Category Archives: Materials

globalforum_space

The GFMD Civil Society Days

By | Materials, News | No Comments

The GFMD Civil Society Days will be held on 12 – 13 May at the Münchenbryggeriet Conference Centre in Stockholm, Sweden. The Common Space with Governments will be held at the same venue on 14 May, and the GFMD Government Days will take place at the same location on 15-16 May.

Global civil society embraces the 2014 GFMD as the first global opportunity to capitalize on the outcomes of the 2013 High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development and to drive forward civil society Five Year Action Agenda.

Here are a selection of important documents for you about the GFMD 2014 to download and read:

Apart from the programme, which you will have to download separately from the list above, we also have a .zip file that contains all the relevant conference documents.

photo-acceptance-email

About the GFMD Civil Society Days

As the first major event after the 2013 United Nations High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (HLD), the GFMD Civil Society Days will once again bring together more than 200 migrant and civil society leaders from all over the world. At the HLD, global civil society was struck by the enormous convergence among many governments, international organizations, and civil society groups around a set of key priorities that must urgently be addressed – including ensuring migration and migrants’ rightful place on the post-2015 agenda, protecting migrants in crisis and transit, reforming the migrant worker recruitment industry, and more.

Civil society worldwide can seize the 2014 GFMD as the first global opportunity to capitalize on this convergence, drive forward civil society’s 5-year 8-point Action Plan, and urge governments to commit to further dialogue, practical cooperation and change.

Out of 780 applicants, 270 have been selected to participate as civil society delegates in 2014 Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). Applicants were notified of their selection the last week of March. This selection was performed by an International Steering Committee (ISC), comprised of civil society leaders from every sector of civil society and region around the world.

Like in previous years, every delegate must make his or her own travel, accommodation and visa arrangements! Participants who applied for funding support to participate in the GFMD Civil Society Days, will receive an email within a week of their acceptance notice, indicating if any of the very limited such funding will be available them.

carpetas

Material: Politic Manual Advocacy Facilitation

By | Materials, Papers and formats, Resources | No Comments

This manual is the product of six years of experience in training and monitoring of processes of change through advocacy in Central America. The main purpose is to provide conceptual and methodological elements for people who want to train civil society groups in participatory planning methodology for advocacy and facilitate processes of change through public policy in favor of traditionally marginalized sectors.

Manual de Facilitación de Incidencia Política

manuales

Material: Do you know what to do in case of deportation?

By | Materials, News, Papers and formats | No Comments

Here is a manual developed by the Appleseed Foundation, for whose realization was attended by Efraín Jiménez, president of FEDZAC.

Manual En caso de Deportación

Este manual ha sido generosamente financiado de forma parcial por Annie E. Casey Foundation. Se agradece a la fundación por todo su apoyo. Appleseed también agradece a:

Firms

DLA Piper (through Elizabeth Dewey) Skadden Arps (through Ron Tabak)

Project Attorneys

Monami Chakrabati – Skadden Renee Chantler – DLA Piper Joshua Dilk
Sean Doyle

Ron Eden
Jill Falor
Ebba Gebisa – Skadden
Heather Giannandrea
Elizabeth Harlan – Skadden
Justin Heather – Skadden
Richard Hindman – Skadden
Collin Janus – Skadden
Rose Jenkins – Skadden
Philip Jensen – DLA Piper
Masha Khazan – Skadden
Steven Krause
Luke Laumann
Alan Limbach – DLA Piper
Qian Linghu
Erika Lucas – DLA Piper
John Lynch
Kevin Mack – Skadden
Tina Mitsis
Christia Pritts – DLA Piper
Eunice Rho
Patrick Rickerfor
William Robertson
Nicola Rosenstock
Kathleen Scott
James Stillwaggon
Carlos Sole – DLA Piper
Kathleen Tam – Skadden
Ronald Yin – DLA Piper
Kathryn Youker – Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

