, according to the Pew Research Center — 2,200 from January to May alone.
In Honduras, Alejandro, living with his grandmother and missing his father, was left to watch over his younger brother. “He would ask why I had left, when I would return,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “Sometimes on birthdays he would want me to be there. My only hope was that we would someday be together.”
Alejandro, center, and his friend Carlos Castillo, right, at a Brooklyn N train station after school. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
Guns were everywhere, and gangs pressed teenage boys into service; girls were raped or sold. “Men would stop us when we were on our way to school and go through our things,” Alejandro said. Twice, gang members forced both boys from the bus, and several times they threatened Alejandro with guns, vowing to kill him if he did not join their gang, he said.
The boys asked their father to help them leave Honduras, but Mr. Rodriguez remembered his own trip north. He was beaten and robbed in Guatemala and Mexico, he said, at one point riding on the top of an infamous freight train known as the Beast. Mr. Rodriguez is a compact, genial man who smiles easily, but when he described his journey north, he stopped in tears.
“You could be assaulted, robbed or killed and left in the wild as if nothing happened,” he said. “These are not things you want for your kids.” Even as their lives in Honduras became more and more precarious, he told them not to come north.
Then on Mother’s Day in 2011, armed men arrived on motorcycles at Alejandro’s grandmother’s house.
“Suddenly they stopped and opened fire without saying anything,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “Alejandro and his brother ducked under a car in order to escape the bullets, but their uncle was killed.” The gunmen told Alejandro and Jeffrey that if they went to the police, “they would have to face the consequences,” Mr. Rodriguez said.
As his father spoke, Alejandro seemed to withdraw from the conversation, revealing no emotion. He is hard to read, often omitting or glossing over what are clearly horrific experiences.
Rebecca Press, a lawyer at Central American Legal Assistance who is representing Jeffrey (who declined to speak for this article) and Alejandro, said the boys’ experience was typical among her clients. “The young people we come in contact with have been exposed to high levels of violence and been threatened themselves,” she said. “There’s a level of trauma that nobody seems to be dealing with.”
Even in a town as violent as San Pedro Sula, the killing of children this spring was shocking. The children had been kidnapped, tortured and executed, probably for not cooperating with gangs. After that, the gangs stepped up their threats against Alejandro and his brother, Ms. Press said.
Alejandro’s friends in his hometown, San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Credit From Alejandro Rodriguez’s Facebook page
In early June, the boys saw a news program about American immigration officials’ allowing unaccompanied minors into the country. The report was false, but the boys had no way of knowing that.
Two weeks later they left home, carrying a change of clothes, water and some food. Because of their father’s opposition, they did not tell anyone they were leaving. Alejandro wore a knife on a chain under his shirt. They had 6,000 lempiras (about $283), which Alejandro divided among hiding places on his body.
On a series of buses, they crossed borders into Guatemala and then Mexico, meeting other travelers on the same route. Alejandro stayed awake, keeping watch over his brother. For days they talked as little as possible, so that their accents would not give them away as foreigners.
Transfer points were the most dangerous. Three times they saw fellow passengers robbed or beaten by gangs, but no one bothered them. After the third robbery, near the United States border, they found a pay phone and called their father. “We told him that we were already in Mexico and could not turn back,” Alejandro said.
Mr. Rodriguez had been frantic since learning the boys had left home five days earlier. “I was happy to hear from them but was also angry at the same time because of what they had done,” he said.
By then they were part of a group of about six, the others all adults. The group crossed the Rio Grande into Texas by makeshift raft, just branches tied together with shoelaces. Their plan was to seek border agents on the other side, rather than risk wandering on their own in the June heat. “We thought we might get lost and never be seen again,” Alejandro said.
They found agents soon enough, officers who had detained a group of migrants ahead of Alejandro’s group. At an intake area, the agents gave them food and a change of clothes, and questioned them: Where were they from? How old were they? Why did they leave?
