Jueza Federal Dictamina Que El Gobierno De Trump No Puede Encarcelar Indefinidamente A Los Inmigrantes

La jueza federal Dolly Gee, de la ciudad de Los Ángeles, propinó un duro golpe a los esfuerzos del gobierno de Trump para encarcelar de forma indefinida a las familias de inmigrantes, incluidos los solicitantes de asilo. 

La jueza dictaminó que el gobierno de Trump no puede enmendar el acuerdo de Flores de 1997, que indica que los niños no pueden ser encarcelados por más de 20 días. 

Todo esto se produce a medida que las protestas a favor de la inmigración continúan en todo el país; como en Ohio, donde 12 activistas fueron arrestados por bloquear una oficina del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE, por su sigla en inglés), en el centro de la ciudad de Columbus. 

Por su parte El Departamento de Justicia indica que reunirá hoy a casi la mitad de los más de cien niños inmigrantes menores de cinco años, luego de que un juez federal en San Diego aceptara extender el plazo que ordena la reunificación de todos los niños más pequeños. 

La operación secreta de reunificación de será supervisada por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, e implicará el transporte de los niños a cientos de kilómetros en todo el país a lugares no revelados. En total, aproximadamente 3.000 niños siguen separados de sus padres. 

Para ampliar esta información compartimos la entrevista que hizo democracynow.org a David Cole director legal a nivel nacional de la Unión Estadounidense por las Libertades Civiles (ACLU) y profesor de derecho y políticas públicas en el Centro de Derecho de la Universidad Georgetown. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: David Cole, we only have a few minutes left. I wanted to see if you could talk a little bit about the current situation with the battle over—with the Trump administration on immigration and on the reuniting of those children separated from the parents that they were taken from. 

DAVID COLE: Well, we are trying to hold the Trump administration’s feet to the fire. And we’re in the court in San Diego, where we got an injunction a couple weeks ago saying you’ve got to reunite the families—within 30 days, all the families; within 14 days, the children under 5. When we were back in court in the last couple days, they didn’t even have a list of the children under 5. And they were, you know, unclear whether they knew which kids were related to which parents. The judge, fortunately, is really, you know, holding their feet to the fire. And we’re basically in there talking with him and with the government on a daily basis about: Are they doing enough? And the answer is, no, they’re not. But they are being pressured by a court to do that. So—

AMY GOODMAN: So the judge granted them an extension today for the under fives. There’s two weeks, and all 3,000 kids have to be reunited. 

DAVID COLE: Right, right, right. 

AMY GOODMAN: They have given the names of the 102 kids? 

DAVID COLE: Yeah, yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: They’ve reunited, what? Under 50. 

DAVID COLE: Yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: Today, all at once, those 50 will be reunited? 

DAVID COLE: Well, I—

AMY GOODMAN: And then what happens to the other 50? 

DAVID COLE: Well, I mean, I think—I think, you know, realistically, they’re going to—they have to get them reunited as quickly as possible. They will not meet the deadline of today, but they—but you just—what you do is you continue to press. They screwed this up from the beginning. And they’re not putting in sufficient resources to respond in a fast and efficient way. I mean, these are kids who are suffering, who are—and parents who are suffering, separated from their families. And the government is coming in and saying, “We can’t”—you know, at one point the government said, “I have to dogsit for my dog back home, so I can’t come in here on the weekend to have an emergency hearing.” I mean, the Trump administration needs to take this more seriously. We’re doing everything we can. I think the American people, by coming out and protesting and speaking out as forcefully as they have, have helped tremendously. And I hope we can get the kids and the families reunited. 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you take this as a done deal: Brett Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court justice? 

CECILE RICHARDS: No. 

RACHEL TIVEN: No. 

AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Tiven? 

