La Separación De Los Niños Migrantes De Sus Padres en Estados Unidos

Dianne Feinstein, senadora demócrata por el estado de California, presentará un proyecto de ley que se propone poner fin a la práctica del gobierno Estados Unidos, encabezado por el presidente Donald Trump, de separar a los niños inmigrantes de sus padres. 

La propuesta de legislar en ese sentido se produce menos de un mes después de que el fiscal general Jeff Sessions emitiera la siguiente amenaza a los migrantes que cruzan la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos. 

Jeff Sessions declaró: “Quien ingrese ilegalmente con un niño será enjuiciado y podrían separarlo del niño, tal como lo exige la ley”. 

Desde entonces, los informes de bebés arrancados de los brazos de sus madres por los agentes del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas han provocado indignación y la exhortación generalizada a poner fin a dicha práctica. 

Los inmigrantes enfrentan juicios masivos y separación de los miembros de las familias en la frontera entre México y EE.UU., en momentos en que el Gobierno estadounidense implementa políticas de “tolerancia cero” con las personas que tratan de ingresar a Estados Unidos. 

Los juicios masivos por cruzar la frontera y algunos casos dispersos de separación de miembros de las familias ocurren desde que se introdujo la medida “Operation streamline” en el año 2005. Pero el mes pasado, el fiscal general, Jeff Sessions, anunció que el Gobierno federal ahora procesará “el cien por ciento de los cruces ilegales de la frontera sudoeste”. 

En el estado de Texas, el domingo se le prohibió la entrada a un centro de detención para niños inmigrantes al senador demócrata de Oregón Jeff Merkley. El legislador había viajado hasta el centro, ubicado en la ciudad de Brownsville, en un edificio donde antes funcionaba una tienda de Walmart, para presenciar de primera mano la práctica del gobierno del presidente Donald Trump de separar a los niños inmigrantes de sus padres. 

Según se informó, las autoridades federales han separado, como mínimo, a 600 niños inmigrantes de sus padres el mes pasado, lo que provocó una indignación generalizada y la condena internacional. 

Para saber más de este tema, puede ver la entrevista que hiciera democracynow a Debbie Nathan una periodista independiente, que ha publicado un informe para el sitio The Intercept que se titula “Hidden Horrors of 'Zero Tolerance'—Mass Trials and Children Taken from Their Parents” (Lo horrores ocultos de la ‘tolerancia cero’. Juicios masivos y separación de padres e hijos). 

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to the U.S.-Mexico border, where a reporter obtained a recording of immigrant parents who have been separated from their children. The audio is from a mass trial of dozens of immigrants in a courtroom in Brownsville, Texas. Standing shoulder to shoulder, men and women, in shackles, plead guilty to the crime of illegal entry during a mass trial. If you listen closely, you can hear the clinking of their chains as Federal Magistrate Judge Ronald Morgan asks a man if he would like to say anything before he is sentenced. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: Anything else you wish to say then before sentence? 

UNIDENTIFED DEFENDANT: No. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: OK. Mr. Hernández-Rodríguez, anything you with to say before sentence? 

MR. HERNÁNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ: Sí. También sobre mi hijo ¿yo lo traigo conmigo? Aquí me lo separaron. 

TRANSLATOR: Also, I was bringing my child with me, and we got separated. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: OK. Like I just told Mr. Hernández-López, my understanding, the way it’s supposed to work, is because you’re from a country other than Mexico, you’re going to be sent to a camp, and you’re going to be sent to a camp where your child will be allowed to join you. That’s my understanding of how it’s supposed to work. You understand that? 

MR. HERNÁNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ: Sí. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: How old is your child? 

MR. HERNÁNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ: Seis años. 

TRANSLATOR: Six years. 

MR. HERNÁNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ: Me preocupo bastante porque se me duele no saber si me van a dejar aquí a donde me van a mandar. 

TRANSLATOR: I’m very worried—

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: Yeah, I understand. 

TRANSLATOR: —because they may leave him here, and then I’m going to get deported. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: Well, you’re supposed to be joined with your child before you are deported. I think, Mr. Hernández-López, let me just tell you, the theory is that’s going to keep you from coming to this country. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That audio of Federal Magistrate Judge Ronald Morgan’s courtroom in Brownsville, Texas, is from a report for The Intercept by Debbie Nathan headlined “Hidden Horrors of 'Zero Tolerance'—Mass Trials and Children Taken from Their Parents.” The story also features a rare photograph from inside a federal courthouse in Pecos, Texas, that shows dozens of immigrants in orange jumpsuits spread across a courtroom and filling up a jury box as they are all tried at once. 

AMY GOODMAN: Mass trials for crossing the border, scattered cases of family separations, have taken place since “Operation Streamline” was first introduced in 2005. But last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the federal government will now prosecute, quote, “100 percent of illegal southwest border crossings.” 

