Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Principales Destinos Turísticos En Estados Unidos

Miércoles, febrero 21st, 2018
Destinos Turísticos En Estados Unidos

No debe resultar una sorpresa saber que Estados Unidos es uno de los principales destinos de los viajeros del mundo, y saber de dónde vienen y a dónde van esos visitantes, de lo que no se sabe mucho, puede ser muy interesante.

Durante mucho tiempo los visitantes del exterior a Estados Unidos, ya fuera por negocios o vacaciones, llegaban de Europa, pero una creciente cantidad actual viene de Asia, especialmente de China.

Viajeros  
En total Estados Unidos acoge a más de 75 millones de visitantes internacionales cada año, y la mitad de ellos llegan de los vecinos México y Canadá. Del 50 por ciento de los demás viajeros, el Reino Unido encabeza la lista con un 12 por ciento.

“Estados Unidos es, con mucho, el receptor más grande de los dólares viajeros”, informa la Asociación de Viajes de Estados Unidos (en inglés), y destaca que el 17 por ciento de ese gasto tuvo lugar en Estados Unidos en 2016.

Mirando al futuro, el aumento del porcentaje más grande proyectado de viajeros a Estados Unidos, hasta el 2021, vendrá de China, India, Argentina, Corea del Sur, Taiwán y Australia, según el Departamento de Comercio de Estados Unidos (en inglés).

En cuanto a dónde se dirigen los visitantes extranjeros una vez llegados a Estados Unidos, estos son los cinco principales destinos:

Nueva York:

Es la ciudad lingüísticamente más diversa del planeta pues allí se hablan más de 800 idiomas. La ciudad es también la más étnicamente diversa: un 37 por ciento de la población de Nueva York (8,5 millones) nació fuera de Estados Unidos. Las principales atracciones turísticas de Nueva York son el edificio Empire State (arriba), la plaza Times Square, los teatros de Broadway, la Estatua de la Libertad y el Museo Metropolitano de Arte.

Miami:

El Puerto de Miami, en el sur de Florida es el puerto para cruceros con más tráfico en el mundo. Los viajeros extranjeros que llegan a Miami lo hacen por las mismas razones que muchos estadounidenses: hermosas playas y clima cálido, especialmente en los meses de diciembre, enero y febrero. La zona de South Beach es famosa por su arquitectura Art Deco, gastronomía cubana y vida nocturna. Las actividades al aire libre favoritas incluyen golf, tenis, pesca deportiva y excursiones de un día al Parque Nacional Everglades que está a una hora de distancia.

Los Ángeles:

Localizada al sur de California y situada en un dramático panorama montañoso, Los Ángeles es famosa por su “clima mediterráneo”, soleado, seco y caluroso todo el año. Las playas de la ciudad y el cercano Disneylandia son favoritos de los turistas. Y Los Ángeles atrae a los aficionados al cine y la televisión para visitar estudios como los de Warner Brothers, Paramount y Universal Studios Hollywood. Los visitantes disfrutan caminando por Hollywood Boulevard para ver las más de 2.600 estrellas que adornan la acera del Paseo de la Fama

Orlando:

Cada año casi 70 millones de turistas visitan Orlando (Florida), y muchos de ellos van a ver SeaWorld, Universal Orlando Resort (con su popular “Mundo Mágico de Harry Potter”), el complejo turístico del Mundo de Walt Disney, que incluye dos parques acuáticos, Epcot y el Reino Mágico Disney. Los viajeros a este destino al centro de Florida también hacen visitas al Centro Espacial Kennedy de la NASA para conocer el programa espacial de Estados Unidos, aprender sobre sus astronautas y futuras misiones para explorar el espacio exterior.

San Francisco:

El puente del Golden Gate al norte de California es uno de los pasos más famosos en el mundo y uno de los principales atractivos de la ciudad. Fue el puente suspendido más largo y elevado del mundo al ser completado en 1937. Otras características legendarias de San Francisco incluyen sus trolebuses, las empinadas cuestas y los vecindarios como Fisherman’s Wharf y Chinatown. Un atractivo turístico más bucólico se halla en el valle de Napa, en las afueras de San Francisco, la entrada a famosos viñedos y bodegas vinícolas.

Fuente: www.share.america.gov

Senadores Estadounidenses No Logran Acuerdo Sobre Inmigración

Lunes, febrero 19th, 2018
Senadores Estadounidenses DACA

El Senado de Estados Unidos culminó cuatro días de debate abierto sin aprobar ninguna medida relacionada con la inmigración. El jueves, en cuatro votaciones diferentes, los senadores no lograron alcanzar los 60 votos necesarios para aprobar una legislación que hubiera protegido a los 1,8 millones de jóvenes inmigrantes indocumentados conocidos como “soñadores”, con la contraparte de militarizar aún más la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos.

Las votaciones fallidas se produjeron después de que el presidente Donald Trump calificara el proyecto de ley bipartidista de “catástrofe total” y amenazara con vetarlo. Estas son palabras del líder de la minoría del Senado, el demócrata Chuck Schumer, de Nueva York.

Chuck Schumer expresó: “Solo hay una razón por la cual el Senado no podrá llegar a una solución bipartidista para [el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia, o] DACA: el presidente Trump. El presidente Trump generó este problema al cancelar el programa DACA en agosto del año pasado. Desde esa decisión, el presidente Trump ha obstaculizado cada propuesta que pudiera convertirse en ley”.

Una medida respaldada por el presidente Donald Trump obtuvo la menor cantidad de votos; 39 de 100. Esta medida hubiera reducido drásticamente las cuotas migratorias de Estados Unidos y hubiera ampliado los fondos de militarización fronteriza en 25.000 millones de dólares, ofreciendo una larga vía para que los soñadores puedan obtener la ciudadanía.

Si el Congreso no logra aprobar una ley de inmigración, cientos de miles de “soñadores” podrían perder su estatus de beneficiarios del DACA a partir del 5 de marzo, aunque dos tribunales federales han dictaminado que el Gobierno de Trump no puede cancelar el programa.

Mientras tanto, los beneficiarios del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por su sigla en inglés) y sus simpatizantes convocan a una marcha de unos 400 kilómetros y 15 días de duración desde la ciudad de Nueva York a Washington DC, donde planean hacer una gran protesta antes del 5 de marzo, la fecha de vencimiento del programa.

Estas son declaraciones de Li Adorno, beneficiario del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia, al comienzo de la marcha, en la zona del Bajo Manhattan.

Li Adorno enunció:

“Siento que mis padres y las personas indocumentadas en todo el país han sacrificado mucho. Y hasta el día de hoy son criminalizadas todas las noches en los noticieros, ¿verdad? No nos parece que sea justo. Pedimos dignidad y respeto para todos; no solo para los ‘soñadores’, porque ahora estamos recibiendo mucha atención, los políticos nos siguen prometiendo reformas o soluciones, pero nunca pasa nada. Entonces, esta marcha no es necesariamente para que los políticos cambien su forma de pensar, sino que más bien está dirigida a la comunidad; vemos que la comunidad responde mejor que ellos”.