RACHEL TIVEN: No, not at all. Absolutely not. I think, first of all, this is a very, very closely divided Senate. Right? There are—only a couple of votes need to shift for this nomination to be blocked. And when—Senator McConnell has been so clear that when you’re within—oh, I don’t know—a year of an election—right? I mean, this is—at what point will Democrats, and surely some Republicans, call out the hypocrisy here? I mean, I think that people are worried for the future of their country. And bipartisan people are worried for the future of their country. 

AMY GOODMAN: Cecile Richards? 

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, I think, look, if the 5 million people who marched the day after the inauguration called their United States senators with concern, I think this process would be slowed down, and I think people would actually take a really hard look at this nominee. And I agree this should be delayed until after the midterm elections. This is—you know, the only way this nomination is going to get through is if they try to simply jam it through. And I think, again, Mitch McConnell, if it was good enough to delay under President Obama, it’s good enough to delay under President Trump. 

AMY GOODMAN: David, your wife serves on the same federal court as Judge Kavanaugh? 

DAVID COLE: Yeah, yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: Any further comment? 

DAVID COLE: No. 

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, in the last 15 seconds, Fatima Goss Graves, what are you going to be doing in these next months, the National Women’s Law Center? 

FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: We’re going all in. We believe that this is a fight that we can win. And the same way people counted out the ACA, we know that women will rise. They’ll be making the calls. They’ll be showing up at town halls. So people got to get ready. 

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us. And of course we’ll continue to cover this process. David Cole, legal director of the ACLU. Cecile Richards, former head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Rachel Tiven, head of Lambda Legal Defense. And Fatima Goss Graves, with the National Women’s Law Center. 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3845-Jueza-dictamina-no-encarcelar-indefinidamente-a-inmigrantes.html

Colombia Implementa Nuevo Sistema De Seguridad Para Validar La Información De Los Viajeros

Migración Colombia cuenta con un nuevo sistema para garantizar no sólo la seguridad nacional, sino también la de toda la región, gracias a la implementación del ATSG, un moderno software desarrollado por el U.S. Customs and Border Protection, el cual le permitirá a la autoridad migratoria colombiana procesar y verificar, en tiempo real, la información de todas las personas que llegan y salen del país en los diferentes vuelos internacionales, al punto de poder saber, incluso, la silla que un viajero tiene asignada. 

El anuncio fue hecho por el Director General de Migración Colombia, Christian Krüger Sarmiento, en el marco de la presentación de esta nueva herramienta tecnológica de seguridad, la cual se llevó a cabo en las instalaciones del Centro Conjunto de Análisis Migratorio – CECAM, en la ciudad de Bogotá, y que contó con la participación de representantes de la Policía Nacional, la DIAN, la Fuerza Aérea Colombiana, así como de un grupo de funcionarios de la Embajada de los Estados Unidos en Colombia, encabezados por su Embajador, Kevin Whitaker. 

Según Christian Krüger Sarmiento, el ATSG llega a complementar los sistemas API y Platinum, con que actualmente cuenta Migración Colombia y permitirá, tanto a las autoridades migratorias de Estados Unidos, como de Colombia, validar la información de los viajeros, en diferentes bases de datos, centrando los esfuerzos, de los Oficiales, en aquellas personas que pueden llegar a representar un riesgo para la seguridad de la región. 

Así mismo, afirmó el Director General de Migración Colombia, este es un paso más en la búsqueda de aquellas herramientas que permitan facilitar la movilidad entre Colombia y Estados Unidos. 

Algo que ya se viene dando gracias a la inclusión de nuestro país dentro del programa Global Entry, el cual permite el ingreso rápido de aquellos viajeros aprobados por el programa a los Estados Unidos, y a la posibilidad de implementar, en Colombia, el sistema Preclearance, que consiste en realizar la misma inspección individual que se les hace a los pasajeros que llegan a los Estados Unidos, sólo que en este caso se realizaría antes de salir del país, por oficiales norteamericanos, pertenecientes al programa Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Por su parte, el Embajador de los Estados Unidos en Colombia, Kevin Whitaker, aseguró que la seguridad de la región es un compromiso de todos y la puesta en funcionamiento del sistema ATSG por parte de Colombia es un paso más en la búsqueda de este objetivo. 

