*Notas de prensa sobre migración y una convocatoria*

¿Cuánto cuesta la Regularización Migratoria en México?

Los extranjeros gastarán más de 9 mil pesos en los trámites para la regularización.

Fuente Irving Pineda14 de enero de 2015

México, DF.- Los extranjeros que vivan en México de forma irregular dese antes del 9 de noviembre de 2012 podrán acceder al Programa Temporal de Regularización Migratoria.

Los beneficiarios de este programa recibirán la condición de estancia de residente temporal por cuatro años.

En caso de no obtener el beneficio, se les dará 30 días hábiles para salir del país, aunque los extranjeros podrán interponer un recurso de revisión.

El programa estará vigente hasta el 18 de diciembre de 2015.

Los extranjeros gastarán más de 9 mil pesos en los trámites para la regularización.

Lo primero que deberán hacer es un pago de mil 224 pesos por los derechos de recepción y estudio de la solicitud.

Posteriormente a los que se les dé el visto bueno deberán pagar 7 mil 914 pesos para obtener la residencia temporal.

Los extranjeros ya regularizados podrán pagar 2 mil 642 pesos para obtener un permiso temporal de trabajo con vigencia de 9 años.

Piden a INM más difusión a programa para regularizar a migrantes

14 enero, 2015 | Por Notimex

México, 14 de enero.- El Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM) debe dar más difusión en el país al Programa Temporal de Regularización Migratoria (PTRM), para llegar al mayor número de personas, y contar con los criterios generales para su aplicación, consideró la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos.

Ello, indicó, a fin de evitar la discrecionalidad de la autoridad para resolver o admitir trámites. Además, dicho programa es poco accesible para migrantes por su alto costo de casi 10 mil pesos por persona, y a la no autorización para trabajar.

Mencionó que el PTRM, que entró en vigor la víspera y finaliza el 18 de diciembre próximo, no brinda la opción de obtener la residencia permanente, ni el permiso para trabajar a las personas que solicitan de su beneficio.

El programa sólo brinda una regularización temporal por cuatro años, y no permanente para la población migrante, a lo que se suma la no autorización para trabajar, lo que lo convierte en un trámite y costo adicional, una vez finalizado el proceso de la obtención de la tarjeta de residente temporal.

El organismo aseveró que al no permitir a los migrantes trabajar en el país, “hace que la solución no sea real pues el trámite adicional para obtener dicho permiso es uno de los obstáculos actualmente existentes en la Ley de Migración y su Reglamento”.

En ese sentido, señaló que, a su juicio, el PTRM no resuelve las deficiencias de la Ley de Migración en materia de regularización migratoria acorde a las necesidades de la población migrante irregular en el país.

Si bien señala que ningún migrante que solicite su regularización será detenido por el Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM), contempla “supuestos ligados a seguridad nacional por los cuales las personas no pueden regularizarse, que son discrecionales y discriminatorios”, insistió.

Según la Secretaría de Gobernación, con este programa se espera regularizar a 30 mil personas que ingresaron a México antes del 9 de noviembre de 2012, detalló la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos.

Starting Friday, U.S. Will Ease Restrictions on Travel to Cuba

By PETER BAKER – JAN. 15, 2015

WASHINGTON — The United States government on Friday will begin making it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba than it has been for more than half a century, opening the door to a new era of contact between neighbors that have been estranged longer than most of their citizens have been alive.

The Obama administration announced on Thursday a set of new regulations to take effect on Friday easing decades-old restrictions on travel, business and remittances, putting into reality some of the changes promised by President Obama last month when he announced plans to resume normal diplomatic relations with Havana.

Under the new regulations, Americans will now be allowed to travel to Cuba for any of a dozen specific reasons without first obtaining a special license from the government. Airlines and travel agents will be allowed to provide service to Cuba without a specific license. And travelers will be permitted to use credit cards and spend money while in the country and bring back up to $400 in souvenirs, including up to $100 in alcohol or tobacco.

The new regulations will also make it easier for American telecommunications providers and financial institutions to do business with Cuba. Americans will be allowed to send more money to Cubans, up to $2,000 every three months instead of the $500 currently permitted.

While formally the new rules do not allow basic tourism, they are written in such a way that experts said they may have that effect. “This is basically the end of the travel ban once they work out the kinks,” said Julia E. Sweig, a longtime scholar and author on Cuba.

