U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will publish a final rule on July 24 that makes a number of significant changes to itsEB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, marking the first significant revision of the program’s regulations since 1993. The final rule will become effective on Nov. 21, 2019.
New developments under the final rule include:
Raising the minimum investment amounts;
Revising the standards for certain targeted employment area (TEA) designations;
Giving the agency responsibility for directly managing TEA designations;
Clarifying USCIS procedures for the removal of conditions on permanent residence;
Allowing EB-5 petitioners to retain their priority date under certain circumstances.
Under the EB-5 program, individuals are eligible to apply for conditional lawful permanent residence in the United States if they make the necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and create or, in certain circumstances, preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers.
“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress created the EB-5 program to benefit U.S. workers, boost the economy, and aid distressed communities by providing an incentive for foreign capital investment in the United States,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “Since its inception, the EB-5 program has drifted away from Congress’s intent. Our reforms increase the investment level to account for inflation over the past three decades and substantially restrict the possibility of gerrymandering to ensure that the reduced investment amount is reserved for rural and high-unemployment areas most in need. This final rule strengthens the EB-5 program by returning it to its Congressional intent.”
Major changes to EB-5 in the final rule include:
Raising minimum investment amounts: As of the effective date of the final rule, the standard minimum investment level will increase from $1 million to $1.8 million, the first increase since 1990, to account for inflation. The rule also keeps the 50% minimum investment differential between a TEA and a non-TEA, thereby increasing the minimum investment amount in a TEA from $500,000 to $900,000. The final rule also provides that the minimum investment amounts will automatically adjust for inflation every five years.
TEA designation reforms: The final rule outlines changes to the EB-5 program to address gerrymandering of high-unemployment areas (which means deliberately manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency). Gerrymandering of such areas was typically accomplished by combining a series of census tracts to link a prosperous project location to a distressed community to obtain the qualifying average unemployment rate. As of the effective date of the final rule, DHS will eliminate a state’s ability to designate certain geographic and political subdivisions as high-unemployment areas; instead, DHS would make such designations directly based on revised requirements in the regulation limiting the composition of census tract-based TEAs. These revisions will help ensure TEA designations are done fairly and consistently, and more closely adhere to congressional intent to direct investment to areas most in need.
Clarifying USCIS procedures for removing conditions on permanent residence: The rule revises regulations to make clear that certain derivative family members who are lawful permanent residents must independently file to remove conditions on their permanent residence. The requirement would not apply to those family members who were included in a principal investor’s petition to remove conditions. The rule improves the adjudication process for removing conditions by providing flexibility in interview locations and to adopt the current USCIS process for issuing Green Cards.
Allowing EB-5 petitioners to keep their priority date: The final rule also offers greater flexibility to immigrant investors who have a previously approved EB-5 immigrant petition. When they need to file a new EB-5 petition, they generally now will be able to retain the priority date of the previously approved petition, subject to certain exceptions.
La batalla legal entre las decisiones de la administración del presidente Donald Trump y las Cortes federales continúan, esta vez es por la nueva política para las personas que están pidiendo asilo en la frontera. La Unión Americana de libertades civiles junto con otras organizaciones demandaron al Gobierno Federal después de que se anunció que se implementaría una nueva política para procesar a las personas que piden asilo en la frontera.
Un tribunal federal de California bloqueó la prohibición de Trump a la mayoría de los solicitantes de asilo que buscan refugio en la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México. La orden judicial preliminar restrictiva se produjo pocas horas después de que un juez federal en Washington, D. C., permitiera que la norma se mantuviera vigente en una batalla legal separada.
Con esta decisión del juez se determina que es ilegal la nueva política que se implementó desde el pasado martes y las personas de acuerdo lo que decidió el juez no tienen que pedir primero asilo en México o en Guatemala, sino que pueden ir directamente a los Estados Unidos a solicitarlo. El juez mencionó que fue la misma administración del presidente Trump quienes determinaron que México es un país violento y por eso no se le puede pedir ir a las personas que primero lleguen a México hacer una petición de asilo.