Fuente: www.democracynow.org

La Muerte, Consecuencia Fatal De La Política Migratoria De Estados Unidos

Viernes, febrero 9th, 2018
investigación a Refugiados

La batalla por el destino de los jóvenes indocumentados conocidos como DREAMers y los afectados por el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por su sigla en inglés) se intensifica en Washington.

Para profundizar en el tema, analizamos un impactante artículo publicado en la revista The New Yorker, titulado “When Deportation is a Death Sentence” (Cuando deportar es una condena a muerte), que señala que un incierto número de mujeres y hombres fueron asesinados en sus países de origen luego de ser deportados o rechazados por Estados Unidos.

El artículo sigue la historia de una mujer llamada Laura, nacida en México. A pesar de haber vivido toda su vida adulta en Texas, Estados Unidos, Laura fue deportada a México después de ser detenida por una infracción de tránsito.

En ese momento, ella le advirtió al agente de la patrulla fronteriza: “Cuando me encuentren muerta, pesará en tu conciencia”. A la semana de ser deportada fue asesinada por su exmarido.

Para ampliar esta información, compartimos el video de la entrevista que realizao democracynow a la periodista revista The New Yorker Sarah Stillman, quien también es directora del Proyecto Migración Global de la Escuela de Periodismo de la Universidad de Columbia.

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On Capitol Hill, Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Chris Coons have introduced a bipartisan bill aimed to protect undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. The future of the nearly 800,000 DREAMers has been at the center of a major political battle in Washington. But on Monday, President Trump took to Twitter to criticize the bipartisan bill soon after it was introduced. Trump wrote, quote, “Any deal on DACAthat does not include STRONG border security and the desperately needed WALL is a total waste of time. March 5th is rapidly approaching and the Dems seem not to care about DACA. Make a deal!” unquote. This comes as immigrant rights activists are preparing to hold a protest in Washington Wednesday to push for a clean DREAM Act to be passed before Thursday, when the government faces another possible shutdown.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, as the battle over the DREAMers heats up in Washington, D.C., we look at a stunning new piece in The New Yorker magazine headlined “When Deportation is a Death Sentence.” It looks at how an unknown number of men and women have been killed in their home countries after being deported or turned away by the United States.

The article looks in part at a Mexican-born woman named Laura. Despite living her whole adult life in Texas, she was deported to Mexico after a traffic stop. She warned a U.S. Border Patrol agent, “When I am found dead, it will be on your conscience.” Within a week of her deportation, she was murdered by her ex-husband.

We’re joined now by the award-winning journalist and New Yorker staff writer Sarah Stillman, also director of the Global Migration Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sarah.

SARAH STILLMAN: Thank you so much for having me here.

AMY GOODMAN: This is such a significant piece. It seems, though, that the government should be collecting this data, not you and a group of students at the Columbia Journalism School, about what happens to immigrants who are deported.

SARAH STILLMAN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But start off where you started in the piece, with Laura’s story.

SARAH STILLMAN: Right. So I wrote about this young woman, Laura, who had been living in the U.S., as you mentioned, most of her adult life. She’s driving home from work one night, and she’s pulled over by a traffic cop. And at the time, it was relatively unroutine for a cop to actually ask about her immigration status, but that’s what he did. And he chose to turn her over to Border Patrol.

AMY GOODMAN: In the middle of the night.

SARAH STILLMAN: Exactly, this was in the middle of the night. And so, no lawyers’ offices are open at that hour. She’s driven with some friends, while crying and pleading and saying, “Look, I have this really violent husband back in Mexico. He’s threatened to kill me if I’m sent back. Please just give me some time to show you my protective order to show you why I should stay here.” And instead, she was quickly turned over to Border Patrol, quickly then, while continuing to cry and plead, taken to the border and sent right back across the bridge, after being coerced into signing some voluntary paperwork.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And she spent most of her life here in the U.S.? Could you talk about her life here?

SARAH STILLMAN: Exactly. So, she had U.S. citizen children. And, you know, she had grown up in Mexico, but in her adulthood had been living in Texas, in a community with many other people who were undocumented and who, at the time, didn’t tend to worry that traffic stops would lead to their deportation to harm. But I think that’s becoming more and more typical in recent months. But this was under the Obama administration that this occurred.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, clearly, the Mexican government doesn’t do any tracking of the people that are repatriated from the United States. Is there any attempt, even within Mexico, to do a more comprehensive look about what’s happening to the folks deported?

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah, I think we really see it piecemeal. We’ve seen some human rights workers and some scholars who try to document this. It’s extraordinarily hard, because, as you can imagine, when people are sent back, it’s quite hard to track what becomes of them, partly because families are so afraid, when something does happen, that the fear of retaliation often means that we don’t hear about the awful things that happen to people post-deportation.

AMY GOODMAN: As you point out, the Trump administration has formed a new office, called VOICE.

SARAH STILLMAN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what that it.

SARAH STILLMAN: So, initially, when, you know, Trump came into office, he expounded quite a bit on what he perceives as immigrant criminality. And one of the things he said he would do is create a special office for the victims of crimes committed by immigrants. He did not square that with the data that tells us that immigrants actually do not commit more crime than U.S.-born individuals. And, in fact, the opposite has been proven true in most scholarship on this issue. So, this database was essentially going to also log all the different immigrant crimes that had been committed. And so, part of what I thought about with my Columbia team at the Journalism School was, in some respects, we were building a shadow database to that. We were building a database that showed the many, many people, both under Obama and under Trump, who had been deported and then either killed or sexually assaulted or subject to other kinds of harm.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, as you note in your article, the United States obviously has a long history of providing sanctuary for those seeking to avoid danger or killing in their home countries. What are Customs and Border Patrol agents supposed to do if a person claims that they fear possible persecution? And what are they actually doing?

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah, that’s a great question, because I think it’s—a lot of people don’t realize that in both international law and domestic law, a fundamental U.S. value has been that we have guaranteed, post-World War II, that we will never again make the mistake of deporting people to their deaths, when they come to us seeking sanctuary. That was, you know, created out of World War II, in part because we sent many people back amidst the Holocaust who had fled Nazi Germany.

And so, what we’re seeing at the border today, and what many human rights groups have been documenting, is that—you know, Border Patrol’s job is, essentially, when someone arrives at the border, they’re supposed to ask them a set of questions, which includes “Do you fear for your life, if you are sent back?” And if the person says, “Yes, I do,” it is not their job to adjudicate that or to try to figure out whether they think it’s credible. Their job is simply to pass someone along to a trained asylum officer. We have people who are very well trained in the next stage of vetting. And people often get to go before an immigration judge. What we’re finding is that in upwards of 50 percent of cases, often Border Patrol isn’t even asking that initial required question. And sometimes—I spoke to many women who have said that they had answered in the affirmative, had said very clearly they did fear for their lives, and nonetheless the Border Patrol paperwork was marked that they did not.

AMY GOODMAN: So, in the case of Laura, following on this questioning at the border, when she’s handed over to Border Patrol and she says to the agent, “When I am dead, it will be on your conscience,” what was it his obligation to do?