Project Advisors

Tanisha Bowens ‐ Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Alison Brown ‐ Peck Law Firm, LLC
Rob Dorton‐ Lutheran Immigration Services

Oliver Bush Espinosa ‐ Director de Relaciones Interinstitu‐ cionales, Instituto Nacional de Migración, Secretaria de Gobernación

Efrain Jimenez ‐ Zacatecas Hometown Association in Los Angeles

Linda Paulson ‐ Foundation Communities
Kevin Ruser ‐ The University of Nebraska‐Lincoln Legal

Clinic
Carlos Salinas ‐ Texas RioGrande Legal Aid
Norma Ang Sánchez ‐ Directora de Protección para Estados

Unidos, Dirección General de Protección a Mexicanos en el Exterior, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores SER Paromita Shah ‐ National Immigration Project of the National

Lawyers Guild
Tracey Whitley ‐ Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

Appleseed Financial Access and Asset Building Project

Executive Director: Betsy Cavendish

Report Contributors:
Jordan Vexler, Deputy Director, Appleseed Financial Access

and Asset Building Project *
Benet Magnuson, Kaufman‐Skirnick Fellow, Appleseed

Financial Access and Asset Building Project ** Annette LoVoi, Director, Appleseed Financial Access and

Asset Building Project
Ann Baddour, Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Appleseed Tammy Bersherse, Attorney, South Carolina Appleseed Jennifer Ching, Director, New York Appleseed
Jeremy Cook, Deputy Communications Director, Appleseed Maru Cortazar, Executive Director, México Appleseed
Shay Farley, Legal Director, Alabama Appleseed
Becky Gould, Executive Director, Nebraska Appleseed Heather Jones, Grants Manager, Appleseed
Rebecca Lightsey, Executive Director, Texas Appleseed Malcolm Rich, Executive Director, Chicago Appleseed Zaraí Salvador‐Mátar, Operations Director, México

Appleseed
Zayne Smith, Immigration Policy Fellow, Alabama

Appleseed

*Project Director **Project Coordinator

Translator:
Vicky Cojab, Intern, México Appleseed

transfermoney

Material: Who is the better in money transfers from the US?

By | Materials | No Comments

The Federal Consumers Bureau (PROFECO) headed by Alfredo Castillo Cervantes, intensified programs to defend the rights of consumers to transfer money from the U.S. to Mexico, especially when in this May increase remittances.

Through the tool “Quien es quien en el envío de dinero” is conducive to transparency of information to avoid the high fees charged for this service and the low exchange rate paid by companies to send money, same attitude that injured the economy of families, mainly from rural areas.

To curb abusive practices, the PROFECO recommends the following safety tips:

Make sure you know the person to whom you send money transfers do not for commercial purposes without a contract and understand their rights and obligations, to ignore developments that may be fraudulent or participate in betting or gambling.

Nor should disclose financial and personal information to third parties, as they may misuse it, while maintaining constant communication with the beneficiaries of the resources that are transferred.

Delegates from across the country have been instructed to disclose information about the costs of remittance services, in order to prevent Mexicans living in the United States are affected by the chicanery of some companies and have the best options for perform these operations.

In the “Consumer Portal” may refer to the amount of fees, speed and rate each company applying for the user to the most appropriate selections.

The “Quién es quién” reports the cost of sending money to companies based in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Miami and New York.

Quién es quién en el envío de dinero desde EEUU

carpetas

Material: Stakeholder Mapping Report, Public Policy and Programs

By | Materials | No Comments

Mexican Migrants as Development Actors

Document prepared by Carlos Heredia Zubleta and Brenda Valdés Elisa Corona . Consultants / March 2013

The worsening of the living conditions of Mexican migrant communities in the United States and the lack of comprehensive public policies that address the causes and consequences of migration in Mexico led to Mexican migrants join as a collective effort in the Mexican Network of leaders and Migrant Organizations ( RedMX ) . For RedMX priority has been building an agenda containing the different issues that affect us and affect our communities in both Mexico and the United States.