Pero tras la decisión del Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos en San Francisco, el gobierno de Trump deberá continuar aceptando solicitudes de asilo, al menos por ahora. La norma de Trump pretende impedir que cualquier persona que pase por un tercer país pueda ejercer su derecho, según la ley internacional, de buscar asilo en Estados Unidos, incluyendo en la frontera sur con México.
Baher Azmy, director legal del Centro de Derechos Constitucionales, quien ayudó a lograr la suspensión temporal de la política de asilo de Trump dijo: “El tribunal decidió correctamente que décadas de la ley de asilo estadounidense evitaran que este gobierno intente negar la mayoría de las protecciones de asilo a través de esta regulación arbitraria y precipitada. Esta aplicación de la ley también salvará vidas de refugiados vulnerables que huyen por sus vidas y seguridad”.
In the United States today, more than eight million citizens live with at least one family member, often a parent, who is undocumented. Children make up the majority of these U.S. citizens; almost six million citizen children under the age of 18 live with a parent or family member who is undocumented. Consequently, immigration enforcement actions—and the ongoing threats associated with them—have significant physical, emotional, developmental, and economic repercussions on the children left behind. Deportations of parents and family members have serious consequences that affect children and extend to communities and the country as a whole.
This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. citizen children who could be impacted by immigration enforcement actions, the challenges and risk factors that these children face, and the existing mechanisms designed to protect children if a parent is detained or deported.
Millions of U.S. citizen children have undocumented parents and family members.
4.1 million U.S. citizen childrenunder the age of 18 live with at least one undocumentedparentaccording to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2009-2013 U.S. Census data).
5.9 million U.S. citizen childrenunder the age of 18 live with an undocumentedfamily member, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2010-2014 census data).
Roughlyhalf-a-million U.S. citizen childrenexperienced the apprehension, detention, and deportation of at least one parent in the course of about two years, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data between 2011 and 2013).
As of 2017, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti had an estimated 273,000U.S.-born citizen children. With those TPS designations terminated, many of these parents will become undocumented by the end of 2019.
Immigration enforcement—and the threat of such actions—can negatively impact a child’s long-term health and development.
A child’s risk of having mental health problems like depression, anxiety, and severe psychological distress increases following the detention and/or deportation of a parent. Since late 2016,doctors and service providershave reported anecdotally that they have seen more children exhibiting stress- and anxiety-related behavioral changes, including symptoms of “toxic-stress,” due to fear that a family member will be deported.
Astudy of Latino citizen childrenfrom 2013-2015 found that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were significantly higher for children who had at least one detained or deported parent.
A2010 studyof immigration-related parental arrests (at home or worksites) found that the majority of children experienced at least four adverse behavioral changes in the six months following a raid or arrest. Compared to the previous six months, children cried or were afraid more often; changed their eating or sleeping habits; and/or were more anxious, withdrawn, clingy, angry, or aggressive.
Even before birth, immigration enforcement can put a child’s health at risk. The2008 worksite raidin Postville, Iowa—the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history—was tied to premature and underweight births, complications that put babies at risk for infant death or long-term health problems.Researchers foundthat babies born to Latina mothers in Iowa within 37 weeks of the raid were 24 percent more likely to be underweight compared to the previous year. This increased risk was not evident in babies born to non-Latina white mothers in Iowa.
The detention or deportation of a parent puts children at risk of economic instability.
The deportation, and even the arrest or detention, of a parent or other household family member has significant short- and long-term financial implications. U.S. citizen children and any remaining family members can face substantial economic disadvantages following the removal of a primary provider.
An analysis of 2014 median family income estimated that a family’s income woulddecrease 50 percentfollowing the deportation of a family member.
A study of immigration enforcement in six U.S. locations between 2006 and 2009 found that familieslost 40 to 90 percentof their income, or an average of 70 percent, within six months of a parent’s immigration-related arrest, detention, or deportation.