SARAH STILLMAN: Well, this is currently being disputed in the courts, because there’s been a lawsuit on her behalf, after she was in fact killed when sent back. But ideally, someone in her situation would get to go before an immigration judge. And, you know, that—historically, that was the case, that for a long time people in the United States, when they did articulate these fears, if they articulated them immediately at the border, they would go to an asylum officer, and then they would get to go before immigration judge. Increasingly, we’re seeing that the vast majority of deportations are what’s known as summary deportations, so people who are very quickly turned around directly at the border and never given a chance to see a judge. Or, in the case of someone like Laura, who had lived in the country for a very long time, in that case, you would certainly be entitled to a judge.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what have you and your students found?

SARAH STILLMAN: There’s been quite a few patterns that we’ve seen in this database. One of them is just how often people like Laura get rounded up in pretty minor offenses, so people who had traffic violations, people who had minor workplace disputes, that actually led to very high-stakes repercussions, so being deported and then killed. We’ve also seen a real pattern of women who had fled gender-based violence, who in fact had explicit documentation of the men who had harmed them in the past, and then they came here seeking to escape from that, and instead were sent back to the very same men who had harmed them.

And, of course, we’re seeing an uptick under Trump in the number of people who are rounded up in the interior of the country. So, previously, we focused mostly on people who were turned back at the border, but increasingly we’re seeing people like Laura, who had very deep roots here, who had lived here for a long time, who had U.S. citizen children, who were sent back.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Laura—the cop who arrested Laura ended up going to jail himself, is that right? He said she was wavering on the road or something?

SARAH STILLMAN: Exactly. He said she had been driving between two lanes. And who knows? I mean, that’s certainly possible. But it didn’t tend to be the case, as I mentioned earlier, that people in that circumstance would be deported, whereas now we’re seeing legislation in Texas, known as SB 4, that may soon be replicated elsewhere in the country, that says law enforcement, in fact, has to ask these questions, and, in fact, law enforcement can be prosecuted criminally if they do not turn people over for immigration enforcement purposes. So that’s a huge transformation of law enforcement, that many cops that I spoke to were worried about.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that’s what I wanted to ask you, in her case, in particular, because it’s one thing, a catch-and-release situation right at the border, but if she was already here in the country, wasn’t there a requirement, a minimal requirement, for them to—for her to go through some immigration process? A lot of times people voluntarily agree to be deported, to not be detained and put in an ICE jail. But was she never offered the opportunity to try to adjudicate her case?

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah, I think that’s a critical distinction, right? We have different entitlements for people who have been here for a long time. And in her case, she—her signature appeared on the form that was a voluntary removal form. So, that’s what’s currently being disputed in the courts, is that—you know, can this be accurately described as a voluntary removal, when in fact she was pleading and crying and protesting? Border Patrol says that she voluntarily signed and was sent back as a result of that. And her friend, who was there at the scene, says that, in fact, she had been desperate not to sign the paperwork. So that’s the mystery at the heart of the case, and that was what a judge argued made her family not able to proceed with the case. So, we’ll see what happens in court.

AMY GOODMAN: Sarah Stillman, you mentioned SB 4, known as the “Show Me Your Papers” bill, in Texas. Explain what that does.

SARAH STILLMAN: Well, SB 4 will do a number of things. And right now it’s currently also tied up in litigation. But one of the things is, as I mentioned, regarding local cops, that they are supposed to now ask people about their immigration status.

It also means that, you know, there’s the sort of crackdown that Trump has also called for, in regard to what he and some others know as sanctuary cities, so places where they have decided not to turn people over to immigration enforcement once they’re held in local jails. So, one of the other patterns we saw in the database was that there were some people who came into the criminal justice system through minor offenses, like one man, Juan Coronilla-Guerrero, that I wrote about. He had come to the courthouse for a minor misdemeanor case, and then ICE had actually appeared in the courthouse, apprehended him, and then he had been deported despite claiming that he believed he would be killed if sent back to Mexico. And he was also murdered. And this was more recently. And that crackdown had been explicitly, many believe, a retaliation for the fact that Travis County, Texas, was a sanctuary city—sanctuary area.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about President Trump’s recent remarks at his State of the Union, where he was actually talking about the MS-13 and the increasing dangers from undocumented immigrants to the general American population, criminal gangs. Did you—were you able to hear that? I don’t know if we have the clip available of his—that part of his speech. But could you—

AMY GOODMAN: I think we have a clip.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Oh, we do. All right. Let’s see—let’s hear it.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They’ve allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you respond to the president’s framing of the issue—

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —of why it’s necessary to deal with immigration?

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s absolutely necessary to treat MS-13 seriously. And that’s part of the paradox of how Trump has reckoned with this, is that simultaneously he’s saying it’s OK to revoke temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people from El Salvador and send them back to this country that is really grappling with a very real MS-13 crisis, and he’s saying, “Oh, it’s perfectly fine and safe to sent them there,” despite the fact that, you know, MS-13 may actually pose a really serious threat to those people. And he’s saying those people don’t deserve protection here, but then he also seems to really be intent upon sort of acting as if MS-13’s crisis here has a gravity that I think, empirically, we could say doesn’t necessarily compare to a lot of other threats that we could be focused on. But I think we should take it seriously, and I think we should also be realistic about the fact that immigrants do not pose a disproportionate threat when it comes to crime. And, in fact, as I mentioned earlier, the opposite has been proven to be the case.

AMY GOODMAN: Sarah, can you talk more about gender-based violence?

SARAH STILLMAN: Absolutely. I mean, that was a big theme that we were seeing. And going back to the realities of needing to reckon with MS-13, I think one of the things that we heard from quite a number of young women is that they were being recruited by gang members in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, who were basically telling them, “If you don’t become my sexual partner, then you will be killed.”

And, you know, I interviewed several women who had come—one woman who comes to mind, this woman Elena, she had actually come here after her brother was murdered for being gay, another brother was murdered for refusing to join the gangs, and then she herself was subject to sexual coercion by a gang member. And when she came here, she was turned away by Border Patrol. She protested, and then she went before an immigration judge.

And one of the really big issues we don’t talk about much is that women who are fleeing those kinds of circumstances, who even do get a chance to go before a judge, often are told that they don’t qualify for asylum or other kinds of legal relief. Because our asylum system was crafted post-World War II, often the concerns that it was crafted around don’t reflect the current reality of gang violence and gender-based violence.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, a lot of this gang violence is—the historical roots of it is not really ever discussed here in the United States. I remember back in 1992 covering the Los Angeles riots after Rodney King. And the Chicano community was—the longtime Mexican-American community was very upset about the rise of MS-13 back then. We’re talking 25 years ago. And they saw it rooted in a spillover of the Central American civil wars and the U.S. intervention, that it was—the original MS-13 gang members were actually former national guardsmen from Salvador who had moved here to the United States, and that there was a culture of violence that had actually spilled over from Salvador and Guatemala into the western United States, and they saw it as a direct result of U.S. intervention. But that’s never talked about these days.

SARAH STILLMAN: Yeah, I think you can’t talk about what’s happening right now without talking about that exact history you just pointed to, both the history of the Central America wars and the U.S. involvement in them and also the history of this set of cycles around deportation, the idea that many of these gangs started on the U.S. side and in U.S. prisons and on U.S. streets and then were deported back without a real plan about how that would be dealt with. And then, we’ve seen this cycle before, and so we need to look at how do we address those root causes, I would argue.