In order to develop this we aimed to develop a mapping of actors, public policy and public and private programs aimed at migrants and their families in Mexico in order to develop an action plan that allows us to be more visible and efficient in our efforts as migrants . In that sense , the purpose of this analysis is to document the current status of public and private programs aimed at Mexican immigrants ( including migrants and return ) in Mexico and the United States. At the governmental level, collect the information on public policy, state and federal investment in programs, and identify the officials responsible for programs identified and key legislators .

Ultimately this mapping exercise of actors, policies and programs of migrants is a tool for decision -making. It aims to provide the members of the RedMX an overview of the issues , institutions and acotres over which seek to influence.

Introducción: Mapeo de Actores (35 hojas)
inmigracion_24414

Material: Top Ten Questions and Answers about the Senate Inmigration Bill

By | Materials | No Comments

Top Ten Questions and Answers about the Senate Immigration Bill

1. What are the general eligibility requirements for people for legalization?

At the heart of the Senate bill is a broad yet stringent legalization program that will put most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants on the road to eventual citizenship. The bill provides for a several step legalization program that first allows people to apply for “Registered Provisional Immigrant” (RPI) status and then, after 10 years, for lawful permanent resident status, and then after 3 more years, for U.S. citizenship.

Eligibility requirements include passing criminal and security background checks and establishing continuous physical presence in the United States since before December 31, 2011. Departures of less than 180 days during that period do not constitute breaks in physical presence. Certain criminal convictions (1 felony or 3 separate misdemeanors) and other grounds of inadmissibility render applicants ineligible for legalization.

Applicants must pay a penalty fine of $500 at the time of initial application, another penalty fine of $500 at the time of renewal of RPI status, and then a $1,000 penalty fine at the time of adjustment to permanent status. Processing fees for adjudication of the applications apply at each of 4 stages on the road to citizenship—initial application, renewal of RPI status after 6 years, application for lawful permanent resident status after 10 years, and application for citizenship after 3 additional years (if desired).

A person may remain in in RPI status and renew it every 6 years if they so desire. At the time of RPI renewal and/or application for permanent residence, the applicant must demonstrate that they have maintained regular employment or education, payment of taxes, and the ability to support oneself. At the time of application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, applicants must demonstrate that they are learning English and have a knowledge of civics.

Persons who have final orders of removal, or who have previously reentered the U.S. after a prior removal or voluntary departure are eligible to apply for RPI status. In addition, certain people previously deported for non-criminal grounds and who have a spouse, parent, or child USC or LPR in the United States or who would be eligible for the DREAM Act, are eligible to apply for a waiver to reenter the United States in order to apply for legal status. Persons who entered the United States on a valid visa and then overstayed are eligible, provided they have been in unlawful status since December 31, 2011.

Individuals who receive PRI status can work legally in the United States and travel outside the country. Their minor children, if present in the United States, can be included in their application.

Individuals with PRI status are not eligible for means-tested federal public benefits nor for subsidies or tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.

2. What will happen to people in current visa backlogs?

The Senate bill eliminates the entire family and employment-based visa backlogs within 8 years. All of the people who are currently in the visa backlogs, waiting for their “priority date” to become current, will obtain lawful permanent resident status before the newly legalized RPI’s can obtain permanent status.

3. Will the border enforcement “triggers” delay the legalization program?

The border enforcement triggers should not delay the initial RPI legalization program. The “triggers” require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit, within 6 months of enactment, two plans. The first is a strategy to achieve a 90% effective rate goal in high risk sectors of the Southern border. The second is a fencing plan designed to reinforce current fencing and barriers. The initial legalization program does not begin until these plans are submitted. The legalization program also will not begin until implementing regulations are issued – within 12 months after enactment of the bill.

If, after five years, the 90% effectiveness rate in high risk sectors has not been achieved, an additional pool of resources will be authorized for appropriation and a commission of experts and elected officials from border states will be formed. The border commission will issue recommendations to DHS regarding additional measures that should be adopted to help reach the 90% effectiveness rate goal.