Así mismo, destacó Whitaker, que este tipo de ejercicios de intercambio de información, se suman a los operativos que se vienen realizando por parte de Migración Colombia con agencias de los Estados Unidos, los cuales permiten generar confianza, base primordial para la construcción de relaciones internacionales.

 

Fuente: Migración Colombia 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3844-nuevo-sistema-de-seguridad-para-viajeros-en-Colombia.html 

Juez Federal Dictamina Que Estados Unidos No Puede Detener A Solicitantes De Asilo

El juez federal de distrito James Boasberg dictaminó que el gobierno de Donald Trump no puede detener arbitrariamente a personas que solicitan asilo en Estados Unidos. El juez dictaminó que a los solicitantes de asilo que hayan aprobado una entrevista de “temor creíble” se les debe otorgar la libertad condicional humanitaria, no la detención indefinida. 

La demanda fue presentada por la Unión Estadounidense de Libertades Civiles, la organización sin fines de lucro Human Rights First y el Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados. 

Para conocer más del tema, puede ver la entrevista que democracynow.org hiciera a Eunice Lee, una de las directoras legales del Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados.

 

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration may not arbitrarily detain people seeking asylum. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled asylum seekers who have passed a credible fear interview should be given humanitarian parole, not indefinite detention. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights First and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. Siding with nine plaintiffs who have been awaiting asylum determinations, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to begin case-by-case release reviews at five ICE offices where he said detention had become the “default” operation: Los Angeles; Detroit; Philadelphia; Newark, New Jersey; and El Paso, Texas. 

AMY GOODMAN: The ruling comes in the midst of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown against immigrants. Earlier this month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced domestic violence will no longer be grounds for asylum—a far-reaching shift that could affect thousands of women fleeing gender-based violence, particularly from Central America. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: You do not get to come to America if you have a private threat or a—someone personally attacks you. You do not get to have asylum for that. It’s based on your race, your religion, your nationality, that you’re part of some special, identifiable group that’s being persecuted in your home country. That’s what it takes to have an asylum. And we need to get this straight. And I think it will help us, the decision I made. I believe it’s right legally. I’m totally confident it’s consistent with the intent of the drafters of the INA, our law. And I believe it will help us manage our caseloads better and give more focus to the people who deserve to be given asylum, and help us eliminate those that are not worthy of this asylum. 

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Attorney General Sessions rescinded a 2011 Department of Justice guidance that dictated refugees and asylum seekers have the right to work in the United States. 

Well, for more, we’re joined by Eunice Lee. She’s co-legal director at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, one of the groups that brought the challenge against the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies. 

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Eunice. Start off by talking about the significance of Judge Boasberg’s ruling. 

EUNICE LEE: Thank you, Amy. And thank you for having me on your show. 

So, the judge’s order essentially just required the government to do what it should have been doing all along, which is provide a meaningful opportunity for individuals who are asylum seekers in immigration detention to be released after they pass their credible fear interviews. And, in fact, the department’s own written guidance states that there’s a presumption of release, unless the individual poses an individualized flight risk or danger that warrants their detention. And, in fact, the judge’s ruling recognized that this is not what ICE has been doing in the five field offices where we brought suit, and he ordered the government to follow its own written policy. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Eunice, can you explain why this ruling applies only to these five jurisdictions? 

EUNICE LEE: Sure. So we brought suit in five jurisdictions where asylum seekers there were facing detention rates of 90-plus percent. So, for 90-plus percent of our class plaintiffs, they were, in fact, not being released. They were being denied release or parole, as it’s called, despite this written guidance that states that they should be released unless there is a real need to detain them. And what we saw with these 90-plus percent denial rates is that, essentially, there was no meaningful review of detention decisions by ICE, and there was near-blanket detention of people who should have been released, you know, after establishing a credible fear of persecution. 