The ability to afford housing may become more tenuous following the deportation of a provider, resulting in the loss of a family’s home and more frequent relocations.
A2016 studyof immigration enforcement and housing foreclosures found that “deportations exacerbate rates of foreclosure among Latinos by removing income earners from owner-occupied households.” Furthermore, the research revealed that counties with 287(g) agreements, which authorize immigration enforcement collaboration between local police and ICE, had substantially higher foreclosure rates among Latinos.
U.S. citizen children may end up in the child welfare system following the detention or deportation of their parent.
Parents—regardless of immigration status, detention, or deportation—have a constitutional right to custody of their children (unless deemed unfit). While the child welfare system generally recognizes that it is in a child’s best interest to remain with a parent or family member, the intersection with immigration enforcement can negatively impact parental rights and thus a child’s well-being. For example, the lack of coordination between agencies has historically led to prolonged family separation and even termination of parental rights.
To ensure that enforcement activities did not “unnecessarily disrupt the parental rights” of parents or legal guardians of minor children, ICE issued itsParental Interests Directivein 2013. The Parental Interests Directive was replaced in 2017 with a newDetained Parents Directive. The 2017 policy eliminated many aspects of the 2013 directive, including guidance for the use of prosecutorial discretion in cases involving children and all references to parental rights. The 2017 directive instead instructs ICE agents to “remain cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have” on certain children.
According to ICE’s 2017Detained Parents Directive, when certain minor children are encountered during immigration enforcement, ICE agents should “generally accommodate” the parent or legal guardian’s efforts to make child care arrangements before contacting local child welfare or law enforcement to take temporary custody.
If a parent is unable to arrange childcare or custody prior to detention or deportation, the child may be taken by the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) for placement and case management. The child is usually placed in an emergency shelter; group home; or with a relative, friend, or stranger in a foster home while custody is determined in family court.
Anestimated 5,000U.S. citizen children in foster care had a detained or deported parent in 2011, according to a national study.
Children in foster care in counties with 287(g) agreements were29 percentmore likely to have detained or deported parents compared to non-287(g) counties studied in 2011.
There are limited mechanisms to safeguard parental rights, which are incredibly difficult for parents to regain following detention or deportation.
All parents have the right to receive a notification of custody proceedings affecting their children, attend such proceedings, and receive copies of related court documents. Yet there are few enforceable, permanent policies in place to protect these rights.
Federal law mandates that parental rights be terminated if a child has been out of a parent’s custody for 15 of the past 22 months. Policies and procedures vary by state, but in order to maintain or regain parental rights, CPS generally implements a reunification plan that requires a parent to have regular contact with the child and participate in family court hearings. Detained or deported parents have historically faced significant barriers to these requirements.
Parents may request release from detention in order to care for their children while they are in immigration proceedings. However, ICE no longer provides its personnel with guidance for exercising such discretion in cases that involve a child.
The 2017 directive generally instructs agents to facilitate regular visitation for detained parents and their minor children, though no longer emphasizes in-person visitation. ICE personnel should also arrange for a detained parent's participation in custody proceedings when required by a court.
Significant issues persist for detained parents who may be dealing with both immigration and custody proceedings. Since ICE is not required to inform CPS of a parent’s whereabouts, CPS may have difficulty locating and properly notifying a detained parent; family courts and caseworkers may not understand why a parent is detained and unable to participate in proceedings; and ICE officials may underestimate the impact that enforcement has on U.S. citizen children who are likely to be left behind.
Parents with a final deportation order must make the difficult decision of whether to bring their children—including U.S. citizen children—with them.
ICE issued more than200,000 deportation ordersbetween 2010 and 2012 for parents who report having U.S. citizen children, according to the most recent estimates of government data available. While the government does not track whether U.S. citizen children stay in the United States or leave with a deported parent, both scenarios occur and pose challenges.
