SAN ANTONIO – Los cambios demográficos, junto con nuevas políticas de inmigración, alimentan los debates recientes en los círculos mediáticos sobre cómo referirse a los inmigrantes que no vinieron a los Estados Unidos por medios legales. La diferencia no estriba en que sea un adjetivo o un adverbio, sino en el uso que se da a la palabra “ilegal” cuando se refiere a residentes que no se mudaron a este país con la documentación adecuada.

Desde la cadena CNN hasta el Huffington Post, los principales informativos han tratado de aumentar su público latino evitando el término “inmigrante ilegal”. Un ejemplo es el San Antonio Express-News, con distribución incluso en México, el cual hace dos años decidió que el término no era consistente con la forma en que el periódico describe a otros supuestos infractores de la ley. Jamie Stockwell, editora en jefe del periódico, dice que es como llamarle “conductor ilegal” a quien viola las leyes de tránsito.

“Entonces, la forma correcta de describir el estatus migratorio de una persona –cuando la información es relevante– es decir que esa persona está en el país ilegalmente. Y luego citamos la fuente de información. Por ejemplo, ‘La policía dice que el hombre está ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos.”

El periódico usa el término “inmigración ilegal” para describir el flujo no autorizado de gente a través de la frontera, y algunas veces sus reporteros llaman a quien llega así al país, “inmigrante indocumentado”. Stockwell piensa que los cambios recientes a la política de inmigración están alimentando el debate en los equipos de noticias. Desde que la administración Obama anunció, el año pasado, que dejaría de perseguir para deportarlos a ciertos jóvenes inmigrantes, su estatus se ha convertido en una zona gris.

David Bennion, abogado migratorio de Philadelphia, también prefiere el término “indocumentado” a “ilegal”. Aunque es imperfecto, piensa que es menos ofensivo para las comunidades inmigrantes. Dice que identificar como “ilegal” a gente que ha vivido y trabajado en los Estados Unidos gran parte de su vida, la margina de la sociedad.
“Está diseñado para segregar gente a una clase de personas que pueden ser excluidas de las protecciones legales, del proceso político, de las oportunidades económicas.”

Afirma que conoce a muy pocos jueces en materia migratoria que usen el término “inmigrante ilegal”. Piensa que se debe a que eso significaría saltar a una conclusión sobre ellos antes de haberles dado un debido proceso.
Stockwell dice que la precisión no es la única razón por la que su periódico decidió evitar el término. Explica que las etiquetas pueden cambiar con el tiempo, según las preferencias de quienes son etiquetados. Dice que los puntos de vista de las comunidades de inmigrantes son bien conocidos por sus reporteros, quienes han ayudado a definir la política actual del Express-News.

“Son personas que durante años han estado reportando noticias de la inmigración, que han venido del sur de Texas y estuvieron cubriendo a los inmigrantes –y los crímenes que involucran a los inmigrantes- también durante años. Así que nace de un respeto por la gente que hemos estado cubriendo y nada más no nos sentimos bien llamándoles ilegales.”

Ella ve que la resistencia contra el término va ganando terreno, y anticipa que tarde o temprano el término “inmigrante ilegal” caerá en desuso en las organizaciones de noticias. Hasta ahora el New York Times, el periódico de referencia, no se ha manifestado al respecto, pero los defensores de los inmigrantes han estado trabajando para convencer a los editores para que reconsideren su política.

Vea el análisis de Bennion en el Blog: http://bit.ly/QkMhjN. La explicación de la política del NYT: http://nyti.ms/UuWFDw.


get more stories like this via email

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email

Both chambers of the New York state Legislature have included coverage for all legislation in their respective budgets.

The bills would update the state's Affordable Care Act Section 1332 waiver to make coverage available for all income-eligible people, regardless of their immigration status. Studies show half of likely undocumented immigrants and around 18% of lawfully present immigrants are uninsured.

Arline Cruz Escobar, health programs director for the group Make the Road New York, said the challenges stemming from a lack of coverage make life harder for the undocumented population.

"A lot of these preventable illnesses are going undetected and so, unfortunately, people are getting sicker," Cruz Escobar pointed out. "It also means that a lot of people who currently are sick aren't able to actually access the medication that they need."

One of the biggest obstacles to passing the bill is anti-immigrant rhetoric spreading across the country. However, many groups across the state submitted testimony declaring their support and need for this bill.

Cruz Escobar argued the growing migrant population in places such as New York City makes the bill more necessary. The New York City Comptroller's Office found the number of migrants not living in New York City but still in its care grew from 276 last May to more than 2,100 last September.

Beyond helping immigrants, supporters said the bill will benefit the state financially. The New York City Comptroller's office estimates passing coverage for all will generate $710 million in annual benefits.

Cruz Escobar described other elements of the bill.

"We have also included in our legislation language around giving the Commissioner of Health the ability to set up guardrails to ensure that for this expansion we don't over-cede the amount of surplus that's available."

She added the commissioner would also ensure there would be no additional cost through state dollars. Estimates showed New York State plans to spend more than $4 billion between 2022 and 2026 on issues related to migrants. Current spending is estimated at around $690 million.


get more stories like this via email