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: I have put in place a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child may be separated from you, as required by law. 

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on this new policy, how it’s unfolding, we go to Austin, Texas, where we’re joined by Debbie Nathan, independent journalist, usually based in Brownsville, Texas, on the Mexico border. Her new report for The Intercept, “Hidden Horrors of 'Zero Tolerance'—Mass Trials and Children Taken from Their Parents.” She’s been on the ground reporting on what she calls “zero tolerance factories.” 

Describe what you saw, Debbie. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: I’ve been to several of these trials. I’ve been in Brownsville, Laredo and El Paso. And what you see is somewhere between 20 and 40-something people, all triple-shackled, not to each other but individually, their hands in handcuffs chained to their waists, and their feet shackled. And they clunk and clang into court. I mean, there’s this clanging sound of chains. And they go through these mass processes in less than an hour, usually. And they often—they are instructed to answer in groups or answer en masse. So you’ll hear like 40 people being asked a question, and they’ll say, ”Sí,” all at once, or they’ll say, “No.” And it’s just—it’s really uncanny. It’s shocking. It doesn’t feel like due process. One after one after one after one after one, with only one lawyer, they plead guilty: ”Culpable,” ”culpable,” ”culpable,” ”culpable.” I mean, it’s just—it just feels like something out—I mean, the photo itself, added to the sounds, really makes you think of something like Abu Ghraib, except that it’s completely legal in this country now to do this to people. It’s just quite shocking to see. 

And, you know, very few people go to see it, which I think is another reason why it’s happening on the border and with so little oversight. I’ve had trouble getting into courtrooms. I go to get into the federal building, and I’m told, “No, the judge said that the courtroom is too crowded. Nobody can go in except for Border Patrol agents and lawyers.” And I’ve had to argue to get in, even after I’ve said I was a reporter. So, people don’t see these proceedings. And people are afraid to argue, actually. So, the fact that this photo was taken is actually very remarkable. The defense bar that I spoke with in that area—that’s the Western District of Texas—said that they think that it was a marshall who took it. Somebody inside the court secretly took it, probably. And my experience, hanging around these courtrooms and talking to people and even having a little bit of whistleblower effect, is that there are a lot of people inside these courtrooms or inside these courthouses who are not comfortable with what’s going on. In fact, if you can—if we were able to continue to listen to the judge in that tape, he even starts to feel real anxiety, expresses anxiety about the fact that maybe it’s not true that people are being reunited in these camps—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Debbie, if we can, let’s go—

DEBBIE NATHAN: —as he calls them, with their children, which is not true. And he actually goes on—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Debbie, if we can—

DEBBIE NATHAN: —to say to the assistant U.S. attorney, “If this is not true, if you’re not reuniting these children, then we can imagine the hell that’s being created.” So, the judge—I mean, there are so many people who are not comfortable with what’s going on. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, if we can, let’s go to the audio recording you obtained from the Brownsville, Texas, courtroom of Federal Magistrate Judge Ronald Morgan, as he’s presiding over the mass trial of these folks who were apprehended at the border. This was in late April, and this begins with Judge Morgan offering another defendant the chance to address him before she was sentenced. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: Ms. Díaz-Castro, anything you’d like to say before sentencing? 

MS. DÍAZ-CASTRO: En el mismo caso de ellos, de mi hija, sólo que no me la separaron, pero me dijeron que sí me la van a quitar. 

TRANSLATOR: The same case as theirs, only they haven’t separated me from my daughter, but they told me they were going to take her away. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: Well, let’s hope they don’t. You and your daughter, you should be joined together. Let me just ask, Ms. D’Andrea, my understanding is, is that when there is parent and child, the parent and child are supposed to be joined before they are separated and sent home. Is that correct? 

MS. D’ANDREA: That’s what I’ve heard, Your Honor, as well. 

JUDGE RONALD MORGAN: I’ll tell you what: If it’s not, then there are a lot of folks have some answering to do, because what you’ve done, in effect, by separating these children is you’re putting them someplace without their parent. You can imagine there’s a hell, and that’s probably what it looks like. You’d best confirm that’s the case. You’d best make sure that’s the case. 