If parental rights remain intact, parents with a pending deportation may make custody arrangements for their children to stay in the United States. ICE is supposed to “accommodate, to the extent practicable,” a detained parent's efforts to make guardianship or travel arrangements for the child prior to deportation.
If a child’s custody is still being determined after a parent has been deported, the ability of the parent to regain custody or participate in proceedings—even if the court requires the parent’s attendance—is extremely limited. ICE no longer has guidance to consider facilitating the travel of a deported parent back to the United States to participate in proceedings that may result in the termination of parental rights.
Deported parents have the right to reunite with their children outside of the United States as long as the reunification plan is ongoing, but this requires significant coordination between family members, the parent country’s consulate, and U.S. state and federal agencies. It can be difficult for deported parents to prove that they can provide for their children in a stable and safe environment in the country of deportation, based on many of the same conditions that may have triggered the parent’s migration to the United States
El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglés) publicará el 24 de julio una regla final (en inglés) que hace una serie de cambios significativos a suPrograma de Inversionistas Inmigrantes EB-5, que marca la primera revisión significativa a las reglamentaciones del programa desde 1993. La regla final será efectiva a partir del 21 de noviembre de 2019.
Los nuevos desarrollos bajo la regla final incluyen:
Aumento en las cantidades mínimas de inversión;
Revisión de los estándares de las designaciones de ciertas áreas de empleo objeto (TEA, por sus siglas en inglés);
Dar a la agencia la responsabilidad de manejar directamente las designaciones de las TEA;
Clarificar los procedimientos de USCIS para la remoción de las condiciones en la residencia permanente;
Permitir a los peticionarios EB-5 retener sus fechas de prioridad bajo ciertas circunstancias.
Bajo el programa EB-5, las personas son elegibles a solicitar la residencia permanente legal condicional en Estados Unidos si hacen las inversiones necesarias en una empresa comercial en Estados Unidos para crear o, en ciertas circunstancias, preservar 10 trabajos permanentes a tiempo completo para los trabajadores estadounidenses cualificados.
“Hace casi 30 años, el Congreso creó el programa EB-5 para beneficiar a los trabajadores estadounidenses, impulsar la economía y ayudar a las comunidades que están en dificultades al proporcionar un incentivo para la inversión de capital extranjero en Estados Unidos”, dijo el director interino de USCIS, Ken Cuccinelli. “Desde su creación, el programa EB-5 no ha sido reglamentado adecuadamente para asegurar que opere según la intención que tuvo el Congreso. Nuestras reformas aumentan los niveles de inversión para considerar la inflación sobre las pasadas tres décadas y restringen sustancialmente la posibilidad de que el gobierno se asegure de que el monto reducido de la inversión se reserve para las áreas rurales y de alto desempleo más necesitadas”.
Los cambios mayores al programa EB-5 hechos dentro de la regla final incluyen:
Aumentar las cantidades mínimas de inversión: A partir de la fecha de efectividad de la regla final, el nivel estándar de inversión mínima aumentará de $1 millón a $1.8 millones, lo que constituye el primer incremento desde 1990, para tomar en cuenta la inflación. La regla también mantiene el diferencial de inversión mínima de 50 por ciento entre un área de empleo objeto (TEA) y un no TEA, lo que aumenta la cantidad mínima de inversión en un TEA de $500,000 a $900,000. La regla final también establece que las cantidades mínimas de inversión se ajustarán automáticamente por inflación cada cinco años.
Reformas a la designación de TEA: La regla final describe los cambios al programa EB-5 para atender la manipulación de las áreas de altas tasas de desempleo, (lo que significa una manipulación deliberada de las fronteras de los distritos electorales)que típicamente se cumplían mediante la combinación de una serie de distritos censales para enlazar una localización próspera del proyecto a una comunidad en problemas para obtener la tasa media de desempleo cualificada. A partir de la fecha de efectividad de la regla final, DHS eliminará la capacidad de un estado para designar ciertas subdivisiones geográficas y políticas como áreas de alta tasa de desempleo. En su lugar, DHS hará esas designaciones directamente a base de requisitos revisados en las regulaciones que limitan la composición de TEAS, basadas en distritos censales. Estas revisiones ayudarán a asegurar que las designaciones de TEA se hagan de manera justa y consistente, y se acerquen más a la intención congresional de dirigir la inversión a las áreas de más necesidad.