AMY GOODMAN: So, these five jurisdictions—Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark and El Paso—explain exactly what will come out of this now. I assume the government is appealing this. But if they were to follow Boasberg’s ruling, what has to happen? Will thousands of people be released? 

EUNICE LEE: Well, we haven’t yet seen that the government is appealing this. And, in fact, what the judge’s order orders—requires the government to do is to provide a review of a person’s detention. And this should be an automatic review that applies a presumption that favors release. So, in general, the department’s guidance states that it’s not in the public interest to detain asylum seekers unnecessarily after they pass their initial screening interview establishing a likelihood of asylum eligibility. So, what will happen after this order takes effect is that ICE will have to go back, and for our class members who are asylum seekers in detention in these five jurisdictions, ICE will have to actually provide a meaningful process to review whether their detention is necessary. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And could other jurisdictions eventually benefit from this ruling? 

EUNICE LEE: Well, the ruling is limited, again, to the five jurisdictions where we brought our lawsuit. Certainly, we hope that ICE—you know, that the ruling will prompt ICE to look at its practices and decide to follow its written guidance, you know, as it should, throughout the country, in all jurisdictions. But, you know, the ruling is limited to those five jurisdictions because that’s where we saw the most striking and egregious problems. 

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the case of Ansly Damus, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, in Damus v. Nielsen. As explained by the ACLU, Ansly is an ethics teacher in his early forties who fled violence and political persecution in Haiti after speaking out against the corruption of a local politician. He was attacked by a local gang, whose members severely beat him, set his motorcycle on fire, threatened to kill him. Fearing for his life, he fled […] Haiti, leaving behind his wife, 8-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son. He not only passed his screening, but an immigration judge here granted his application twice. In each instance, the U.S. government appealed the decision, extending his case proceedings. Yet he’s currently locked up in Ohio, where immigrant detainees are kept in windowless rooms. And he has not been allowed outside in 16 months, in well over a year? 

EUNICE LEE: That’s right, Amy. So, our lead plaintiff, Mr. Damus, as you mentioned, is an ethics teacher from Haiti who fled political persecution, and he came to our shores seeking protection. And as you note, he was, in fact, granted twice—granted asylum twice by an immigration judge, and both times the government appealed. And the government, during all this time, which it’s now been over a year and a half, has refused to release him, despite multiple requests by his attorney, or by him, brought, you know, together with his attorney. And he has provided all sorts of information to show that he is not a flight risk or a danger. I mean, he was an ethics teacher in Haiti. He has community support. He had a letter from a pastor. He had a place to live. He has no criminal history. And yet ICE has denied multiple requests for him to be released, even after an immigration judge twice granted him asylum, which was appealed by the department. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Eunice, could you explain whether Judge Boasberg’s ruling will apply to any of the families of the over 2,000 children who have been separated from their parents, who the Trump administration is threatening to detain together, the parents and the children? Will the ruling affect that at all? 

EUNICE LEE: So, the ruling—the class members in our suit do include some parents who were separated from their children. But I do want to clarify that the class members are those individuals who presented at a border—at a port of entry, so either Border Patrol port of entry or an airport, and they were taken into immigration custody from there. So, the suit does not apply to families who first crossed the border and then were later apprehended by immigration officials. But, you know, as I said, there are families who presented together at a border point of entry and who were separated by immigration authorities, and our lawsuit would apply to the parents in those circumstances who were separated from their children and are in detention. AMY GOODMAN: And again, how many people does your case—does your suit cover? 

EUNICE LEE: So, we estimate that there are over a thousand class members each year detained in these five jurisdictions. So, it should—you know, going forward, it should affect several hundred to over a thousand individuals in detention each year. 