MS. D’ANDREA: Yes, Your Honor. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Again, that was Federal Magistrate Judge Ronald Morgan speaking in his Brownsville, Texas, courtroom in late April, in this audio that Debbie Nathan obtained for her report in The Intercept. Debbie, this whole issue of lawyers, one lawyer representing 30, 40, 50 people? Obviously, they can’t have much in terms of individual information about that particular person on what might have driven them to try to cross the border to begin with. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: Yeah. What I’ve heard is that they’re getting somewhere between seven and 10 minutes of counsel right before the proceedings. And, you know, I’ve talked to public defenders who try very, very hard to get information that would be helpful to the—to the—I was going to say “client,” but to the defendant, for example, who really make an effort to find out whether they crossed with their children and whether they have a claim, a credible fear claim, that would allow them to, later in the process, claim asylum. But it seems so inconsistent. Like I was in court in El Paso last week, and there were 60 defendants, and they were split into 20—into three groups of 20. And so, each group of 20 had a lawyer. And I interviewed one lawyer who told me that, of his 20, not one of them had been separated from a child, and not one of them had an asylum claim or a credible fear claim. So, then, in the third group, I was able to interview the attorney, who spoke Spanish, unlike the first one, and seemed very concerned about the immigration issues. And he told me that, of the 20 that I saw him representing, 10 of them had been separated from a total of 15 children, including one woman who was separated from three children. And, you know, he obtained that information by just really speaking with these people. So, you get the feeling that the legal representation, as short as it is, as few minutes as it is, also depends on whether the lawyers even care, you know, to find out what’s going on. 

AMY GOODMAN: You know, in also where you are, where you usually work, in Brownsville, Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley was barred from entering a detention center, which was an old Walmart—it’s a detention center for immigrant children—just Sunday, after traveling to the center to see firsthand the Trump administration’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents. He tweeted, “I was barred entry. Asked repeatedly to speak to a supervisor—he finally came out and said he can’t tell us anything. Police were called on us. Children should never be ripped from their families & held in secretive detention centers,” he tweeted. Federal authorities reportedly separating at least 600 immigrant children from their parents last month, sparking widespread outrage and international condemnation. Even a U.S. senator is being escorted away by police, not allowed to go into the old Walmart where children are being held, that we are paying for, Debbie. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: Yeah, I wasn’t surprised. It was, you know, sort of the same experience, only in spades, of what I’ve had when I’ve tried to go into court. It seems like everybody is just being treated like some bum that knocks on the door, you know, like, “What are you doing here? And, you know, we’re going to call the cops on you.” I mean, it was, in a way, shocking to see him treated that way. I saw the video yesterday. But it wasn’t surprising to me. Nobody can get in there. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Debbie, I want to turn to an interview you did with migrants you met in Mexico, just across the border from El Paso. This clip, from a video you posted on Twitter this weekend, begins with you asking the migrants if they tried to cross the bridge to the United States at that port of entry. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: [translated] Did you try to cross the bridge? 

CHICO: [translated] Yes. We want to cross the bridge, but they do not allow us. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: [translated] What happened when you tried to cross? 

CHICO: [translated] We wanted to seek help, to enter the U.S. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: [translated] What’s your name? 

CHICO: [translated] My name is Chico. 

MIGRANT 1: [translated] We want to enter the United States because we want to find a job. We have debts. We owe a lot, because we are far from our country. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: [translated] What will happen to you if—do you fear violence there? 

MIGRANT 2: [translated] Yes, of course. If we do not pay our debts, the money we owe, they will threaten or kill us. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, Debbie, could you explain? These are the U.S. agents crossing—are they crossing into Mexico before even the border crossings point that the migrants would try to get through? 

DEBBIE NATHAN: So, traditionally, you go to the port of entry, and you—which is this big building at the bottom, you know, in Brownsville. It’s the big curved bridge. You go to the bottom of the bridge to the U.S. side, to the port of entry, and you tell the agents that want to request asylum. And that is your legal right. You’re in the United States at that point, and you request asylum. 

So, what’s been happening up and down the border is—and this has been going on probably for at least a year and a half, that I’m aware of, anyway—is that they’re putting agents up at the top of the bridge, because, you know, there’s sort of an invisible line, which is often marked with a plaque, but there’s a line dividing the United States and Mexico. So, they want—what the government wants at this point is for people not to be able to step into the United States at that invisible line, because then they can’t apply for asylum. And so they’ve got these agents at the top of the bridge, and they’re standing there. And they’re asking everybody who they’re suspicious about—you know, and suspicious of not—you know, of maybe they’re going to apply for asylum, but asking people for their documents. And then they won’t let people go into the United States. So, I mean, it’s almost like they’re not even in Mexico. Technically, they’re in Mexico, but they’re like six inches from the United States. And that’s illegal. I mean, that’s against American law, and it’s against international law. But that’s what’s happening up and down the border. And that’s what I observed when I was in El Paso last week. 

And I interviewed those people who had been turned back. They had already been turned back about three times and told, “Oh, come back like—come back at 10:00 tonight, or come back at 6:00 in the morning. We don’t have room for you now.” So they were camped out in front of a bathroom at the bottom of the bridge, which is the Mexico side. And, you know, again, incredibly upsetting to see them really looking hungry and looking exhausted and weeping and telling me that they have, multiple times, tried to get in, get past these agents, and that they were not able to. 