AMY GOODMAN: Laura’s mother ultimately ended up working with Jennifer Harbury, well known for her work around Guatemala and the U.S.-backed, sadly, slaughter in Guatemala. Can you talk about that relationship?

SARAH STILLMAN: Yes. Jennifer Harbury is a really fascinating person who’s had a pretty remarkable life. And she was married to a man from Guatemala who actually had been—that had led to litigation that Jennifer had been a part of, after her husband disappeared. She had staged a hunger strike. This was quite some time ago, in the midst of those wars. She later found that there was U.S. involvement in a cover-up about her husband’s murder and torture and pretty violent circumstances. And so, she was certainly a vehicle through which to tell the story of the U.S. involvement back in the ’80s and how that stretched all the way up into repercussions in the present day.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you spoke about history, and let’s end there, turning to a clip from the 1976 film Voyage of the Damned, the film based on the true story of the 1939 voyage of the MS Mississippi [MS St. Louis], which sailed for Havana from Hamburg, Germany, carrying over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. The Cuban government refused entry to the passengers, so the ship made its way to the U.S., where the Coast Guard delivered the following message, as portrayed in this clip from the film.

MS ST. LOUIS CREWMAN: “Attention, Captain St. Louis. You are violating U.S. territorial limits. Do not approach any closer. Do not attempt to land. You will not—repeat, not—be permitted to dock at any United States port.

Acknowledge.”
MS ST. LOUIS CAPTAIN: Signal, “Message received and acknowledged.”

AMY GOODMAN: A clip from the 1976 film Voyage of the Damned. The ship was left with no choice but to return to Europe. And talk about what happened, Sarah.

SARAH STILLMAN: Right. So, these people had come here fleeing Nazi Germany, and, in fact, they were turned back. And I believe it was upwards of 250 of those individuals who were turned back were ultimately found to have been killed in the Holocaust. I didn’t know, until researching this story, that others, such as Anne Frank—her father had actually applied to get the family refugee status here, and they had also been rejected. And, of course, she later died in the concentration camps, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you and your students are continuing to search for what happens to deportees?

SARAH STILLMAN: Absolutely. So, we hope to continue searching in the Trump era and finding—you know, again, I mentioned the Obama era had many of these deaths, as well, so we should acknowledge that. But I think we hope to continue this process of logging these deaths in the Trump administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Sarah Stillman, staff writer at The New Yorker, also the director of the Global Migration Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. We’ll link to her new piece. It’s headlined “When Deportation is a Death Sentence.” This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.

Última Actualización: Febrero 09 de 2018
Fuente: www.democracynow.org

Estados Unidos Implementa Investigaciones Exhaustivas a Refugiados y Familiares

Miércoles, febrero 7th, 2018
investigación a Refugiados

Desde el pasado 1 de febrero de 2018, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS) y el Departamento de Estado (DOS) implementaron nuevos procesos para asegurar que todas las personas admitidas como refugiados sean sometidas a investigaciones exhaustivas – ya sean refugiados principales, familiares que acompañan, o refugiados que viajan para reunirse con su familia inmediata.

Un “refugiado que viaja para reunirse” con su familia inmediata es el cónyuge o hijo de un refugiado principal que vive en el extranjero y desea reunirse con el refugiado principal en Estados Unidos.

Estas medidas son producto de la revisión de 120 días ordenada por la sección 6(a) de la Orden Ejecutiva 134780, que dio instrucciones específicas al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de determinar qué procedimientos adicionales debían implementarse para asegurar que las personas que buscan obtener admisión en calidad de refugiados no representen una amenaza a la seguridad y al bienestar de Estados Unidos.

Las nuevas medidas de seguridad que ahora aplicarán a los refugiados que viajan para reunirse con su familia inmediata y que han sido procesados en el extranjero incluirán:

  • Asegurar que todos los refugiados que viajan para reunirse con su familia reciban el estándar completo de las verificaciones entre agencias y las investigaciones y selecciones por las que pasan todos los demás refugiados.
  • Solicitar que el refugiado que viaja para reunirse con su familia presente su Formulario I-590, Registro para Clasificación como Refugiado, en apoyo al Formulario I-730, Petición de Familiar de Refugiado/Asilado del refugiado principal, más temprano en el proceso de adjudicación. USCIS o DOS se comunicarán directamente con los peticionarios para solicitar esta información.
  • Escrutar a ciertos nacionales o personas apátridas contra las bases de datos clasificados.

 

Última Actualización: Febrero 07 de 2018
Fuente: Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS)

Detienen a Activista de Derechos Migratorios en Estados Unidos

Viernes, febrero 2nd, 2018
Los Inmigrantes y El Discurso de Estado de la Unión de Donald Trump

Ravi Ragbir fue uno de varios activistas reconocidos a nivel nacional que fueron detenidos el mes pasado por el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE). Fue esposado y encarcelado en un control de rutina el 11 de enero, lo que provocó una protesta masiva que terminó con 18 personas detenidas, entre ellas dos miembros del Concejo de la Ciudad de Nueva York.

El ICE llevó rápidamente a Ravi, engrilletado, al centro de detención Krome de Florida. La indignación pública creció ante la posibilidad inminente de su deportación.

Finalmente, el ICE informó a sus abogados que lo regresarían a un centro de detención en la zona de Nueva York. El lunes, la jueza de distrito Katherine Forrest dijo que la detención de Ragbir era una “crueldad innecesaria” y ordenó al ICE su liberación. Sin embargo, aún podría ser deportado.

A continuación compartimos en vídeo y la transcripción de la entrevista realizada por Democracy Now a Ravi Ragbir, director ejecutivo de la organización The New Sanctuary Coalition.

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On Monday, a federal judge in New York City ordered the immediate release of immigrant rights leader Ravi Ragbir from ICE detention, calling his detention, quote, “unnecessarily cruel.” But Ragbir’s ordeal is not over. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote of the due process at stake in this case, quote, “The process that was due here is not process that will allow him to stay indefinitely—those processes have been had. The process that is due here is the allowance that he know and understand that the time has come, that he must organize his own affairs, and that he must do so by a date certain. That is what is due. That is the process required after a life living among us.”

AMY GOODMAN: Ravi Ragbir is the executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition. He’s one of a handful of high-profile immigrant rights leaders who have been targeted by the Trump administration. Ravi was released last night, joining us in our New York studio of Democracy Now! Also with us, his wife Amy Gottlieb, also an immigrant rights attorney, and his own attorney, Alina Das, who co-directs the Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law.

So, Alina Das, if you can talk about the significance of what has taken place? I mean, this was a stunning rebuke of the Trump administration that Judge Forrest handed down yesterday. You came outside the courthouse. You know, we couldn’t even have phones in the courtroom, record anything, though the judge’s decision was given out after she read it. And you talked about the significance of this case around the country, as Amy is about to get on a train to be a guest at the State of the Union address of President Trump—not invited by President Trump, but by Congressmember Nydia Velázquez.