“At first glance the new regulations look to allow most Americans to travel to Cuba without having to ask for permission in advance and by booking air travel directly rather than through authorized groups and agencies,” she said. “Next move will have to be a civil aviation agreement to allow commercial, not just charter, air travel.”

Administration officials said the new approach would benefit Cubans as well.

“These changes will have a direct impact in further engaging and empowering the Cuban people, promoting positive change for Cuba’s citizens,” Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, whose department oversees sanctions policy, said in a statement.

“Cuba has real potential for economic growth,” he added, “and by increasing travel, commerce, communications, and private business development between the United States and Cuba, the United States can help the Cuban people determine their own future.”

The administration moved to ease the restrictions after obtaining confirmation that 53 incarcerated people it deemed political prisoners had been released in accordance with the agreement Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba struck last month. Cuba has also released an American held prisoner for years, Alan P. Gross, and a Cuban who had worked as a spy for the United States. Mr. Obama released three Cuban spies who had been held for years and were considered folk heroes in Havana.

The broader trade embargo first imposed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower after the Cuban revolution that brought Mr. Castro’s brother Fidel to power will remain in place unless Congress decides to lift it, as Mr. Obama has urged it to do. But the moves announced on Thursday go further than any president has gone in 50 years to facilitate travel and trade with Cuba.

Critics, led by Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American Republican from Florida, have argued that Mr. Obama is playing into the hands of the Castro brothers by relaxing sanctions without obtaining any meaningful commitment to change on their part. Cuba remains one of the most repressive countries in the world, according to human rights groups and the State Department, which have cataloged the many ways freedom is restricted on the island nation.

Mr. Obama argued that the approach of the last 50 years had not worked and that it was time to try something new. The president is sending an assistant secretary of state, Roberta S. Jacobson, to Havana next week to discuss migration and other issues in the relationship as he moves toward re-establishing a full-fledged embassy with an ambassador.

Americans for years have found ways to circumvent travel restrictions to Cuba. Many simply fly to another country like Mexico first and then head to Cuba from there. According to the Cuban government, 98,000 American citizens visited Cuba in 2012, a year after Mr. Obama previously loosened the restrictions, twice as many as traveled there five years earlier. That does not include perhaps hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans who travel there each year but are not counted by the Havana government because they are still considered Cubans.

Under previous rules, Americans wanting to travel legally to Cuba had to justify their trips under 12 categories and then obtain a specific license from the Treasury Department to do so.

Among those categories are family visits; journalistic, religious, educational, professional and humanitarian activities; artistic or sports performances; and “support for the Cuban people.” Private firms arranged “people to people” programs to allow Americans to travel under those categories.

Under the new regulations, Americans will not need licenses to certify that they fit those categories. As a practical matter, experts say that will make it possible for many more Americans to travel without having to use such firms or satisfy government agents about the specific purpose of their visits. Moreover, travelers will be allowed to spend money in Cuba, which was previously restricted.

House Measure Defies Obama on Immigrants

By JEREMY W. PETERS – JAN. 14, 2015

Speaker John A. Boehner said Wednesday that by voting to undo major provisions of President Obama’s immigration policy, the House was heeding the will of voters in November. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The House voted on Wednesday to gut major provisions of President Obama’s immigration policy, approving legislation that would revoke legal protections for millions of unauthorized immigrants, including children, and put them at risk of deportation.

The vote drew condemnation from Democrats and the White House and led more than two dozen Republicans, many worried about the perception that the party is hostile to immigrants, to break away and vote no.

The most contentious measures in the bill are certain to die in the Senate, where Democrats have said they will wage a filibuster and some Republicans are likely to join in opposition. Mr. Obama has said he would not sign legislation that undermined the immigration changes he has carried out through executive action.

The House vote offered the first signs of how the new Republican-led Congress will navigate the bitter debate over the president’s directives, as well as evidence of emerging fissures in a party that has prided itself on nearly unanimous opposition to the president.

Because Republicans have said that they will use the $40 billion funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security as their vehicle for dismantling Mr. Obama’s action, Congress faces another deadline that seems likely to force an accommodation before the department’s money is due to run out at the end of February.