AMY GOODMAN: Debbie Nathan, you also have a new report out for The Interceptthat’s headlined “Border Patrol Continues to Exaggerate Danger to Agents to Justify Violence Against Immigrants.” I want to ask you about this and how it relates to the Border Patrol officer who just shot dead, shot through the head, the 19-year old indigenous Guatemalan woman Claudia Gómez, killing her, this in Rio Bravo, Texas. Video of the aftermath of the killing shows Border Patrol agents sealing off the scene and detaining at least two people. The agents first claimed the officer fired in self-defense after officers were attacked by blunt objects. The family of Claudia Gómez González said she set off for a better life in the United States despite what they had heard about tougher policies towards undocumented immigrants under Donald Trump. This is Gómez’s mother, Lidia González. 

LIDIA GONZÁLEZ VÁSQUEZ: [translated] “I’m going to achieve something,” she said. “I’ll earn money for my studies,” she said. But, unfortunately, she was unable to do that. Immigration killed my little girl. My little baby! No, no, no. She didn’t go to steal, She’s just gone, my baby. That’s how it is. I just want justice for my girl, because it’s not fair for them to do this. Now, if people are able to help me retrieve my baby’s body as soon as possible, that’s what I want. We can’t do anything else now. She’s dead. She’s dead. 

AMY GOODMAN: So, Debbie Nathan, if you can talk about Border Patrol continuing to exaggerate the danger to agents to justify violence against immigrants, this horrific story about the shooting death of Claudia? 

DEBBIE NATHAN: Yeah. A few months ago, I started investigating the claims the Border Patrol has been making for about, oh, the past several months, that it’s a very dangerous job and that their assault statistics were way, way up from last year. And I got data from the Border Patrol which showed that, in fact, assaults were down and injuries are down, but they were using this accounting method—they were counting in this very strange, unconventional way. And, for example, what I was told from law enforcement people is that, you know, police and law enforcement officials usually—like, if somebody is assaulted, that’s considered one assault. I mean, somebody could throw seven rocks at you, and that would be—and you’re one agent, so that’s counted as one assault. But the Border Patrol was—or still is, I guess—multiplying the number of agents assaulted—and, by the way, an assault doesn’t necessarily cause an injury, and in most cases with the Border Patrol it doesn’t—but multiplying the number of agents assaulted by the number of perpetrators and the number of weapons. So, the example that they gave me was six agents assaulted by seven perpetrators who used a water bottle, a rock and a tree branch. So, when you multiply and multiply and multiply, you get 126 assaults. Conventionally, that would be counted as six assaults. And remember that, actually, the spokesperson did not respond when I asked if any of the agents had been hurt. So, what I found out, as I continued and did the second report, was that injuries are down, according to other methods that you can look at, objective methods to look at injuries in the Border Patrol. 

And the way that this relates to the young woman who was killed is that she was actually killed about a mile from a case that I’m aware of where a very tiny Guatemalan, who looks to me like he was a teenager, was running from Border Patrol agents, I guess in the same way that the woman in this group was running a year later. He was running, and there was a melee that ensued, in which he was accused of assaulting a Border Patrol agent. But he elected to go to trial, or he was put on trial, and he was acquitted. And it was explained to me by the public defenders in the Southern District that their assumption was that the jury just took a look at the size difference between these two people. The agent was this pretty big, burly guy, and the immigrant looked like a little pencil. I mean, he was just this tiny, frail—he probably weighed a hundred pounds, and the agent probably weighed at least 160. So, they just figured that—oh, and plus the immigrant had blood on his ear. His ear was all banged up. And the agent had, I think, like a sprained elbow. So, he was acquitted. But what was interesting to me was that that will go into—that incident, whatever it was about and for which he was acquitted, will go into the statistics as an assault. 

And what’s also very telling to me is that if you listen to the Border Patrol sort of talking to itself, the Border Patrol Council, which is their union, has a podcast, which is sponsored by Breitbart, where the hosts sit there and they talk about—you know, they’re very anti-immigrant and very sort of feeling sorry for themselves. There’s one particular podcast, that anybody can listen to, where they say, “You know, we’ve just had enough of these assaults, and we should be allowed to respond. We should be allowed to use more force. And we should be allowed to”— 

AMY GOODMAN: Debbie, we have five seconds. 

DEBBIE NATHAN: Mm-hmm. “And we should basically be allowed to beat people up.” That’s what they say. 

AMY GOODMAN: Debbie Nathan, we want to thank you for being with us. Thank you for all your work on the border, as you work from Brownsville, Texas, on the Mexico border. We’ll link to your pieces in The Intercept, “Hidden Horrors of 'Zero Tolerance'—Mass Trials and Children Taken from Their Parents,” as well as the pieceyou just did, “Border Patrol Continues to Exaggerate Danger to Agents to Justify Violence Against Immigrants.” 