Aclarar los procedimientos de USCIS para eliminar las condiciones sobre la residencia permanente: La regla revisa las regulaciones para dejar claro que ciertos familiares derivados que son residentes permanentes legales deben presentar una petición por separado para eliminar las condiciones en su residencia permanente. El requisito no aplicará a aquellos familiares que fueron incluidos en la petición del inversionista principal para eliminar las condiciones. La regla mejora el proceso de adjudicación para eliminar las condiciones mediante la flexibilización de las localidades de entrevistas y la adopción de los actuales procesos de USCIS para expedir las Tarjetas de Residente Pemanente.
Permitir a los peticionarios EB-5 mantener sus fechas de prioridad: La regla final también ofrece mayor flexibilidad a los inversionistas inmigrantes que tienen una petición de inmigrante EB-5 aprobada anteriormente, sujeta a ciertas excepciones.
La campaña a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos cada día toma más fuerza, cada uno de los precandidatos esta recorriendo las diferentes ciudades, participando en debates para dar a conocer sus ideas, propuestas y de esta manera concretar votantes, si bien es cierto falta más de un año para las elecciones, en esta oportunidad los estadounidenses tendrán opciones muy diversas y quizá con un record de aspirantes.
innmigracionyVisas realizó una encuesta para conocer la intensión de voto de los estadounidenses hispanos y hasta el momento quien lidera las encuestas es el precandidato Joe Biden quien fue vicepresidente en el gobierno del presidente Barack Obama. Sin embargo hay algunas sorpresas. A continuación el resultado de la encuesta:
Despite losing at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration still managed to ask nearly a quarter of a million U.S. households about the citizenship status of their household members.
That’s because the administration had already started mailing out its 2019 Census Test—a nationwide test used to inform the upcoming 2020 Census—two weeks before the Supreme Court made its ruling. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court effectively barred the inclusion of acitizenship questionin the 2020 Census. Such a question can appear on the Census, but the Court said the government failed to offer a suitable justification for adding it now.
Yet the question had already been included in some versions of the2019 Census Test. The Census Bureau wanted to gauge how it would impact the response rates of the near-250,000 households that received it. If fewer people responded to the test that included the question than tests that did not, the bureau could change their strategy. The bureau could hire more census takers to conduct in-person interviews to compensate for fewer people filling out and mailing in the 2020 Census form.
This became a moot point on June 27 when the Court ruled against the Trump administration. The Court said the government’s justification for including a citizenship question—to enforce the Voting Rights Act—was “contrived.”
Rather, the question was a “pretext” for apolitically-motivated attempt to scare immigrant householdsinto not answering the Census. As a result, communities with large immigrant populations would lose political representation during the next round of congressional redistricting. They would also suffer from cuts to public funds for roads, schools, hospitals, and health care that are dependent on population size.
But by the time this ruling came down, the Census Bureau had already started mailing out its 2019 Test—complete with citizenship question. Although the Test went to relatively few people compared to those who will receive the 2020 Census, it is unclear how the inclusion of the citizenship question will affect respondents.
Will it sow fear and confusion in immigrant communities ahead of the 2020 Census? Just as importantly,what is the Census Bureau going to do with the responsesit receives from those households that completed and returned the Test?
El Secretario Interino de Seguridad Nacional, Kevin K. McAleenan, anunció una nueva medida que permite a los agentes de inmigración deportar de forma rápida y sin tener que compadecer ante un juez a los inmigrantes indocumentados que no puedan probar que han estado en cualquier parte de los Estados Unidos de forma continua en los últimos 24 meses.