Yet, in just their second week of control on Capitol Hill, Republicans on Wednesday were forced to address questions about whether the party again would be hobbled by internal disagreements over immigration policy. And they were faced with an unwelcome distraction from their message of governing responsibly and cooperatively: explaining why the vote on Wednesday should not be seen as an insult to Hispanics, a constituency Republicans lost by more than two to one in the 2012 presidential election and have been trying to woo since.

In the House, 26 Republicans voted against an amendment to effectively undo Mr. Obama’s 2012 executive action that allowed immigrants who had entered the United States illegally as children to stay. The amendment just barely passed with 218 votes, a few more than it needed. No Democrats voted yes.

The overarching funding bill for Homeland Security passed, 236 to 191, with 10 Republican defections. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, was expected to meet with his members over the next few days to discuss how to move forward with the bill, including whether they could amend it, strip out some of its more contentious amendments and send it back to the House.

Republicans who supported the legislation said there was nothing cruel about their intentions. The debate was not about immigration, many of them insisted on Wednesday, but about a president who had exceeded his authority by rewriting immigration law without Congress’s consent.

“By their votes last November, the people made clear they want more accountability from this president — enough is enough,” said Speaker John A. Boehner before the vote. “By our votes here today, we will heed their will.”

Representative Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican who sponsored the amendment to end the legal protection Mr. Obama gave in 2012 to immigrants who came to the country as children, said, “We are either a nation of laws, or we are lawless.”

Aside from removing those legal protections, the bill would also effectively reverse the president’s executive action from late last year that allowed immigrants who have lived here illegally for at least five years to apply for work permits and avoid deportation. The House measure would prohibit the use of any government funds to pay for the manpower needed to carry out that directive, like processing applications and permits.

Democrats accused Republicans of being callous to hard-working immigrants while jeopardizing the Homeland Security budget at a time when the country cannot afford to be caught off guard.

“Republicans have only been in control for a week, and already they are picking an unnecessary political fight that risks shutting down the Department of Homeland Security,” said Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. The House, he added, voted to “deport young people who came to this country as babies.”

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to the president, condemned the vote. “It’s hard for the Republicans to call themselves ‘pro-family’ when they repeatedly vote to rip families apart,” he said. “This policy isn’t just unwise, it’s cruel, immoral and it is not who we are as Americans.”

Republicans who voted against the most unforgiving provisions said that while they believed the president had overstepped his authority, deporting children was a step too far.

“These children came to our country through no fault of their own,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, who added he believed there was a measure of futility in the vote Wednesday, given the bill’s certain failure in the Senate. “I never know what the Senate is going to do. But I do know what they’re not going to do,” he said. “And I sure as hell know they’re not going to go for this bill as is.”

Mr. Dent echoed a prediction that many Republicans and Democrats had made about the outcome of this fight: Congress will approve a Homeland Security funding bill with few immigration-related amendments attached. “I suspect a lot of us who vote for that will be called surrenderers, sellouts, capitulators,” he said. “Welcome to my world.”

The final outcome will not be resolved for weeks. And the vote on Wednesday was just the opening play by House conservatives, who wanted to be on record with an unequivocal denunciation of the president’s actions. Many conservatives are still angry because they believe they were denied this opportunity in December when Mr. Boehner rejected pleas from the Tea Party-wing to use the annual omnibus funding bill to wage a fight with the White House over immigration.

One disagreement Republicans will have to work out is how far they are willing to go to push legislation that has no chance of becoming law —because it dies either in the Senate or in a presidential veto. It is clear that some House Republicans want — and expect — the Senate to be as unyielding as they have been, though that is not likely. Asked how far he was willing to go, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said, “All the way to where we fail to override.”

If the feud lingers beyond Feb. 27 with no compromise and Homeland Security funding runs out, millions of federal employees within the department’s vast bureaucracy will have to work without pay. Around 85 percent of the department is classified as “essential” and must report to work regardless of whether their agency is effectively shut down. This includes Border Patrol agents and Transportation Security Administration screeners.

But in a consequence that many conservatives would probably balk at, the agency within Homeland Security that is responsible for executing much of the president’s latest executive action, the Citizenship and Immigration Services, would still be able to pay its employees because it is funded through fees and not affected by appropriations from Congress.

Emmarie Huetteman and Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on January 15, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: House Measure Defies Obama on Immigrants




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 )

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Conectando a %s