When we come back, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his religious opposition. Stay with us. 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3816-separacion-de-padres-e-hijos-migrantes-en-Estados-Unidos.html

Estados Unidos Rediseña Certificados De Ciudadanía y Naturalización

El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos, (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglés) comenzó hoy a emitir certificados de ciudadanía y naturalización rediseñados, en respuesta al éxito de un programa piloto llevado a cabo en cuatro oficinas locales y un centro de servicio de USCIS. El nuevo diseño de estos ocho certificados es una de las muchas maneras en que USCIS trabaja para combatir el fraude y salvaguardar el sistema de inmigración legal. 

El nuevo diseño de los certificados fue parte de un programa piloto en las oficinas locales de Norfolk, Tampa, Minneapolis-St. Paul, y Sacramento, así como en el Centro de Servicio de Nebraska. 

Estos certificados de naturalización son los siguientes: 

• N-550, que se expide a una persona que obtiene la ciudadanía estadounidense por medio del proceso de naturalización.
• N-578, que se expide a un ciudadano estadounidense naturalizado para que pueda ser reconocido por un país extranjero como ciudadano estadounidense.
• N-570, que se expide cuando el certificado de naturalización original se ha perdido, ha sido mutilado o contiene errores.

Un certificado de ciudadanía se expide a una persona que obtiene la ciudadanía estadounidense que no sea por nacimiento en Estados Unidos o por medio de la naturalización. Los diferentes tipos de certificados de ciudadanía que expide USCIS son los siguientes: 

• N-569A, que se expide a un solicitante que derivó la ciudadanía luego de nacer;
• N-560AB, que se expide a un solicitante que adquirió la ciudadanía al nacer;
• N-645 y N-645A, que se expide a la familia de una persona que sirvió honorablemente en las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos durante un periodo designado de hostilidad y que murió como resultado de lesiones o enfermedad derivadas de o agravadas por ese servicio. El Formulario N-645 se expide si el fallecido era un hombre, y el N-645A si era mujer.
• N-561, que se expide para reemplazar un certificado de ciudadanía cuando el certificado original se ha perdido, ha sido mutilado o contiene errores.

Los certificados de ciudadanía y naturalización rediseñados muestran una imagen central de gran tamaño contra un fondo con diseños complejo, lo que ayuda a impedir la alteración de los datos personales. Cada certificado posee una imagen única, visible solamente bajo luz ultravioleta, y cuyos intentos de alterarlo serán evidentes. Los certificados de ciudadanía póstumos y el certificado especial de ciudadanía tienen cada uno una imagen diferente, aunque tienen las mismas características de seguridad contra el fraude. 

Cambiar periódicamente el diseño y los métodos de impresión de estos certificados ayudan a USCIS a permanecer un paso delante de los falsificadores de documentos. 

Aunque la apariencia del documento es nueva, el proceso de solicitar y recibirlos no ha cambiado. Los certificados de naturalización y ciudadanía no necesitan ser renovados, sin importar cómo se expidieron. Aquellos expedidos antes del rediseño continuarán siendo aceptados como prueba de ciudadanía. 

 

Fuente: Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS)  

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3814-Nuevos-Disenos-En-Certificados-De-Ciudadania-y-Naturalizacion.html

What Happens When Migrant Children Are Taken Into U.S. Custody?

Written by Joshua Breisblatt 

The glut of stories surfacing about family separation and the increasing number of migrant children being taken into U.S. custody is deeply concerning. In the past, children detained in shelters had arrived at the border without an adult. Now, however, the U.S. government is making children unaccompanied by intentionally separating them from their parents upon arrival.

Presumably the same policies, procedures, and security checks U.S. officials follow when taking custody of unaccompanied children will apply to the children they take away from parents, who are being criminally prosecuted and detained separately. However, these policies and procedures are about to be put to the test. 

The Trump administration’s new family separation policy has already resulted in 658 children being separated from their parents in just a 13-day span in May. This increase in family separations means more children in the government’s custody for whom they must find a new home. 

Currently when migrant children arrive at the U.S. border unaccompanied they are placed in the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Currently, ORR has a network of approximately 100 shelters in 14 states around the United States. 

The government then works to identify parents, other family members, or guardians to sponsor and care for the child while their immigration proceeding continues—proceedings they often face alone with no right to government-appointed legal representation. 

When an appropriate sponsor cannot be located, the child may be placed in foster care. 

An additional wrinkle comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement proposes stricter vetting around the immigration status of sponsors, making it perilous for undocumented parents or other family members to come forward to take custody of a child. 

There is already a rigorous screening process for sponsors, including a criminal background check and sex offender registry check. Additionally, if the sponsor is not a parent or legal guardian, additional background checks are required. 