Two other enforcement “triggers” that have to be met before RPIs can apply for permanent residence involve implementation of the E-Verify program and entry-exit controls at air and sea ports. Both of these triggers are achievable and should not delay the path to permanent residence.

4. What about family members…spouses/kids of LPRs, siblings, LGBT partners, adult married kids?

The Senate bill provides for increased family unity by categorizing spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents as “imwp-mediate relatives” for immigration purposes. This means that these family members are not subject to any numerical limitations. That, in turn, frees up visas for the other family categories, which will limit the size of any new backlogs that may develop in those categories in the future.

The bill will phase out the U.S. citizen sibling visa category and diversity visas. But all U.S. citizens with sibling petitions currently pending will be able to complete their sponsorship and new petitions may be filed for another 18 months. After that point, siblings still will be eligible for a new “merit based visa” and will receive eligibility points based on their family relationship. They will also be authorized to travel to the United States as visitors for two-month periods each year.

The adult married children visa category will be limited in the future to those who are under 31 years of age.

The bill does not provide for family visas for LGBT “permanent partners.” This provision will have to be added to the bill through the amendment process.

5. What about DREAMERS, what happens to them?

DREAMERs can earn permanent legal status within five years, and are then imwp-mediately eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. DREAMERs who have been previously deported may still be eligible to apply for legal status if they meet certain requirements, even if they don’t have a qualifying U.S. relationship

6. What other changes does the bill make to the employment-based visa programs?

Farmworkers are eligible for an expedited five year path to permanent legal status and then eventual citizenship under current law. In order to qualify, among other things, they must continue working in the agricultural sector for an additional 3-5 years post-enactment.

Other essential workers may apply for a new “W” worker visa which will allow them to enter and work in the U.S. for participating employers, change jobs to other W employers, and eventually self-petition for lawful permanent status under the new merit based program.

Both the W visa program and the new agricultural worker program are subject to important standards for wages and working conditions, negotiated by labor to protect both immigrant and native-born workers.

Finally, there are new protections against employers using immigration status to intimidate workers and to prevent international recruiters from misleading or otherwise mistreating those they bring to the U.S.

7. What about people who had TPS or DED?

People who have been in the United States in lawful or employment authorized status, including TPS or DED, for at least ten years are eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence. This will allow people in these statuses who have already been here for more than ten years to adjust status imwp-mediately, instead of waiting another ten years.

8. Are there any changes to the asylum and refugee programs in this bill?

The Senate bill provides important improvements to asylum and refugee programs, including the elimination of the arbitrary one-year filing deadline.

9. What about other enforcement measures, such as E-Verify?

The bill includes a mandatory, universal employment verification program, E-Verify. The program includes new due process and privacy protections, and is phased in over a period of five years until it includes all U.S employers.

10. When will this bill become law? What is the process? When can people begin to apply for legalization?

The Senate bill must first move through a process of approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be subject to amendment from both Republicans and Democrats on the committee. The bill will then go to the whole Senate for debate and amendment and a final vote. The House must also pass an immigration bill.

If the House and Senate bills are not identical, the two bills will usually go to a House/Senate “conference committee” where further changes will be made as the differences between the two bills are worked out. The final bill agreed-upon by the conference committee must sent back to both the House and Senate for final votes, and only then can the bill be signed into law by the President.

Once the bill is signed into law, there will be a one-year period in which regulations will be written to implement the bill. The application period for the new legalization program will begin one year after the bill is signed into law, and applicants will have one year to apply. The DHS Secretary can extend the application period for an additional eighteen months if necessary.

During the year it will take to finalize the regulations after bill enactment, and through the one or two-and-a-half year application period, individuals who are eligible for legalization will be protected from deportation.

No one can apply for legalization before the program application period begins, one year after the bill is signed into law. Individuals should not pay anyone to prepare or file their application unless and until the official application period begins. Information and deadlines will be posted on various government and non-profit organization websites.