ALINA DAS: Well, absolutely. We were so heartened to get the judge’s decision ordering immediate release, and even more so the basis of the decision, recognizing the cruelty of detention. And at the end of the day, I think that’s the principle that will stand for all of these other cases that we’re seeing, because what she recognized is that when you detain someone who isn’t a flight risk or a danger, it becomes arbitrary.

And that’s what happened here. ICE has never claimed that Ravi is a danger to the community. On the contrary, they’ve, in the past, recognized his contributions. Yet, the only explanation that the attorney was able to provide at the hearing yesterday for why they did this was that it was in their operational decision-making process. And when you hear words like that, which are empty, it just shows how far we’ve come that detention has become so normalized, that we think it’s perfectly fine to lock someone up, put them in shackles, take them to a jail, away from their families, just in order to enforce what essentially is a civil administrative order.

Now, we do intend to challenge that order, and we have other legal cases that are pending for Ravi. So, our goal is to keep him here. But recognizing, as the court did, that detention itself was cruel and inhumane, I think, will be helpful to many other people who face this scenario.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Amy, in terms of the—the fight is going to continue, clearly, because the judge did recognize that ICE had the legal right to deport your husband, but it was a question of the way that they detained him in the process. Now that you’re facing a new date, what do you see, especially in the context where, as we’re seeing, both President Trump and the Democrats are inviting—Nydia Velázquez inviting you—immigrant advocates and people who, according to Trump, have been victimized by crime of undocumented immigrants, are all going to be center stage this evening at the State of the Union—in this context, the continuing battle over your husband’s ability to stay in the country?

AMY GOTTLIEB: Yeah, it’s terrifying. But, you know, to see the surge of support we have, it’s so rewarding, and it gives me strength, and it gives me hope. And, you know, we’ve been in this struggle—we’ve been married, you know, almost eight years. We have been together for a long time. We have learned to walk through this one day at a time. And right now it feels like we have a short period of time until the next stay of deportation expires. But we have—I have to hold on to my faith that the system is going to work. It was—my faith was shattered when Ravi was in detention. It was—

AMY GOODMAN: You flew down to Florida. You went up to Orange County.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Yeah, three times to Orange County jail to see my husband in a bright yellow jumpsuit for one hour, and spent a couple hundred dollars on phone calls, for us to be able to talk.

But yeah, so, you know, right now it feels like we’ve got this surge of community support. We have, you know, members of Congress who are looking out for us. We have the legal team that we have. You know, and I feel so grateful for all of that. And I’m just going to have to keep doing it one day at a time and believing in my—deep down in my heart and my soul that we are going to find a way through this. And it will not be easy, we realize that. But we know that, you know, we’re extraordinarily lucky. And we talk all the time and think all the time about people in this situation who are not supported by the lawyers that we have, by the community that we have, by people who are willing to lie down and, you know, be arrested on our behalf. That’s an extraordinary situation that we live, and we recognize that. And we want to see that for everybody. But it’s scary.

RAVI RAGBIR: So, you know, coming back to the judge’s decision about it’s a—we are under the guise that—the fiction of that this law makes it right. So, that’s the problem with this law—law makes it right to do this, not only to myself. You know, it’s beyond me. It’s about the hundreds of thousands that are facing this. When I was in Krome, you felt the hopelessness that people have, because they are terrified of what has happened. Everything is stripped out from—stripped out from them. When I moved to Orange County—when they moved me—sorry, I didn’t move, they moved me to Orange County—it’s the same thing. People are not—are so destroyed. Their spirits are broken. And when you have hundreds of millions of people in this state, there’s something wrong. And that law, that she rightly targeted or said that it is fiction, makes this all possible.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What was the interaction you had with some of the guards who were looking over you? Were they aware that you were an immigrant rights activist? And did they—did you have conversations with them about the situation at all?

RAVI RAGBIR: Well, not only the guards, but the ICE officers themselves. So, one ICEofficer came up to me and, when they were bringing me up, stuck his hand in his pocket and, towering over me, “So, I heard you are an immigrant rights advocate, activist. What do you do?” And he started talking. And then he came, and he actually sat down next to me, put his foot on the chair and then started talking. In the end, I said, “You know, everything that you have said, I would invite you to come and work for us,” because he was making his own arguments against what is happening and how this law itself is wrong. They recognize that. But that’s their job. I have had—I’ve had these conversations with them throughout the process, going down to Krome, sitting down with them and hearing them say that what was happening to me was wrong. And they recognize that.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask Alina Das about this ongoing case, and it’s one of the issues the judge raised yesterday. She said—you have a court case—what?—February 9th. So, why, she said to the lawyers representing the Trump administration and ICE, is he going to be detained until then? Separating detention from deportation—if he’s not a flight risk, if there’s not any danger to the community, why is he being held? Now, can you talk about this case? Ravi has been in this country for over a quarter of a century.

ALINA DAS: Well, absolutely. So, Ravi has faced many injustices in the legal system. We have always maintained that there have been fundamental errors in the original conviction that is leading to this deportation.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what you mean by that original conviction.

ALINA DAS: Sure. So, Ravi, like many individuals, is actually—came to the U.S. and had a lawful permanent residency. He has status. Yet, because of a criminal conviction that he received in 2001, he is facing this double punishment of—

AMY GOODMAN: And this is for wire fraud.

ALINA DAS: This is for wire fraud. That was a fraud conviction that we believe was—involved several errors, in terms of the jury instructions, in terms of sentencing, that laws have come to light that have made it clear that he was convicted for conduct that wasn’t actually criminal. And so, those are the challenges that we’ve been pursuing for a number of years, while all of this has been going on. Under prior administrations, we had been told by ICE that they recognize that, you know, he had a due process interest in seeing his day in court on those claims. Nothing about that has changed. Those were all pending before January 11th. Yet we walked in that day, and suddenly we got this decision to deport him. And I think that’s the part of this that is so disturbing, is that the only thing that has really changed in Ravi’s case since 2008 is the fact that his prominence as an immigrant rights activist has only increased and that it’s come into direct conflict with the current administration.

And I agree with Ravi’s comments that it’s not about one man or the agency of ICE. ICE issued a statement, I think, in response to the judge’s order, seeming to suggest that she was somehow insulting ICE officers. But the fact of the matter is, many of the ICE officers that we’ve spoken to, even over the last couple of weeks, have expressed concern about the direction that ICE is moving in. We recognize the humanity of everyone who is working or caught up in this system, and we don’t believe that it’s just one person or one policy. It is a stark change in the direction this country is moving in, and I think that’s why the work that Ravi does as an activist is so important. So, we will continue to fight to make sure that he isn’t deported and that the injustices in both his conviction as well as his removal order are addressed by the courts of law.

AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering if you can explain the accompaniment process that you have really refined, that seemed to enrage ICE officials. When we were there last March downtown, you had a Jericho walk around 26 Federal Plaza, where immigrants have to go inside, where you were checking in. This was last March. You have Congress—you have legislators. You have city councilmembers. And this is what so enraged Mechkowski, when he talked about this as “D-Day” right now. Talk about accompaniment and what it means. How many people came up with you, for example, January 11th, when you went to your check-in?