In 2016, ORR began making phone calls 30 days after placing an unaccompanied child with a parent or other sponsor. Although not required by law or regulation, HHS chose to take this step to follow up on the success of the placement. When sponsors did not answer the calls, however, it was misreported that HHS “lost” almost 1,500 children in 2017. It is quite possible that these families were limiting their contact with the U.S. government, but complying with requirements to check in with ICE or the immigration court. 

In the coming weeks and months, it will be important for Congress and the public to monitor how children in ORR are treated as the number of families separated at the border continues to rise. This self-inflicted crisis by the administration cannot be an excuse for the United States to not meet its obligations to these children. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3813-migrant-children-taken-into-custody-in-US.html 

Estados Unidos Otorgará 15.000 Visas De Trabajo Adicionales A Extranjeros

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos anunció que otorgará 15 mil nuevos visados tipo H-2B a trabajadores extranjeros porque no hay suficientes estadounidenses calificados para satisfacer los intereses de las compañías del país durante este ejercicio fiscal, que acaba en septiembre. 

Estos 15 mil se añaden a los 66 mil visados que fueron emitidos este año, según detalló en un comunicado el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, encargado de la política migratoria. 

Los visados H-2B están destinados a trabajadores extranjeros que ocupan de manera temporal, normalmente en verano, puestos de trabajo en la industria de la hostelería, en parques de atracciones, en hoteles y en grandes complejos turísticos. 

El Congreso estadounidense ha fijado el máximo anual de visados H-2B en 66.000, cuya distribución se divide en 33.000 para verano y la misma cifra para invierno. 

Pueden beneficiarse de los visados H-2B los nacionales de 83 países, entre los que se encuentra México, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, España, Uruguay, Ucrania y Reino Unido.

 

 

Fuente: YouTube CB24 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3812-estados-unidos-dara-visas-de-trabajo-adicionales.html

Agente De Patrulla Fronteriza Asesina A Mujer Indígena Inmigrante Indocumentada

El miércoles pasado en Río Bravo, Texas, un oficial de la Patrulla Fronteriza le disparó en la cabeza a Claudia Gómez González, una mujer indígena inmigrante indocumentada de 19 años de edad, causándole la muerte. Un video grabado en los momentos posteriores al asesinato muestra a agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza precintando el lugar y deteniendo a al menos dos personas. 

Los agentes sostienen que el oficial disparó en defensa propia luego de que la policía fuese atacada con “objetos contundentes”. 

En las declaraciones iniciales se describía a González como “una de las atacantes”. Pero luego la agencia cambio la versión, al afirmar que el agente abrió fuego después de que “el grupo ignorara sus órdenes y, en lugar de eso, arremetiera en su contra”. 

Sin embargo, una vecina de la zona donde se efectuaron los disparos dijo que ella nunca oyó al agente gritar nada. El consultado guatemalteco de la ciudad Del Río, Texas, pide una investigación de la muerte de González y condena “la violencia y el uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de la Patrulla Fronteriza”. Al momento de su muerte, González se dirigía a Virginia a encontrarse con su novio. 

Para conocer más del tema puede ver el siguiente video donde Democracynow.com hace una entrevista al novio y a la madre de la mujer asesinada, también conversa con Astrid Domínguez directora del Centro para los Derechos Fronterizos de la Unión Estadounidense por las Libertades Civiles y con Sarah Macaraeg una reconocida periodista de investigación de St. Louis, Missouri. 

Una investigación del periódico The Guardian revela que los oficiales de la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza participaron en casi 100 “encuentros fatales” desde 2003; Estados Unidos ha pagado más de 60 millones de dólares para resolver demandas por muerte por negligencia y otros comportamientos ilegales de los guardias fronterizos. 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3811-agentes-asesinan-inmigrante-indocumentada.html

Estudie en Canadá Y Sea Residente Permanente

Canadá es uno de los mejores lugares del mundo para Estudiar, por su reconocimiento internacional, porque se puede trabajar mientras se estudia, por los bajos costos, porque el cónyuge puede trabajar tiempo completo, los hijos pueden estudiar gratis y lo más importante porque se puede obtener la residencia permanente. 

Una persona que emigra a Canadá debe considerar un lapso de cuatro a cinco años para obtener la residencia, sin embargo hay una ventaja en la provincia de Quebec que no tiene en cuenta la edad para emigrar, ni experiencia, allí la residencia se puede obtener en dos años, lo que reduce el tiempo y los costos.

A continuación Compartimos el vídeo del canal de YouTube CICanada donde el consultor especializado Jesús Hernández señala la conveniencia de inmigrar como estudiante a Canadá. Acompañado de la experta en Educación internacional de CI Canadá, Indriani Molina, analiza los errores más frecuentes a evitar, las posibilidades reales y las recomendaciones necesarias a la hora de tomar esta importante decisión.

 

 

Fuente: YouTube CI Canadá  

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3810-estudie-en-canada-y-hagase-residente-permanente.html

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional De EE.UU. Propone Eliminar La Regla De Empresario Internacional

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) de los Estados Unidos ha propuesto una regla para dar por terminado un programa que permite que ciertos empresarios extranjeros sean considerados para obtener un permiso de ingreso para venir temporalmente a Estados Unidos con el fin de desarrollar y establecer negocios emergentes aquí, conocida como la Regla sobre Empresario Internacional (Regla Final IE). 

En julio de 2017, El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) publicó una regla final para demorar la fecha de implementación de la Regla Final IE hasta el 14 de marzo de 2018, con el propósito de darle tiempo al Departamento para preparar un borrador de rescisión de la Regla Final IE. No obstante, en diciembre de 2017, una corte federal revocó la regla de demora, requiriéndole a USCIS comenzar a aceptar las solicitudes de permiso de ingreso de empresarios, consistente con la Regla Final IE. 

DHS propone ahora eliminar la Regla Final IE debido a que el departamento cree que representa una interpretación demasiado amplia de la autoridad de concesión de permisos de ingreso (“parole”), carece de protecciones suficientes para los trabajadores e inversionistas estadounidenses, y no es el vehículo apropiado para atraer y retener empresarios internacionales. 

Por ley, DHS tiene la autoridad legal discrecional para otorgar a las personas permisos de ingreso temporal a Estados Unidos, según cada caso individual, por razones humanitarias urgentes o de beneficio público significativo. Luego de revisar los programas de permisos de ingreso (“parole”) de DHS de acuerdo con la Orden Ejecutiva titulada Mejoras en la Seguridad de las Fronteras y Control Migratorio emitida el 25 de enero de 2017, El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) propone eliminar la reglamentación publicada como parte de la Regla Final IE. 

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) concluyó que la Regla Final IE creó un programa complejo y altamente estructurado que resulta ser más apropiado para crearse mediante el proceso legislativo, en lugar de depender de la autoridad poco convencional del Secretario para otorgar, de manera categórica, los permisos de ingreso “temporal” a Estados Unidos a extranjeros a base de un “beneficio público significativo”. 

La Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad ya proporciona clasificaciones de visas que permiten a ciertos empresarios crear empresas y trabajar en Estados Unidos, como por ejemplo, la clasificación de no inmigrante E-2 y la clasificación de inmigrante EB-5. El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) está comprometido a evaluar todos los programas existentes de visas de inmigrante y no inmigrante basadas en el empleo a fin de asegurar la integridad de los programas y proteger los intereses de los inversionistas y trabajadores estadounidenses.

 

Fuente: El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS) 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3809-DHS-propone-eliminar-la-regla-empresario-internacional.html

Colombianos Tienen Dos Nuevos Destinos Para Viajar Sin Visa

Una buena noticia para los colombianos: dos países más permitieron su ingreso sin la exigencia de visado para estancias de corta duración.

Moldova y Albania se suman a los países que eximen a los colombianos de visa de corta duración para entrar en sus territorios. Ya son 76 países y 14 territorios no estatales a los que los connacionales pueden viajar sin necesidad de tramitar una visa; allí pueden ingresar y permanecer por periodos cortos presentando solamente el pasaporte. 

En 2010 solo podíamos ingresar sin visa a 25 países y un territorio no estatal. Durante el Gobierno del Presidente Juan Manuel Santos, la cifra se ha incrementado en 51 países y 13 territorios no estatales. 

República de Moldova y República de Albania, países pertenecientes al continente europeo, se suman a los destinos que los colombianos pueden visitar sin visado para estancias de corta duración. 

Moldova, perteneciente a la Europa oriental, se encuentra próximo al mar Negro y pertenece al antiguo estado soviético de la URSS, tiene sitios históricos inexplotables aún por el turismo a gran escala. Entre algunos de sus lugares a tener en cuenta se encuentran el museo nacional de historia, la calle principal de la ciudad Stefan cel mare, el parlamento, el arco de la Victoria. Albania, está ubicado al suroeste de Europa y se destacan sus más de 300 km de costa y muy buenas playas. También inmensos lagos turísticos, como el de Pogradec, hermosas montañas, deliciosa gastronomía y muchos parques naturales pro descubrir. 

Recordemos que los colombianos pueden viajar a los siguientes países solo con su pasaporte, estos son: Armenia, Andorra, Bielorrusia, Georgia, Kosovo, Rusia, España, Alemania, Austria, Bélgica, Dinamarca, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia, Estonia, Finlandia, Francia, Grecia, Hungría, Islandia, Italia, Letonia, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Malta, Noruega, Holanda, Polonia, Portugal, República Checa, Suecia, Suiza y Liechtenstein.