Los principales afectados de esta medida son los que fueron deportados, pero se quedaron o los que se encuentran en libertad condicional por haber cometido un delito.
La nueva medida de deportación acelerada ayudará a aliviar algunos de los problemas de carga y capacidad que actualmente enfrentan el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) y el Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) al permitir que el DHS deporte más rápidamente a inmigrantes indocumentados que no tienen derecho a ingresar o permanecer en el país.
Aunque esta medida ya existía y se aplicaba a quienes eran detenidos a no más de 160 km de la frontera con México y llevaban en el país menos de dos semanas, ahora se aplicará a todo el territorio americano y a quienes tengan menos de 2 años de permanencia en el país.
"La nueva designación agrega una herramienta más para el DHS, que utiliza la autoridad específica del Congreso, para enfrentar la actual crisis de seguridad y crisis humanitaria en la frontera suroeste y en todo el país", dijo el Secretario Interino McAleenan. “Hemos superado el punto de ruptura y debemos tomar todas las medidas apropiadas para hacer cumplir la ley, a lo largo de las fronteras de los Estados Unidos y dentro del interior del país. Esta designación deja en claro que si no tiene derecho legal a estar aquí, lo deportaremos ".
La Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad le otorga al Secretario Interino una "discreción única e irreversible" para modificar en cualquier momento el alcance que puede tener la “deportación exprés” creada conforme a una ley de 1996. La nueva designación entra en vigencia a partir de hoy, para ello se publica en el Registro Federal,se puede encontrar aquí.
De acuerdo con la ley y la práctica actuales, los niños extranjeros no acompañados no están sujetos a una remoción acelerada bajo la designación nueva o anterior. Además, cualquier extranjero que indique su intención de solicitar asilo o que exprese su temor a la persecución, a la tortura o a regresar a su país, será remitido para una entrevista con un oficial de asilo.
Si bien las iniciativas del DHS están teniendo un impacto y las acciones de cumplimiento de la frontera han disminuido, la situación en la frontera del suroeste sigue siendo insostenible. Para resolver esta crisis y crear un cambio duradero en la frontera, el Congreso debe abordar las vulnerabilidades en nuestro marco legal. Mientras tanto, el Departamento debe utilizar las herramientas proporcionadas expresamente por el Congreso para continuar enfrentando la crisis.
Compartimos el análisis que el doctor de derecho constitucional Arturo Gallegos hizo para el canal de Youtube RT En Español
Since the mid-1980s, immigration courts have operated theInstitutional Hearing Program(IHP). The program is designed to quickly deport people serving criminal sentences. Despite how long it’s been in operation, little is known about the IHP. With alawsuitfiled earlier this week, advocates hope to shed light on this inherently secretive, newly-expanded program that raises serious due process concerns.
Under the program, immigration judges can conduct removal proceedings for certain immigrants serving criminal sentences in federal, state, and local correctional facilities. The purported goal of the program is to deport the immigrants as soon as they complete their sentences. But by focusing on expediency, this secretive program undermines the rights of the people it targets for deportation.
Historical datashows that only a tiny fraction of people facing fast-tracked deportation through the IHP have an attorney. This lack of legal assistance exacerbates other problems with the IHP. Immigrants with criminal convictions—like all immigrants—are entitled to due process in their deportation proceedings. But determining the immigration consequences of criminal convictions isnotoriously complicated. Individuals in the IHP are often required to present complex legal arguments without the help of a lawyer to defend against deportation.
The IHP operates almost exclusively through a video teleconference (VTC) system. This makes the process even more difficult as the system is oftenplagued by technical failings. These immigrants never have the chance to see an immigration judge in person. Instead, they are often left to defend themselves without the help of an attorney, via a faulty video system.
It is unclear how or if the IHP protects the rights of those suffering from mental illness. They are entitled to certain safeguards if an immigration judge determines that they are incompetent. Without lawyers or an in-person appearance before a judge, this population is particularly vulnerable to due process violations.