RAVI RAGBIR: So, the accompaniment is simple. It’s partnering U.S. citizens, whom ICE has no jurisdiction over, with noncitizens who are facing a terrible process, as we talked about, facing deportation and exile from their family permanently. Right? That’s it, in its simplicity.

But there are rules that we—part of the training is about the rules that we engage, that we teach people. One is, don’t judge anyone. So, if people have criminal convictions, it doesn’t matter. New Sanctuary doesn’t believe that—no one should be deported, because this law itself is a fiction—sorry, racist. Two, that you should respect people. Number three, do no harm.

So, everything that we have—how we have trained people is that I don’t want you to react to the officers and react to the policy, but respond and learn how that—teaching them that response has made them very effective, because they are not intimidated by the process. They are not intimidated by ICE officers. They are not intimidated, because they know they are coming at it from a very nonviolent nonconfrontation. In fact, we say, you know you’re doing the accompaniment wrong is if you’re speaking. So, my goal in training them is to learn how to shut up.

And that’s the whole concept of the accompaniment program. And it has become very effective in the courts as much as in the accompaniment to check-ins. And they’ve been trying to bar us, bar the accompaniment, from the check-in on many, many occasions. And they still—we’re still going to—we’re planning to change that and continue to accompany people.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Amy, at the State of the Union this evening, what are you hoping to have happen there? And talk about the congresswoman, Nydia Velázquez, inviting you, when you heard she wanted you to be there.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Oh, goodness. I was pretty stunned to get the invitation. But I was impressed. It felt to me like a bold move on her part. And I’ve since heard of others who’ve been invited by their members of Congress, others in similar situations. It was a bold move to, you know, bring somebody with her as her guest who represents something that the Trump administration is fighting so hard. And that feels very affirming and positive and supportive to me.

You know, I think that being down there, we’ll be doing some press. I, hopefully, will meet some other members of Congress and be able to talk about the issues, be able to talk about the impact of the 1996 immigration laws, which is what has caused Ravi to be in this situation in the first place, and really, hopefully, get an ear of some people before the actual address.

The address itself, I will be doing some deep-breathing exercises and, you know, trying to listen, as best I can, and to come out of there feeling somehow at peace with myself.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And before Congress actually has to tackle legislation that—

AMY GOTTLIEB: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —the president has been requesting, in the terms of the DREAMers and—

AMY GOTTLIEB: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —what he calls chain migration.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Right. It will be challenging for me to listen to his positions on immigration. I know that for sure.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, he’s going to be bringing, I believe, a family member from Long Island who lost someone because they were murdered by an undocumented immigrant. The others who are going to be coming, Cesar Espinosa, who is a DREAMer from Houston, Texas, will be among those who are plus-ones, who are guests of congressmembers; as well, Maru Mora Villalpando will be coming from Washington state—all invited as legislative guests for this evening.

The significance right now—do you feel that immigrant rights leaders are being targeted? I just came from Colorado, where I interviewed a mother, a Mexican mother, who had been in this country for well over two decades, named Sandra Lopez, mother of three. Her eldest kid is in college, and she has two little ones. She is in sanctuary in the Unitarian parsonage in Carbondale, Colorado, right next to Aspen, fearful that she, too, could be deported. And we’re seeing this. There are four people in Colorado right now. Your organization, Ravi, just put out a report saying more people are in sanctuary in this country, taking refuge in churches, than we have ever seen. Alina?

ALINA DAS: Well, it’s hard—

AMY GOODMAN: Since the ’80s.

ALINA DAS: Yeah, it’s hard to ignore the pattern that’s been emerging over the last several weeks, when you look at not only Ravi’s case, but the case of Jean Montrevil and others, who have been—

AMY GOODMAN: Who was just deported to Haiti.

ALINA DAS: Who was just deported to Haiti.

AMY GOODMAN: As President Trump made those “s—hole” comments about Haiti.

ALINA DAS: Exactly. And you see this kind of—this targeting of people who have been outspoken about the need for justice in our immigration system, people who have affiliated themselves with the sanctuary movement. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t active targeting going on, because these are the same individuals who, for years, have been living with us, who have often been engaged in open communication with ICE to try and fix policies at a local and national level, and now they start to be targeted, with no explanation, no kind of judgment as to what has changed that made them targets, other than the fact that they have been effective in their work fighting against the Trump administration. And I think that is something that should disturb every American.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll continue to follow your case. Just one last quick question, Ravi: How are you holding up? One date after another for check-in, you go to jail, you’re shackled, you’re released, you go back.

RAVI RAGBIR: I, as Amy said, just take it one day at a time. You just have to know—I have to put one foot in front of the other and just hold onto that emotional turmoil that is churning within me, and lock it away. I had a—I had Dr. Allen Keller come up to visit me on Sunday night. And I’m saying, you know, “You’re not going to find any trauma.” But at the end of the meeting, it was evident that there was a lot locked up.

What I did do when I was detained is I realized that I could use this opportunity to help others in detention, so I was connecting them to the organizations, the lawyers, the—you know, because that’s where we’ve always wanted to be, and I’m in there.

AMY GOODMAN: I don’t think they’re going to detain you anymore.

RAVI RAGBIR: That will be a challenge. I was actually hoping they would move me around, so I could connect to more people.

AMY GOODMAN: And will you continue organizing until February 9th, when you have to show up again?

RAVI RAGBIR: Absolutely. There is no other choice. Until we change this law, we have to. Until we change the premise of this hate that is permeating our country, we have to continue to organize.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ravi Ragbir, we want to thank you for being with us, for coming here after being released just last night. Amy Gottlieb, for joining us, Ravi’s wife, immigrant rights attorney, will be attending the State of the Union address tonight as a guest of Congressmember Velázquez. And Alina Das co-directs the Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, in the last few days, two men, taking their kids to school, were taken by ICE. A third went into sanctuary in New Jersey as all of this was happening. We’re going to speak with his pastor. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: Logic performing the song “1-800-273-8255” at the Grammys Sunday night. The phone number of the title is for the National Suicide Prevention hotline.

Última Actualización: Febrero 02 de 2018
Fuente: Democracy Now

 

Los Inmigrantes y El Discurso de Estado de la Unión de Donald Trump

Jueves, febrero 1st, 2018
Los Inmigrantes y El Discurso de Estado de la Unión de Donald Trump

El pasado martes 30 de enero por la noche el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, leyó su primer Discurso del Estado de la Unión, en el que solicitó al Congreso que aprobara una reforma migratoria e intentó poner a todos los inmigrantes en una misma categoría, mezclando a terroristas y pandilleros con los beneficiarios del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por su sigla en inglés). Entre los invitados de Trump al discurso estaban los padres de dos jóvenes que fueron asesinadas por miembros de la pandilla MS-13 hace dos años en Long Island, Nueva York.