 

Última Actualización: Marzo 29 de 2018

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3808-Moldova-y-Albania-nuevos-destinos-para-colombianos.html

Immigrants Create Jobs for American Workers, Boosting the U.S. Employment Rate

Written by Walter Ewing 

When immigrants bring their skills to the U.S. labor market, everyone—immigrants and native-born workers alike—benefit from their company. Research has repeatedly shown that native-born workers are advantaged by the presence of immigrant workers in the labor market. 

A new report from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) adds to this growing body of research. Specifically, the report finds that immigrants have no negative effect on the unemployment rate or labor force participation rate of native-born Americans. 

The presence of more immigrants in the labor force is associated with a small but undeniable increase in the labor force participation rate of natives, NFAP concludes. Likewise, more immigrant workers correspond with a small decline in the unemployment rate of the native-born. 

Even less-educated native-born workers are not harmed by immigration, while the labor force participation rate of more-educated native-born workers increases as immigration rises. 

These outcomes are sometimes lost in the midst of structural changes in the U.S. economy which are brought about by many factors—of which immigration is but one. 

For instance, unemployment skyrocketed during the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and bounced back slowly. Meanwhile, labor force participation has been declining for years—a trend that accelerated with the recession and has yet to reverse. 

These trends are often analyzed in a vacuum, as if immigration was the only relevant variable affecting complex economic phenomena. But the U.S. economy isn’t that simple. 

In addition to quantifying the beneficial impact of immigration on natives, NFAP presents additional reasons why the outcomes of immigration are positive for most American workers. 

Immigrants generally do not compete directly with U.S. natives for jobs to begin with, because they work in different sectors of the economy and live in different parts of the country. Even if they do find themselves in the same place and the same industry, they are likely to perform different kinds of tasks. For instance, natives—for whom English is the native language—get more of the “communications-intensive” jobs, while immigrants who are not native speakers of English are more likely to work in jobs that require physical strength or exertion. 

It is important to keep in mind that the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy in general and native-born workers in particular goes far beyond employment and wages. Immigrant-led households across the United States contribute hundreds of billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year. Residents of immigrant-led households wield nearly a trillion dollars in collective spending power (after-tax income). And millions of immigrant business owners account for one-in-five of all self-employed U.S. residents and generate tens of billions of dollars in business income each year. 

Taken as a group, immigrants don’t consume jobs; they generate them.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3807-Immigrants-Create-Jobs-for-American-Workers.html

Resultados Lotería de Visas o Visas de Diversidad 2019

Si usted o un familiar se inscribieron en la lotería de visas entre el mes de octubre y noviembre del año pasado, ya puede verificar si fue uno de los 50.000 ganadores, para ver los resultados necesitará:

1. Su Número o Código de Confirmación emitido al momento de su participación
2. Su(s) Apellido(s) tal y como los ingreso al momento de su participación original
3. Su año de nacimiento en formato de 4 dígitos 
4. Código de Autenticación que el sistema le muestra 

Para saber si usted fue seleccionado haga click aquí luego en la nueva página haga click en el botón " Continue " digite los datos solicitados (el número de confirmación otorgado en el registro, su primer y segundo nombre y su fecha de nacimiento, código de autenticación ) pulse el botón “ Submit ” y el sistema validara los datos ingresados y le informará si fue seleccionado. 

Si fue seleccionado, el sitio web dvlottery.state.gov proporcionará información sobre cómo solicitar la visa para el solicitante y sus familiares elegibles. Allí también podrán confirmar sus citas para la entrevista de la visa. Algo que debe tener en cuenta es que se debe sacar la visa o realizar el ajuste de estatus antes que termine el año fiscal 2019 es decir entre el primero de octubre del 2018 al 30 de septiembre del 2019. Si no se hace dentro de este tiempo se pierde el derecho a la visa.

Si al ingresar sus datos el sistema le da como resultado “HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED” esto significa que NO ha sido ganador de la Lotería de Visas.

Si no tiene el número de confirmación, lo puede recuperar en la siguiente dirección web https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/esc/(S(pax30why5hdd3goh4zto51zw))/CheckConfirmation.aspx ingresando el número de identidad, nombres, apellidos, fecha de nacimiento, y el correo electrónico de esta manera el sistema validará tus datos y podrás recuperar el id de confirmación.

Recuerde que ganar la Lotería de Visas no significa obtener la residencia de Estados Unidos automáticamente. 

El Departamento de Estado recuerda a las personas que participaron en el sorteo que sean muy cuidadosos de fraudes, requerimientos de dinero, correos electrónicos y sitios de Internet que se hacen pasar por sitios oficiales del gobierno de Estados Unidos.

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3806-resultados-loteria-de-visas-2019.html
Fuente: dvlottery.state.gov