Despite these concerns, the Trump administrationvowedto expand the IHP “[t]o the maximum extent possible.” The need to understand how this program functions has never been more urgent.
The American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Immigrant Defense Projectsuedto force the immigration courts to release records and data revealing how the IHP operates, where it operates, and who it targets. Advocates believe this information will bring greater transparency to an expanding, problematic program.
El secretario de Estado, Michael R. Pompeo finalizó su gira por Latinoamérica en El Salvador. Durante su estadía, el secretario conversó con el presidente de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele; la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores, Alexandra Hill y el Ministro de la Defensa Nacional, capitán de navío René Merino sobre el fortalecimiento de la economía, la seguridad y destacó el compromiso de los Estados Unidos en el combate a la migración irregular.
La delegación del Secretario Pompeo fue integrada por la subsecretaria de Estado para asuntos del hemisferio occidental, Kimberly Breier; el asesor senior del secretario de Estado, P. Michael Mckinley; el portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Morgan Ortagus; el comandante del Comando Sur de los Estados Unidos, almirante Craig S. Faller y la embajadora de Estados Unidos, Jean E. Manes.
Durante la reunión con el presidente Bukele, el Secretario Pompeo reconoció los esfuerzos que realiza el gobierno salvadoreño para combatir las causas de la migración irregular. En 2018, El Salvador disminuyó en un 37% la migración ilegal hacia Estados Unidos y, desde la llegada del presidente Bukele, se han arrestado a 69 coyotes y contrabandistas de personas. En el encuentro, el secretario Pompeo también manifestó su apoyo a los esfuerzos del presidente Bukele orientados al desarrollo económico y el combate a la corrupción para que El Salvador sea un país fuerte y autosuficiente.
“El Presidente Bukele ha dejado muy claro su compromiso con ser un gran socio de los Estados Unidos y ya podemos verlo en sus primeros 60 días de gobierno, y apreciamos profundamente ese hecho. Queremos tener relaciones estrechas en todo el hemisferio y por eso estamos redoblando nuestra participación en la región”, dijo el secretario Pompeo en conferencia de prensa.
Al finalizar la reunión el presidente Bukele y el secretario Pompeo firmaron un memorando de entendimiento una nueva extensión para el Centro de Monitoreo Antidrogas en Comalapa (CSL por sus siglas en inglés). Desde su creación en el año 2000, el CSL, ha ayudado a la incautación de $45 mil millones en drogas. Este acuerdo fortalecerá la cooperación bilateral entre El Salvador y Estados Unidos en materia de seguridad, además de promover esfuerzos conjuntos para fortalecer la capacidad de los organismos de aplicación de la ley salvadoreña en apoyo a la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos. “Durante el último año fiscal, las operaciones que salen de este centro de monitoreo interrumpieron más de $4 mil millones de dólares en contrabando de drogas. Y todos deberíamos estar muy felices por eso. Unas semanas atrás, el 17 de junio, atrapamos una embarcación con más de 7,600 kilos de cocaína, y confío en que el buen trabajo que desarrollamos juntos permitirá que este progreso continúe, gracias en parte al acuerdo que firmamos este día pero, aún más importante, gracias al buen trabajo que nuestros equipos están realizando juntos,” dijo el secretario Pompeo.
“Este encuentro ocurre en un momento histórico para El Salvador y nuestras relaciones bilaterales. Queremos aprovechar las nuevas oportunidades para trabajar juntos en pro del crecimiento económico e inversión, y para mejorar la seguridad de El Salvador”, aseguró la Embajadora Jean Manes.
La gira del secretario Pompeo por Latinoamérica se desarrolló del 19 al 21 de julio, donde visitó Buenos Aires, Argentina; Guayaquil, Ecuador; Ciudad de México, México; y San Salvador, El Salvador. Su llegada al país representa la estrecha relación entre el gobierno de Estados Unidos y El Salvador, como socios estratégicos en la región.