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the people who are trying to get over the border? Democracy Now! was just there last week. We went over two bridges, from Matamoros to Brownsville. And people are just being told the country is full. And so they’re waiting. They’re baking in the hot sun.We were there last week, we went over two bridges to Brownsville. People are just being told the country is full, so they are waiting, baking in the hot sun. Some, eventually, I think, will leave and not go to a legal port of entry. Others just sit there and sit there—that’s the legal way to do it—and are turned back. 

EUNICE LEE: * Right. So—exactly. So, the reason many people are forced to cross in between ports of entry is exactly as you said, because ICE—or, because CBP, Customs and Border Protection, is simply not letting people through. They’re not accepting people who are trying to go to the ports of entry and say, “I would like to seek asylum.” And, in fact, they are supposed to allow folks to seek asylum. Our laws provide a right to seek asylum. We’ve signed on to international treaties that oblige us to recognize that right. And yet, asylum seekers are still being turned away at ports of entry. And this is, as you say, creating a humanitarian crisis for folks who are waiting for their turn, and driving many people in desperation to cross first and then ask for asylum. 

AMY GOODMAN: Eunice Lee, we want to thank you very much for being with us, co-legal director at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, co-counsel on the litigation challenging the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies. A federal judge has just ruled in their favor.

 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3843-juez-de-Estados-Unidos-falla-en-favor-de-solicitantes-de-asilo.html

Estados Unidos Toma Muestras De ADN A Niños Inmigrantes

El Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) todavía no dio a conocer cuántos menores migrantes separados de sus padres en la frontera tienen retenidos. La semana pasada, el secretario de HHS Alex Azar dijo que todavía había 2047 menores bajo el cuidado de la Oficina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados. 

Por otra parte el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos ha estado tomando muestras de ADN de los niños inmigrantes que son separados de sus padres como parte de la política fronteriza del gobierno de Trump de “tolerancia cero”. 

Afirman que es necesario para cumplir con la fecha límite que vence el próximo 10 de julio impuesto por un tribunal, para que restituya a todos los niños menores de cinco años de edad a sus padres. 

El canal de televisión CNN informa que funcionarios de inmigración han estado tomando muestras de ADN de las mejillas de niños de hasta apenas dos meses de edad, sin consentimiento, en un intento ostensible de luego poder reunirlos con sus padres. 

Grupos de derechos civiles han condenado la medida, señalando que esto podría permitir que el gobierno federal rastree a los inmigrantes por el resto de sus vidas. Jennifer Falcon, de Raíces, un grupo de Texas que lucha por los derechos de los inmigrantes, declaró: “Esta es una demostración más de la incompetencia de este gobierno y su admisión de culpabilidad, esto nos da la razón. El gobierno nunca registró a padres e hijos de manera adecuada”. 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org - YouTube RT en Español

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3842-Agentes-Inmigracion-toman-muestras-de-ADN-a-inmigrantes.html

Venezolanos Con Permiso Especial de Permanencia Deberán Actualizar Datos Ante Migración Colombia

Desde el 03 de Julio, y hasta el próximo 20 de julio, los más de 181 mil ciudadanos venezolanos portadores del Permiso Especial de Permanencia – PEP, deberán actualizar sus datos personales a través de la página web de Migración Colombia.

Según el Director General de Migración Colombia, Christian Krüger Sarmiento, con esta medida lo que se busca es ampliar la información de aquellos ciudadanos venezolanos portadores del PEP, con el fin de continuar con el trabajo adelantado por el Gobierno Nacional a través del RAMV, para la formulación y diseño de una política integral de atención humanitaria.

Para la actualización de datos, los usuarios del PEP deberán ingresar a la página web de Migración Colombia, www.migracioncolombia.gov.co, y diligenciar la Encuesta PEP.

La información actualizada, así como toda aquella que actualmente posee la autoridad migratoria colombiana, es de carácter confidencial y sólo será empleada como instrumento para la construcción de la política integral de atención humanitaria del Gobierno Nacional.

 

Fuente: Migración Colombia 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3841-venezolanos-con-PEP-deben-actualizar-datos-en-Colombia.html 

Fuegos Artificiales Iluminan El Firmamento El Cuatro De Julio En Estados Unidos

Para muchos en Estados Unidos, en el Cuatro de Julio, la manera tradicional de terminar el día es sentarse, mirar al firmamento y observar un espectáculo de fuegos artificiales, una demostración artística de luz, color y sonido que llena el cielo, evocando un sentimiento de orgullo patriótico en el Día de la Independencia de Estados Unidos. 

Los espectáculos de fuegos artificiales son una tradición anual que comenzó con John Adams, un padre fundador y el segundo presidente del país. Adams imaginó los fuegos artificiales como parte de las celebraciones del Día de la Independencia. En una carta a su esposa, Abigail, Adams explicó que las festividades deberían incluir “campanas, hogueras e iluminaciones (fuegos artificiales) desde un extremo de este continente hasta el otro a partir de este momento y para siempre”. 

Seguramente Adams estaría complacido de que los estadounidenses siguieran su consejo y lo aprovechen al máximo. 

De acuerdo con la Asociación Estadounidense de Pirotecnia, este Cuatro de Julio habrá más de 16.000 espectáculos de fuegos artificiales en todo el país. Los espectáculos más grandes tendrán lugar en Nueva York, Boston, Washington, Nashville, San Diego y Chicago. 

“Algunos de estos espectáculos se planifican con un año de anticipación”, dice Julie Heckman, directora ejecutiva de la asociación. 

Pyro Shows Inc., una de las compañías de fuegos artificiales más grandes del mundo, está introduciendo nuevas tecnologías este año, “empleando más sistemas computarizados de lanzamiento que aportan una precisión de fracción de segundo”, explica James Woods, director de operaciones administrativas de la compañía. 

“Cada Cuatro de Julio, y lo que es más, cada espectáculo de fuegos artificiales, tiene un sentimiento patriótico muy fuerte”, dice Woods. 

Fuente: www.share.america.gov 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3840-Fuegos-Artificiales-celebracion-cuatro-de-julio.html

Nationwide Protests: ¿Pro-Immigrant or Anti-Trump?

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance. 

Over the past weeks, there has been a series of major protests against the mistreatment of immigrants. Hundreds were arrested after blocking DC streets and sitting-in at a Senate office building. Two weeks ago, there were #FamiliesTogether rallies across the United States that forced Trump to end child separation and return to the Obama-era policy of incarcerating immigrant families . People are taking action for immigrant rights and protesting the separation of children from their families as well as the indefinite detention of immigrant families. 

Protesters are holding policymakers personally accountable. This includes protests against Homeland Security director, Kirstjen Nielsen, outside her home playing tapes of immigrant children as well as in a restaurant . The White House staffer, Stephen Miller, who is behind many of Trump’s most racist policies was also protested at a Mexican restaurant and outside his condo in Washington, DC. Popular Resistance believes in holding individuals accountable with carefully planned protests as an essential activist tool. 

The occupation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices by mothers and children , holding that agency specifically responsible for abusive law enforcement practices, and the burgeoning #OcccupyICE protests, beginning in Portland , are putting pressure on ICE. Microsoft workers called for Microsoft to cancel contracts with ICE . And, peoplemarched on tent city prison camps where children and immigrant families are being held. These build on efforts in court to hold ICE accountable . 

Many cities have chosen to be sanctuary cities by refusing to use their law enforcement to do the work of ICE. Cities that welcome immigrants and have non-discrimination policies have fewer deportations and less insecurity. This is also having the result of making those cities safer in general because immigrants have less fear of reporting crimes. 

While sanctuary and humane treatment of immigrants bring security, raids on immigrants leave misery and broken communities . Here is one account of the terror and hardship caused by an ICE raid on a business last month in Ohio. And the issue of racist and violent policing is still a problem because some cities make a distinction between protecting “law-abiding” immigrants versus those who break a law, as determined by racist police. 

There are divisions over immigration within the enforcement community. In March, an ICE spokesperson resigned rather than continue to put out false information about immigrants. This week, top leaders of Homeland Security enforcement wrote a letter that was made public claiming ICE is making their job of protecting the country from real threats more difficult. Calls for abolition of ICE are now being made by activists and the list of Democrats calling for the abolition of ICE is rapidly growing. 

Are The Protests Pro-Immigrant or Anti-Trump? 

The protests against immigration policies in the Trump-era are different than protests against abusive immigration policies in the Obama-era . There were mass protests against Obama’s immigration policies, which led to deportations at levels that Trump has still not approached, but in the Obama-era, the protests were organized and led primarily by immigrants. In the Trump era, there are protests by immigrants , especially around protecting the Dreamers , but they are also being organized by non-immigrant protesters with a focus against President Trump. These protests began almost immediately with the election of Trump and focused on his policies of stopping immigration at airports, Trump’s Muslim ban . 

The protests remind us of the immense anti-war protests during the George W. Bush presidency, which turned out in hindsight to be more anti-Bush than anti-war as they dissipated when President Obama was elected. The Bush wars continued under Obama, as did coups and other efforts to reverse the pink tide in Latin America. President Obama expanded militarism using robotic-drone warfare, new military troops and bases throughout Africa and mass destruction and slaughter in Libya, yet there were no mass anti-war protests against him as were seen in the Bush era. 

Democratic Party-aligned groups used the anti-war sentiment to stir up their voter base in opposition to President Bush and the Republicans, but were noticeably silent during the Obama administration in order to protect the Democrats. Is immigration being used similarly as an issue to elect Democrats? It appears to be the case. 

Democratic Party-aligned groups like MoveOn and the Women’s March have led some of the organizing efforts. MoveOn reported on the mass protests yesterday, writing in an email: 

While abuse of immigrant families and their children are important reasons to protest, it is critical to be non-partisan or the pro-immigrant movement risks going the way of the anti-war movement, which is still struggling to rebuild. If the protests are framed as anti-Trump, then voters may conclude that electing Democrats will solve the problem. Both major political parties have failed immigrants in the US. We need to build national consensus for pro-immigrant policies that hold whomever is in power accountable. 

Facing the Roots of Abusive Immigration Policies: Racism and Profit

The connection between immigration policies and racism and profit-seeking is being exposed. Stirring up racist hatred against immigrants benefits the ruling elites by keeping people focused on fighting each other while the rich get richer. The federal government has spent $4 billion since the start of 2017 fiscal year on contracts and grants for private prisons, security firms, the tech industry and child “protective” agencies and non-profits, as well as the budgets of federal agencies including Homeland Security, ICE and the US military, which is building prison camps for 120,000 immigrants . Abusing immigrants means high profits for some and plays on the divide-and-rule racism politicians use to control people. 

The broader context is that today’s immigration policies of separating and mistreating families have deep roots . The colonizing founding of the United States treated imported African slaves in brutal ways, including family separation. There has been a similar mistreatment of Indigenous peoples, separating families and putting children into brainwashing, abusive boarding schools. And, racist-based mass incarceration results in fathers and mothers being removed from their families and communities, particularly for black and brown people. 

The duopoly parties ignore the root causes of mass migration , which are due in large part to US economic policies including the injustice of corporate trade agreements on behalf of transnational corporations that abuse people and steal resources throughout the world, as well as US empire policies of militarism, regime change , and imperialism. We wrote two weeks ago about how to protect the human rights of immigrants, the US must end the policies that drive migration . 