La pandilla MS-13 se originó en Los Ángeles en la década de 1980 y desde entonces se ha extendido a Centroamérica como consecuencia de las políticas de deportación masiva de Estados Unidos. Durante el prolongado discurso, Trump también anunció que había firmado una orden ejecutiva para mantener abierta la cárcel militar de la bahía de Guantánamo, y aumentó su retórica belicista contra Corea del Norte, calificando de “depravado” al Gobierno de ese país asiático y advirtiendo de que representaba un riesgo nuclear para Estados Unidos.

Por otra parte, Trump celebró su masiva reforma tributaria, que beneficia a las corporaciones y a los estadounidenses más acaudalados. Trump llegó a la presentación del Discurso del Estado de la Unión con la popularidad más baja que haya tenido un presidente en la historia moderna de Estados Unidos al comenzar su segundo año en el cargo.

Sin embargo Un juez federal de la ciudad de Nueva York afirma que no va a dejar pasar los “crueles” comentarios que hizo el presidente estadounidense, Donald Trump, acerca de los latinos mientras analiza la posibilidad de suspender la cancelación del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA, por su sigla en inglés), que autoriza a casi 800.000 jóvenes indocumentados a vivir y trabajar en Estados Unidos.

El juez Nicholas Garaufis criticó duramente a Trump por sus “crueles declaraciones contra los latinos… recurrentes y redundantes”. Estas son declaraciones del fiscal general del estado de Nueva York, Eric Schneiderman, uno de los 16 fiscales generales que presentaron demandas para bloquear la cancelación del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia.

Eric Schneiderman declaró: “El programa que están intentando cancelar es masivo y exitoso. Se mencionó el tema de la animadversión discriminatoria, así como el sentimiento antilatino. Fue una audiencia muy completa. El juez estaba muy enfocado en los problemas, muy bien informado. Y ahora esperamos por la decisión”.

Por otro lado muchos Inmigrantes y “Dreamers” escucharon en Los Ángeles de espaldas el discurso del Estado de la Unión de Donald Trump y estas fueron algunas de sus reacciones

 

Finalmente compartimos el video del canal de Youtube DW (Español) Que hace un resumen y análisis sobre el Discurso del Estados de la Unión

 

Última Actualización: Febrero 01 de 2018
Fuente: Democracy Now
YouTube DW (Español)
YouTube afpes

 

Dos Inmigrantes Detenidos Al Llevar A Sus Hijas A La Escuela Y Un Tercero Se Refugia En Iglesia

Miércoles, enero 31st, 2018
Dos Inmigrantes Detenidos Al Llevar A Sus Hijas A La Escuela Y Un Tercero Se Refugia En Iglesia

Activistas por los derechos migratorios y líderes religiosos de Nueva Jersey, Estados Unidos, están denunciando al Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) por la detención de varios padres cuando llevaban a sus hijas a la escuela.

El ICE detuvo a Roby Sanger cuando acababa de dejar a sus dos hijas en la escuela y a Gunawan Liem, que acababa de dejar a su hija en la parada del autobus escolar. Ambos hombres son originarios de Indonesia.

Un tercer hombre llamado Harry Pangemanan, también de Indonesia, se refugió en la Iglesia Reformada de Highland Park de Nueva Jersey, al identificar agentes del ICE encubiertos esperando fuera de su casa cuando se preparaba para llevar a su hija a la escuela. Las hijas de los tres son nacidas en Estados Unidos.

Para ampliar esta información, compartimos la entrevista que hiciera Democracy Now con Seth Kaper-Dale, pastor de la Iglesia Reformada de Highland Park, donde acudió Harry Pangemanan a pedir asilo. Y con el pastor de Gunawan Liem, Steven Rantung, de la Primera Iglesia Adventista del Séptimo Día indonesia de South Plainfield, Nueva Jersey.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: New Jersey’s new governor, Phil Murphy, a Democrat, criticized the actions of ICE. After meeting with Harry in sanctuary, Murphy said, quote, “This is extraordinary stuff we’re talking about. These are wonderful people, and it’s almost indescribable.”

This comes as a new report, titled “Sanctuary in the Age of Trump,” says, quote, “more people are taking Sanctuary in congregations than at any time since the 1980’s.”

We’re joined now by two guests. Reverend Seth Kaper-Dale is pastor of the Reformed Church of Highland Park, where Harry Pangemanan has sought sanctuary. Kaper-Dale was the Green Party candidate for governor of New Jersey in 2017. Also with us is Steven—Pastor Steven of the First Indonesian Seventh-Adventist Church in South Plainfield, New Jersey.

I’d like to ask you—you were the Green Party candidate, and Phil Murphy comes to your church to see an example of someone being persecuted by ICE?

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Yes. I was very excited that the governor showed up on Thursday. And more than me being excited, for the families who have sought sanctuary in my church. And Harry makes three—we’ve had two other people—Arthur Jemmy, 110 days ago; Yohanes Tasik, about two-and-a-half weeks ago; now, Harry. For them to see the support of the governor just really told them that in this age of Trump, at least at the state level, there is serious support for standing up for keeping families together and communities together.

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what this means. Some people are not—you know, I had gone over to CNN to do—for Reliable Sources on Sunday. And talking to some of the hosts, they’re not really aware of the sanctuary movement that’s going on. So, how did Harry end up in your church? These two other men, they’re taking their kids to school, and they’re taken by ICE.

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Right. So, Harry ended up in our church, because at 7:55 a.m. he called me. I live five blocks away. “Pastor, there’s unidentified vehicles outside my house.” He said he was backing out of his driveway, saw them, ran back inside, locked the doors. I drove to his house. I got out of the car, approached a Ford Explorer. And they drove off. I followed them around town. They came back. I drove up to their window. They drove off again. At that point, I said, “Harry, get in my car. We’re going to the church.” I then drove back to Harry’s house, where there were ICEagents pounding on the doors, two vehicles. And I made a video of it.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to that, Reverend Kaper-Dale. You streamed on Facebook Live Thursday morning—

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —as ICE officials knocked on Harry Pangemanan’s door. This is after you took him into the church and offered him sanctuary.

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Right, right. I don’t think the officers knew he was already in there. They were trying to get him still.

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: This is ICE knocking on the doors of Harry and Yana Pangemanan’s house. And we know that right now they’re on stays of removal that are legit. And I’m just—I’m just filming what happens in Highland Park, New Jersey, when ICE decides that they want to take the guy that just won the MLK Award for repairing 209 houses during Hurricane Sandy, and assault and threaten him.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you also talk about the fact these are all Indonesian nationals and how some of them originally came into the country—

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Sure.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —and what their stories are?

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: In the late 1990s, as the Suharto regime collapsed, there was a period of rioting and a tremendous bloodbath, especially against ethnic Chinese. And lots of ethic Chinese Christians ended up in New Jersey and in California and in a couple other states. They all got here on tourist visas. They overstayed those tourist visas. They were able to get jobs in factories. It was the late ’90s. Things were very different. 9/11 came. The NSEERS program, our first program of targeting Muslim countries, unfolded. Males age 15 to 65 from the 24 largest Muslim countries in the world had to go register. And here you have ethnic Chinese Christians who have just left a primarily Muslim country. Not wanting to get caught up in the American dragnet against Muslims, they all went and self-reported. And since then, they’ve been low-hanging fruit for immigration.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Harry Pangemanan in his own words, speaking after his home was vandalized while he took refuge in your church.