“I thought I was going to be sent back, because there was not a lot of space and a lot of people,” Alejandro said. “If you have a bad attitude, you’re sent back. We were very quiet.” Then the agents asked the boys for their father’s contact information.
A police official at a site there where a gang massacred 12 people in 2013. Credit Ian Willms for The New York Times
Alejandro was vague about how long they were held in Texas. Maybe it was three days, maybe longer. Finally they were put on a 2 a.m. flight to La Guardia Airport.
In New York, there were adjustments to make. The streets and language were alien. Their father had started a new life, with a wife and a son; his apartment, a studio, was barely big enough for the three of them, let alone the addition of two adolescent boys. Mr. Rodriguez worked in an auto body shop, earning $800 a week — enough to support them, he said, since he had previously been sending money for the boys to Honduras. His wife, from El Salvador, stayed at home.
For many families, reunification comes with tension and recriminations. But if there are stresses in Alejandro’s home, neither he nor his father let on.
The boys were directed to appear on Sept. 11 in Federal Immigration Court, part of an accelerated docket for minors that was created to discourage children from crossing the border. At the courthouse they were met by representatives of the city’s Departments of Education and of Health and Mental Hygiene, who helped them enroll in school and in a free health insurance program. The Department of Homeland Security provided a list of free lawyers, including Ms. Press’s group.
Ms. Press filed petitions for asylum, a process separate from Immigration Court, on Nov. 13. If the petitions are denied, the case will proceed in court.
On a rainy morning before Thanksgiving, the halls of Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School sang with polyglot chatter. Students there come from more than 50 countries, and 39 percent are classified as English-language learners, taking most of their classes in Spanish, Chinese or another language. Police officers monitor the halls, but there are no metal detectors for students to pass through. The school has a graduation rate slightly below the city average, but SAT scores are slightly higher. For Alejandro, who chose Roosevelt from a list of eight because he preferred a big school, this is his portal to his new life.
In algebra class, the teacher, Adnan Gomez, gave a word problem in English (“Julie lives four blocks east of F.D.R. and David lives four blocks west of F.D.R. …”) while addressing the students mostly in Spanish.
Moments later, Alejandro raised his hand to solve a simple problem. When Mr. Gomez asked him to explain his reasoning, he did so in Spanish.
Alejandro outside his school. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
At Roosevelt, Alejandro was placed in relatively low-level classes, primarily because of his deficiency in English, said Steven DeMarco, the school’s principal. Each day he has three classes in English as a second language. Alejandro said his grade point average was around 85. Mr. DeMarco said that teachers and guidance counselors watched students for signs of trauma, especially among recent arrivals from Central America — “changes in their personality or something they write” — but that they had not seen any signs so far. The school does not ask students their immigration status.
The city’s Education Department does not keep track of how many recent undocumented immigrants have been added to the school system, or whether they have exhibited any effects from past traumas, said Milady Baez, senior executive director of its Department of English Language Learners and Student Support.
On Thursday, guidance counselors citywide began a training program with the Center for Child Trauma and Resilience at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in response to the surge of unaccompanied minors. The training runs through June.
At school Alejandro plays on a soccer team with other recent immigrants. He made friends quickly, he said.
“We talk about how we arrived, how we’re feeling, how was the trip,” he said. “We all get sentimental.”
But he still gets uncomfortable around English speakers. “When I get lost in conversation, I go on my cellphone so I don’t feel awkward,” he said. People on the street, he added, “would look at me and I didn’t know if they were saying something bad about me.” In a strange city, he found it hard to ask for directions, even from adults, because he did not know whether he could trust them.
After school one day, Alejandro and some Spanish-speaking friends were waiting for the subway, listening to music on a portable stereo, when another group of teenagers started yelling at them. “They said they didn’t want to listen to music in Spanish,” Alejandro said. The words escalated into blows; one boy was smashed into a metal garbage bin, bloodying his mouth.
Typical teenage stuff — but for Alejandro, it can be life-altering. Any serious trouble with the police or at school might endanger his immigration case. “You have divisions in the cafeteria, and fights between Chinese, Latin, Arab and black kids,” Alejandro said. “They make fun of the way we speak, and the music.”
Alejandro practicing parkour moves during his subway trip home on Wednesday afternoon. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
Mr. Rodriguez said he had told Alejandro to keep his distance and to ask for help from teachers, security guards or police officers. “But he says, ‘If I’m attacked, I will defend myself,’ ” Mr. Rodriguez said.
When father and son watched President Obama’s prime-time speech last month announcing an executive order to grant temporary legal status for up to five million immigrants, their reaction was mixed.
Mr. Rodriguez can now live and work for three years without fear of deportation because his youngest child is an American citizen. But for Alejandro, the president’s words changed nothing.
Still, he said his life had improved since he came north. He feels secure on the streets in a way that was impossible in Honduras. He has friends who are helping him learn English.
His lawyer, Ms. Press, said he was a good candidate for asylum, with a decision likely in early 2015. Though he does not neatly fit into the law’s five eligibility groups — foreign nationals with a well-founded fear of persecution because of religion, race, nationality, political views or membership in a social group — asylum officers have interpreted the criteria broadly for minors, approving a much higher percentage of children than of adults. Because Alejandro witnessed his uncle’s killing and because he lacked “effective familial protection,” he could be considered part of an at-risk social group, Ms. Press said.
If that fails, she said, she will seek special immigrant juvenile status, for children who are abused, abandoned or neglected by one or both parents — in Alejandro’s case, by his mother. Even with the accelerated docket, a final hearing on that application would probably be two years away, she said.
In the meantime, he has soccer, school and a budding romance — interests that were perilous in Honduras, not so scary here. He has the luxury of thinking about the future.
He said he would like to be a police officer, to be “protecting people and cruising around.” That, too, was different from Honduras, where the police could be as dangerous as the gangs.
“Here you can serve calmly without fear of being killed,” he said. It seemed like a dream to him. “But you need 60 college credits,” he added, his spirit cooling at the thought.
He grinned a little bit. In time, that hurdle, too, might seem more manageable.
A version of this article appears in print on December 7, 2014, on page MB1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Asylum Seeker.
U.S. to Continue Racial, Ethnic Profiling in Border Policy
A United States Border Patrol agent checking passenger identifications on an Amtrak train in Depew, N.Y., in June. Credit John Moore/Getty Images
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon issue new rules curtailing the use of profiling, but federal agents will still be allowed to consider race and ethnicity when stopping people at airports, border crossings and immigration checkpoints, according to several government officials.
The new policy has been in the works for years and will replace decade-old rules that banned racial profiling for federal law enforcement, but with specific exemptions for national security and border investigations. Immigration enforcement has proved to be the most controversial aspect of the Obama administration’s revisions, and law enforcement officials succeeded in arguing that they should have more leeway in deciding whom to stop and question.
The administration is set to release the new rules in the midst of nationwide protests over recent decisions in New York and Ferguson, Mo., not to prosecute white police officers for the deaths of unarmed black men. President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have called for calm between law enforcement and minorities.
The new rules expand the definition of racial profiling to include religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the rules, law enforcement officials cannot consider any of those factors, along with race, during criminal investigations, or during routine immigration cases away from the border. Agencies whose officers make traffic stops, such as the United States Park Police, may not use them as a reason to pull someone over. The rules will apply to local police assigned to federal task forces, but not local police agencies.
The rules also eliminate the broad exemption for taking into account those factors in cases involving national security, but F.B.I. agents will still be allowed to map neighborhoods and use that data to recruit informants from specific ethnic groups.
The debate over racial profiling in immigration enforcement, however, has delayed the release of the new rules for months. Mr. Holder, who was leading the policy review, told colleagues that he believed that border agents did not need to consider race or ethnicity. But the Department of Homeland Security resisted efforts to limit the factors it can consider when looking for illegal immigrants. Department officials argued that it was impractical to ignore ethnicity when it came to border enforcement.
“The immigration investigators have said, ‘We can’t do our job without taking ethnicity into account. We are very dependent on that,’ ” said one official briefed on the new rules. “They want to have the least amount of restrictions holding them back.”
The effects of any rule change could be felt far from the border with Mexico or Canada. Federal agents have jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws within 100 miles of the borders, including the coastlines, an area that includes roughly a third of the United States, and nearly two-thirds of its population. Federal agents board buses and Amtrak trains in upstate New York, questioning passengers about their citizenship and detaining people who cannot produce immigration papers. Border Patrol agents also run inland checkpoints looking for illegal immigrants. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has called the existing rules “a license to profile.”
Under the new rules, agents in those instances will still be allowed to consider race, national origin and other factors that would otherwise be off limits, according to several officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the draft rules. In an apparent nod to its critics, the administration will conduct a separate review into how agents conduct screening, border interdiction and inspections, the officials said.
The leeway in the rules reflected the fact that Border Patrol agents face challenges that F.B.I. agents and drug investigators do not, one senior official said. “They have a very short period of time to make an assessment as to whether further inquiry needs to be given,” he said. The rules will include new training requirements and will require federal agents to keep records on complaints they receive about profiling, several officials said.
The Obama administration’s revisions come on the heels of the president’s decision to grant legal status to millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally. The new rules are likely to upset some of the advocacy groups that pushed hardest for that action. “Of course we are disappointed,” said Tanya Clay House, the public policy director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which has lobbied the administration on racial profiling for several years but has not been officially notified of the new rules. She said racial profiling is ineffective, both in general and at the border.
Mr. Holder, the nation’s first black attorney general, has spoken forcefully against racial profiling. He has recounted being stopped by the police as a college student and as a federal prosecutor. But while law enforcement officials were generally supportive of his efforts to broaden protections for minorities, Mr. Holder ran into objections on the issues of national security and border protection. F.B.I. agents opposed a wholesale ban on considering race and nationality in terrorism investigations. They said, for example, that an agent investigating the Shabab, a Somali militant group, must be able to find out whether a state has a large Somali population and, if so, where it is.
The Justice Department was prepared to announce its revisions to the racial profiling rules earlier this year, but the White House intervened and ordered a broad review that included the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of the Border Patrol. Because Mr. Holder cannot, on his own, tell another cabinet department what rules to follow, the new guidelines amount to months of negotiations between the Justice Department, Homeland Security and the White House. The broad exemptions for national security and immigration were eliminated, but several provisions remain.
The rules — both the current version and the revisions — offer more protection against discrimination than the Supreme Court has said the Constitution requires. The court has said that border agents may not conduct roving traffic stops simply because motorists appeared to be of Mexican descent, but agents at checkpoints may single out drivers for interviews “largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry.” The court ruled that the government’s interest in protecting the border outweighed the minimal inconvenience to motorists.
But Representative Beto O’Rourke, the Texas Democrat who represents the border city of El Paso, said that because the United States is so diverse, such policies unnecessarily expose millions of people to being stopped. “How can race help a Border Patrol agent or customs officer do a better job in a city like El Paso, where 85 percent of the people are Hispanic?” Mr. O’Rourke said.
Last year, the Border Patrol settled a racial-profiling lawsuit in which Washington State residents accused border agents of racial profiling while making traffic stops near the Canadian border. The government admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to retrain its agents on the profiling rules.
Like the existing rules, the new guidelines prohibit federal agents from relying on broad stereotypes — that members of a certain race are more likely to deal drugs than others, for example. But the authorities can consider race when responding to specific leads, such as when a witness describes a gunman as tall, white and blond.
A version of this article appears in print on December 6, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. to Continue Racial Profiling in Border Policy
On War and Immigration, Obama Faces Tests of Authority From Congress
Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has forced the Foreign Relations Committee to vote on authorizing force against the Islamic State. Credit Yuri Gripas/Reuters
WASHINGTON — Congress moved on two fronts Thursday to test the limits of presidential authority, with a surprising maneuver in the Senate to begin debating President Obama’s war powers against the Islamic State and a vote in the House to prohibit him from enforcing his executive action on immigration.
With the two parties in a perpetual state of dispute, the actions represented a rare, if unplanned, shared view among liberals and conservatives: Through Congress’s passivity or its inability to compromise, it has ceded too much authority to an executive branch more than willing to step into the void.
Mr. Obama has angered Republicans on Capitol Hill by announcing that he would use his executive authority to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, a decision conservatives condemn as an abuse of his constitutional powers. And lawmakers in both parties have rebuked the president for executing a war in the Middle East that many believe has not been properly authorized by Congress.
House Speaker John A. Boehner has resisted efforts by conservatives to take a hard line on immigration. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The simultaneous moves in the two chambers demonstrated a strong desire to wrest some of that power back.
“The executive gets more powerful the more dysfunctional Congress gets,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, who supported forcing a vote to revisit the president’s war authority. “So there’s a natural transition of power away from the legislature to the executive when nothing can happen here.”
The action on Capitol Hill focused on two of the most urgent and divisive issues of the moment — immigration and war policy — and foreshadowed the kinds of debates likely to dominate the new Congress after it is sworn in next month. Adding more volatility to the mix will be the frenzied politics of a presidential campaign, which is likely to feature several members of Congress.
The dynamics of the 2016 campaign were on display as senators on the Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly found themselves confronting the question of war against the Islamic State.
It began with procedural sleight of hand by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is expected to seek the Republican nomination for president and has positioned himself as a less hawkish alternative to the other potential candidates in his party.
Mr. Paul used a routine meeting over an unrelated issue — clean water — to force his colleagues to schedule a vote on authorizing force against the Islamic State. The committee agreed to move forward, though only after dissent from Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona who take a more traditional interventionist approach. Mr. McCain called Mr. Paul’s proposal, which would prohibit the use of ground forces in most cases and set strict time limits on the conflict, “crazy.”
A vote, on either Mr. Paul’s plan or a similar one, could happen as early as Tuesday. If a plan is approved, it would get a floor vote before the end of the year if Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to put it at the top of a crowded Senate calendar.
At issue is the administration’s position that it is justified in engaging in military activity today because of two acts of Congress that are now more than a decade old: a 2001 authorization passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, and a 2002 authorization sought by President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
“Thirteen years later, we are still working off a 2001 authorization that has led us to many places well beyond the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and the Foreign Relations Committee chairman.
Across the Rotunda, House Republicans turned their attention to the pressing matter of preventing a government shutdown when federal spending authority runs out on Dec. 11. The House on Thursday voted 219 to 197 in favor of a resolution by Representative Ted Yoho, Republican of Florida, to halt implementation of the president’s order stopping the deportations of millions of unauthorized immigrants. Three Democrats supported the measure, and three Republicans voted present.
But the vote was largely symbolic, enabling angry House Republicans to express displeasure with the president for altering the nation’s immigration policy without congressional approval. Mr. Reid has already made clear that he will not take up the House’s measure.
With immigration politics caught up in the fight over government spending, Thursday’s vote was part of a two-step strategy by House Republican leaders to corral their more conservative members and pass a broad spending bill so the government does not close on Dec. 11.
Next week, House Speaker John A. Boehner and his leadership team plan to bring to the floor legislation that would fund almost all of the government through the next fiscal year, while funding the Department of Homeland Security — the agency primarily charged with executing the president’s immigration policy — only into early next year. At that point, Republicans will control both chambers of Congress and believe they will have more political might to chip away at the president’s order.
Many Republicans see the new Congress as an opportunity to curtail presidential power.
“I think he’s abusing the powers of the presidency and he is setting a whole new bar in terms of executive overreach that this country has never seen before,” said Representative Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, who was elected as a senator last month.
But Republicans face their own divisions. Many of the more conservative members pushed Mr. Boehner to take a harder line against the president. Mr. Boehner instead is prepared to go around them and rely on Democrats to pass his bill.
Both Mr. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, believe the bill could pass with bipartisan support, but there are some policy differences to be bridged.
The decision by the Republican leadership to rely on Democrats has frustrated many of the House’s more conservative members. Representative Matt Salmon, Republican of Arizona, said Thursday’s vote was toothless. “I think it would be a lot cheaper and cost-effective and quicker to send the president a Hallmark card,” he said.
Some Republicans have urged Mr. Boehner to retaliate by canceling the president’s State of the Union address to Congress.
When asked if the State of the Union invitation was in jeopardy, Mr. Boehner responded with a laugh. “The more the president talks about his ideas, the more unpopular he becomes,” he said. “Why would I want to deprive him of that opportunity?”
A version of this article appears in print on December 5, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: On War and Immigration, Obama Faces Tests of Authority From Congress
November 21, 2014
How Obama’s executive action will impact immigrants, by birth country
While President Obama’s executive action expanding deportation relief to almost half (48%) of the total unauthorized immigrant population will cover people from countries around the world, those born in Mexico will feel the most impact under existing and new guidelines, followed by Central Americans.
The shares of unauthorized immigrants who will be eligible to participate in these programs are lower from the rest of Latin America, Asia and other regions of the world.
More than half of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico (55%) and Central America (51%) will be eligible for deportation relief under the new or existing programs. Obama’s action was particularly relevant for Mexican-born unauthorized immigrants: While only 11% of Mexican unauthorized immigrants were previously eligible for deportation relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program or through Temporary Protected Status (TPS), yesterday’s announcement will increase that share fivefold. By comparison, among the 51% of unauthorized immigrants born in Central America who will be now eligible for deportation relief, about half (26% of the total) had already been eligible under DACA or TPS.
Overall, 44% of Mexican unauthorized immigrants will be newly eligible under the programs announced Thursday, compared with just 24% of unauthorized immigrants from other countries.
About four-in-ten unauthorized immigrants who were born in the Caribbean (41%) or South America (37%) will be eligible for deportation relief this spring. This announcement will double the share of Caribbean unauthorized immigrants who are eligible for deportation relief (up from 21% under DACA and TPS), and triple the share among South Americans (up from 12%).
Among unauthorized immigrants born outside Latin America, the total share that will be eligible is somewhat smaller. About a third of unauthorized immigrants from Asia (34%) and about three-in-ten from the rest of the world will be eligible. Still, prior to yesterday’s announcement, just 10% or less of unauthorized immigrants from these countries had been eligible.
Under the prior DACA and TPS protections, Mexicans made up 44% of all the unauthorized immigrants eligible for deportation relief, while making up 52% of the total unauthorized immigrant population (no Mexicans are protected under TPS). The new executive action’s focus on length of residency and family status means that Mexicans will now be overrepresented in the share that is eligible for deportation relief, as Mexicans are more likely to have been here longer and to have families than most other unauthorized immigrant groups. Among those eligible for deportation relief in the spring, fully 67% are Mexican born, larger than their 52% share of the unauthorized immigrant population as a whole.
By contrast, unauthorized immigrants born in Central American were overrepresented under the original DACA and TPS programs, making up 30% of unauthorized immigrants previously eligible for deportation relief, but just 15% of the total unauthorized immigrant population. Once the new eligibility programs are in place, they will make up just 11% of all those eligible.
The countries of birth with the five largest U.S. unauthorized immigrant populations include three in Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Within these countries, the total share that will be eligible and the effect of the new eligibility guidelines vary greatly. Among unauthorized immigrants from El Salvador, the share eligible will increase to 63% from the 43% eligible under DACA and TPS. For those born in Guatemala, the share will rise to 37% from just 6%. And among those born in Honduras, the share will rise to 49% from 28%. The accompanying table provides details about the share of unauthorized immigrants affected by yesterday’s announcement in birth countries with at least 100,000 unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.
Correction: This posting has been updated with revised estimates for regions and countries, and with a new estimate of the share of unauthorized immigrants affected by the president’s program. Also, a previous version of this post referred to the president’s implementation of his new immigration policy as an executive order. He has taken executive action.
Eileen Patten is a Research Analyst at the Pew Research Center.
Comunicado de Salida
Caravana De Madres De Migrantes Desaparecidos
#puentes de esperanza #una década de lucha y de esperanza
México – Italia – Nicaragua – El Salvador – Honduras – Guatemala
Noviembre 20 a Diciembre 7 de 2014
Tapachula, Chiapas a 7 de diciembre del 2014.- La Comisión Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos (CIDH) emitió el día 5 del presente un comunicado de prensa después de su visita a Honduras, que refleja la situación de los derechos humanos en este país, condición que consideramos son similares en toda la región. La CIDH da a conocer “los alarmantes niveles de violencia, que se ubican entre los más altos del mundo… que hay desapariciones, altos niveles de violencia de género y conflictos agrarios que también producen hechos de violencia, entre otros graves crímenes, que tienen lugar en un contexto de gran impunidad, resultado de la debilidad institucional, la corrupción y la falta de independencia del Poder Judicial, entre otros factores… La falta de investigación y la impunidad en la que permanece la enorme mayoría de las violaciones a los derechos humanos, alimentan una espiral creciente de violencia. Además de dejar a las víctimas sin acceso a la justicia, la impunidad afecta negativamente a toda la sociedad… que recibe el mensaje de que esta violencia es inevitable”.
Si este reporte nos suena familiar es porque entre los países de la región, las condiciones sólo se diferencian por el grado de intensidad, pero todas son similares y afectan principalmente a las poblaciones más pobres y vulnerables de manera tan brutal, que provocan el desplazamiento forzoso de hombres, mujeres y niños por igual de sus lugares de origen, quienes al no soportar la violencia extrema – económica, política y social se ven obligados a luchar por sus derechos y calidad de vida o por preservar la vida misma siendo así expulsados de sus países.
Desde hace 10 años en caravanas como la que hoy concluye y a la que vienen con la esperanza de encontrar a sus seres queridos que desaparecieron cuando cruzaban por territorio Mexicano; las madres y familiares centroamericanas, han venido denunciando las violencia que padecen los migrantes en México.
En esta ocasión mientras la caravana de las madres centroamericanas pisa por décima ocasión el suelo Mexicano, de manera simultánea, por primera vez, la caravana para los Derechos de los Migrantes, la Dignidad y la Justicia, recorre también Italia, dos países que están tan lejos y al mismo tiempo tan cerca. Ambos tienen los mismos patrones de corrupción, de presencia del crimen organizado, que incluso controla gran parte de sus territorios. Implementan las mismas políticas migratorias de control, detención y deportación que sólo criminaliza a los migrantes, y los entregan a la criminalidad, en donde son víctimas de explotación hasta acabar con su vida misma, situación que ha empeorado desde que ha aumentado la militarización de las fronteras.
Los mismos sufrimientos de la gente migrante, las mismas desapariciones, los mismos muertos, las mismas pesadillas que pasan miles de migrantes encarcelados en estaciones migratorias, a pesar del derecho a migrar proclamado en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos.
Durante las etapas de su recorrido las Caravanas movilizaron a la sociedad civil, a las asociaciones locales. Miles de personas se involucraron en acompañar su causa, en donde no cesaron las denuncias sobre el sufrimiento de los migrantes y sus familiares, las denuncias de la violación de los derechos más básicos como la seguridad, que sufren las mismas poblaciones de México e Italia. El despojo de territorio, el envenenamiento del medio ambiente, el empobrecimiento, la falta de servicios públicos, el miedo de vivir bajo el control de la criminalidad o de instituciones corruptas, que gozan de total impunidad.
Hemos denunciado la falta de derechos ante las autoridades estatales y municipales, ante las comisiones de derechos humanos, incluso la del Senado Italiano, pero sobre todo hemos hecho un llamado a la sociedad civil, para que no deje de luchar por sus derechos y los derechos de los migrantes. Para que no deje de atender a su tarea fuerte de construir nuevos caminos y pretender que las instituciones hagan su propia parte.
Hemos entrado en estaciones migratorias y penales de ambo países y reclamado seguridad para los defensores de los derechos de los migrantes y de los ciudadanos. Hemos estado en el Puerto de Gioia Tauro para denunciar el negocio que la mafia italiana y los carteles mexicanos hacen con las drogas, nos hemos solidarizado con el dolor y la rabia de los familiares de los muertos y desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa, a quienes hoy mandamos nuestro mas fraternal abrazo, ante la reciente identificación de los restos de Alexander Mora Venancio, uno de los 43 desaparecidos y encontrado en una más de las fosas comunes que quedan a lo largo de México, los desaparecidos nos duelen y nos mueven a todos.
Con estas dos caravanas hemos juntado las dos orillas del océano con un “Puente de Esperanza”. El desafío es seguir cruzando este puente.
A los representantes de distintos medios que nos acompañaron, PRAMI, Universidad Iberoamericana; El Claustro de Sor Juana, Clinica Juridica del Programa de Derechos Humanos, UNAM; Arte y Cultura, UNAM; Albergue Para Personas Migrantes "La 72"; "Casa Del ¨Caminante J’tatic Samuel Ruiz"; Secretaria De Gobierno Del Estado De Tabasco; "Caridad Sin Fronteras, A.C."; "Las Patronas"; "La Sagrada Familia" Un Mundo Una Nación, A.C.; "El Samaritano" Congregación De Los Sagrados Corazones De Jesús Y María; "Casa De La Caridad-Hogar Del Migrante" – Caritas; Fm4 Pasolibre, Orden De Frailes Menores, El Iffim; "Manos Extendidas, A.C."; Cafemin "Casa De Acogida, Formación Y Empoderamiento De La Mujer" ; "Casa De Los Amigos" ; Cipam, Imumi, Red Mesoamericana Mujer y Salud, Instituto Simone De Beauvoir ; Imd-Defensoras, Red Nacional De Defensoras De Derechos Humanos, Red De Defensoras-Oaxaca, Consorcio Oaxaca; Grupo De Autocuidado Red Nacional; "Hermanos En El Camino" Pastoral De La Movilidad Humana Pacifico Sur Del Episcopado Mexicano; Voces Mesoamericanas, Acción Con Pueblos Migrantes, A.C. ; (Voces Mesoamericanas) y Organizaciones Locales; Comité De Familiares De Migrantes Desaparecidos Junax Kotantik; Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matías De Córdova, Medicos del Mundo; Brigada Callejera; Cruzando Fronteras.
La Mesa Torinese para las Madres de Ciudad Juárez: Amnistía Internacional (Sección Piamonte y Valle de Aosta), Mujeres de Arena, Mujeres en Negro, Si no ahora, Cuando? (Sección Torino) y SUR (Sociedades Humanas Resistentes) Además, participan en la organización de la Caravana, ASGI, Asociaciones per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione, Centro Studi Sereno Regis, Cgil Coordinamento migranti Torino, Il salvagente International Help Onlus, SCI, Servizio Civile Internazionale Soleterre -Strategie di pace Onlus. www.carovanemigranti.org
La caravana fue resguardada por La Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, El Instituto Nacional de Migracion y diferentes corporaciones de Seguridad Nacional.
Contactos: Marta Sánchez Soler (+52) 555 435 2637 Rubén Figueroa (+52)554 505 6658
Contacto en Italia: José Jacques (+52) 554 346 1368