The United States Needs A Pro-Immigration Policy To Correct Abusive Treatment of Immigrants

The beginnings of a pro-immigration policy in the United States is developing. Indeed, that word “pro-immigration” needs to become part of the political dialogue. We heard the call for a pro-immigrant policy at the Maryland State Green Party meeting this weekend. It was a phrase we had not heard in the political dialogue, but we are pleased to see it brought out into the open. 

A critical area of information that has been suppressed is the positive impact of immigration on the economy. Research showsthat the presence of immigrant workers has a small positive impact for US-born workers. Immigrants tend to work in different sectors or hold different jobs within the same sector than US-born workers. They also make significant contributions through taxes. Mapping shows how immigration has helped build the economy across the United States . 

The US needs to recognize the positive impacts of policies that protect the human rights of people to move across borders. Research published this week shows that free movement of people could expand the global economy by $78 trillion . 

It is time to end the failed policies of abusive immigration policy, militarized law enforcement and a militarized border and build a positive approach to immigration that protects human rights and builds the economy from the foundation up by using the best of each person who comes to the United States or who already live here. 

If the $4 billion spent on abusive immigration enforcement in the last year had been used to build the foundation of the US economy with a positive approach to immigration, we would all be better off. A positive immigration policy will increase security and build the economy for all people. 

 

Source: Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3839-Pro-Immigrant-or-Anti-Trump.html

Estados Unidos Prohíbe Viajar Con Sustancias en Polvo En El Equipaje De Mano

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos continua trabajando activamente para elevar la base de seguridad de la aviación en todo el mundo al exigir la implementación de medidas de seguridad mejoradas, tanto visibles como invisibles, en aproximadamente 280 aeropuertos extranjeros con vuelos comerciales directos hacia los Estados Unidos, en más de 100 países de todo el mundo. 

Las nuevas disposiciones de la Administración de Seguridad de Transporte ( Transportation Security Administration -TSA-) que empezaron a regir desde el pasado 30 de junio de 2018, restringe el transporte de sustancias en polvo mayores a 12 onzas o 340 gramos. Es decir a partir de esta fecha, ningún pasajero podrá llevar productos en polvo como café molido, azúcar, harina, especias, leche en polvo, cosméticos entre otros de más de 12 onzas en la cabina como parte del equipaje de mano. 

El transporte de productos en polvo de más de 12 onzas solo estará permitido como parte del equipaje que se envía por carga o bodega, además, deberán tener en cuenta estos lineamientos: 

• Los artículos que presenten adulteración, peso inusual, inconsistencia del contenido o estén en mal estado serán reportados a la autoridad local de Seguridad y a la TSA y serán retenidos y dispuestos como mercancías peligrosas.
• Las sustancias en polvo adquiridas en el Duty Free de los aeropuertos, que superen las 12 onzas o 340 gr deberán estar selladas en una bolsa Secure Tamper Evident bag (STEB).
• Los artículos en polvo que sean detectados por Seguridad en las salas de abordaje no podrán ser transportados ni en el equipaje de mano ni en bodega.

Solo algunas sustancias en polvo son exoneradas de revisiones entre ellas las fórmulas para bebés, polvos medicinales y restos humanos, pero deben tener la debida prescripción médica o permiso. 

Así que si vuela desde cualquiera de los aeropuertos de último punto de partida hacia los Estados Unidos puede experimentar un proceso de selección más extenso y debe prepararse para una evaluación adicional de su propiedad y no solo de sus dispositivos electrónicos personales sino también de cualquier sustancia en polvo que lleve. 

Por lo tanto recomendamos llegar temprano al aeropuerto para tener suficiente tiempo para el proceso de revisión. Si desea mayor información sobre artículos permitidos durante el viaje puede consultar la página de su aerolínea o directamente el sitio web de Administración de Seguridad de Transporte de los Estados Unidos www.tsa.gov

 

Fuente: Administración de Seguridad de Transporte ( Transportation Security Administration -TSA-) 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3838-Nuevas-restricciones-en-el-equipaje-de-mano-si-viaja-a-Estados-Unidos.html