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Yeah, within 24 hours.

HARRY PANGEMANAN: Didn’t just do the damage to me. But I just want to make note that they do, they did damage to Americans’ life—my children’s. They started destroying my children’s life. This is American kids, Americans that have dreams, like everybody else. Now, my oldest daughter said to me last night, ‘I don’t have any more safe space for myself.’ So, whomever did this one, you did pretty good job of destroying American life.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Harry Pangemanan talking. Pastor Steven, I’d like to ask you about Gunawan Liem, his story. And he’s a member of your church?

PASTOR STEVEN RANTUNG: Yes, he is a member of my church. He’s one of the deacons of the church, who serve in our church services. Also, when we need to serve the community, he’s one of the members that we usually send.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what was some of his story, in terms of him coming here?

PASTOR STEVEN RANTUNG: He fled Indonesia in 1999, after Suharto regime collapsed in Indonesia. And because of he’s Chinese, ethnic Chinese, and also as a Christian, he fled. You know, he has some stories that he told me about what happened to his family back in Indonesia. So that’s why he ran away from Indonesia and arrived with tourist visa in the U.S. And after the—you know, this thing, he tried to make his case for the immigration, but it was denied. He appealed, and it denied again. And he went for check-in for the last couple of years. And he’s supposed to check in again this coming February or March, I believe. And before the time of that check-in, they took them.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is exactly what the judge in the case of Ravi Ragbir raised.

PASTOR STEVEN RANTUNG: Yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: When people are doing their check-ins, why is ICE going to their homes and picking them up and terrorizing not only them, but the whole community? So what has happened right now to the two men who were taken, to Roby Sanger as well as him?

PASTOR STEVEN RANTUNG: They are in Essex County detention right now.

AMY GOODMAN:Are they going to be deported to Indonesia?

PASTOR STEVEN RANTUNG: We don’t know yet. We are trying to do our best with the lawyers, with the help of ACLU, if there’s something that can be done to—you know, for them to stay.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale, what are you calling for?

PASTOR SETH KAPER-DALE: Well, I’m calling for a lot of things. First of all, these folks have been on orders of supervision now since 2009, when ICE worked with us to say that these are not the kinds of people who should be deported. They’re people who missed on the technicality of the one-year time bar on filing for asylum. And ICE, at that time, invited me to bring Indonesians forward to be able to do these reports. So they’ve backed off on the promises they’ve made.

And I really want Donald Trump to recognize that he’s the hate crime president, who is now leading not only to policies that look like hate crimes, but leading other folks to do vigilante acts. I mean, the fact that two people who moved into sanctuary had their homes really broken into and robberies taken place, it feels like a pogrom to me.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, Pastor Seth Kaper-Dale and Pastor Steveen. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Thanks so much for joining us.

 

Última Actualización: Enero 31 de 2018
Fuente: Democracy Now

El Negocio del Tráfico de Migrantes Entre Estados Unidos y México

Lunes, enero 29th, 2018
El Negocio del Tráfico de Migrantes Entre Estados Unidos y México

El término “coyote” es dado a una persona a quien se le paga para transportar a escondidas a inmigrantes ilegales para cruzar la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos. A continuación recopilamos algunos videos que dan a conocer parte del negocio, los riesgos, los costos y las mentiras…:

“La Mafia de los Indocumentados No Va a Parar” Testimonio e un Coyote

 

Como Operan las Organizaciones de Tráfico de Migrantes

 

Las Mentiras de los Coyotes

 

El “Rentable Negocio del Crimen Organizado” El Tráfico de Migrantes

 

Última Actualización: Enero 29 de 2018
Fuente: YouTube el compa mono
YouTube RT en Español
YouTube Club 700 Hoy
YouTube Univision Noticias

Plan Migratorio de Donald Trump Incluye Legalización “Dreamers” A Cambio de Construcción de Muro

Viernes, enero 26th, 2018
Plan Migratorio de Donald Trump Incluye Legalización “Dreamers” A Cambio de Construcción de Muro

El nuevo plan de inmigración propuesto por la Casa Blanca y que deberá ser aprobado por el Congreso ofrecerá un camino hacia la ciudadanía para los 1,8 millones de inmigrantes que viven ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos opero que no tienen ningún record criminal o falta a la moral. Ademas El presidente Donald Trump incluye en su propuesta:

  • El fin del programa de lotería de visas y la migración de la cadena.
  • Un “fondo fiduciario” de $ 25 mil millones de dólares para la creación de muros.
  • Realizar una Inversión histórica en la seguridad de la frontera.
  • Una asignación para cubrir las deficiencias del personal en la patrulla fronteriza y en el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional.
  • El mismo tratamiento para los inmigrantes ilegales, independientemente del país de origen.
  • Limitar la entrada de familiares de inmigrantes que ya se encuentren en los Estados Unidos.

 

 

Última Actualización: Enero 26 de 2018
Fuente: YouTube Univision Noticias

Extensión Automática del Documento de Autorización de Empleo (EAD) Para Haitianos

Miércoles, enero 24th, 2018
 Extensión Automática del Documento de Autorización de Empleo (EAD) Para Haitianos

El 18 de enero de 2018, USCIS extendió automáticamente la validez de los documentos de autorización de empleo (EAD, por sus siglas en inglés) expedidos bajo la extensión de TPS de Haití por 180 días, hasta el 21 de julio de 2018. Si usted es un beneficiario de TPS bajo la designación de Haití y su EAD está basado en su estatus de TPS y tiene una fecha de caducidad original de 22 de enero de 2018, su EAD está cubierto por esta extensión automática y usted puede continuar en el empleo utilizando su EAD actual hasta el 21 de julio de 2018.

Además, las personas que poseen un EAD con fecha de caducidad del 22 de julio de 2017, y solicitaron un nuevo EAD durante el último periodo de reinscripción, pero no han recibido aún su nuevo EAD también están cubiertas por esta extensión automática. Estas personas pueden mostrarle a sus empleadores el EAD que tiene la fecha de caducidad de 22 de julio de 2017 y el recibo de su solicitud de EAD (Formulario I-797C, Notificación de Acción) que indica que la solicitud fue recibida en o después del 24 de mayo de 2017, junto con esta declaración (en inglés), como prueba autorización de empleo continuo hasta el 22 de julio de 2018.

Para demostrar que usted está autorizado a continuar legalmente en el empleo, debe mostrar la siguiente documentación a su empleador y a las agencias gubernamentales:

1. Su EAD basado en TPS con fecha de caducidad de 22 de enero de 2018 o 22 de julio de 2017

2. Una copia de la notificación del Registro Federal que anuncia la extensión automática, o esta declaración (en inglés).

Su empleador puede depender en la notificación del Registro Federal como evidencia de que su EAD continúa siendo válido.

Si USCIS aprueba su petición de reinscripción al TPS y usted solicitó y pagó la tarifa para un nuevo EAD (o USCIS aprobó una exención de tarifas), se le expedirá un nuevo EAD con la fecha de expiración de 22 de julio de 2019.

Última Actualización: Enero 24 de 2018
Fuente: Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS).