Why Have Hundreds of Thousands Fled Ecuador Since 2020?

By Marshall Plane, Erica Criollo

Turning to shield herself from the biting January wind, 40-year-old Yolanda explained to us the tragic set of events that took her from her thriving market stall in Ecuador to the Manhattan street where she now sells hot meals to residents of a nearby migrant shelter.

Yolanda was part of a merchant association in Cuenca, Ecuador. In 2021, local gangs began extorting these vendors, charging a monthly “security fee.” From there, things only got worse. “The next thing they did was try to recruit our children,” she recalled. “I have a 20-year-old son. He’s the only child I have. They ordered me to give them my son so that he could work for them selling drugs.”

After she reported this to the police, Yolanda was beaten and robbed by gang members. Fearing for her life, she decided to leave Ecuador. “I told my son we couldn’t stay [in Ecuador], because these gangs are all over the country,” she said. “They have connections.” Having crossed seven countries to reach the United States, the two are now renting a room from an Ecuadorian woman in Brooklyn. “I’m here by the will of God, trying to get my daily bread,” she told us. 

Yolanda’s journey is part of a sudden exodus from Ecuador. Fueled by economic hardship and a surge in violence, over 244,000 Ecuadorians have requested asylum in the US since 2021, the 8th-highest of all nationalities. Of those, 57% have settled in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, states with large Ecuadorian communities where many have contacts. At 52,000, Ecuador is the leading country of origin for asylum seekers in New York City.

Figure 1: Notices to appear in immigration court issued to Ecuadorian nationals by month. Source: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Between December 2024 and January 2025, The Immigration Lab conducted fifty-five interviews with asylum seekers and recent immigrants in New York City. Thirty of the individuals we spoke to were from Ecuador. Two significant patterns emerged: many of them were small-business owners in Ecuador who faced extortion from gangs or parents who fled to protect their children from forced gang recruitment and violence. Their stories highlight the devastating impact of rising gang violence, economic instability, and the government’s failure to protect its citizens, all of which have contributed to a major exodus from the country. 

In 2018, Ecuador was one of the safest countries in Latin America, with a homicide rate around 6 per 100,000—a figure comparable to the United States. By 2023, its homicide rate was the highest in the region at 47 per 100,000. These statistics reflect what many interviewees described as a collapse of public safety in the country of 18 million.

Source: InSight Crime

Ecuador is the latest country to fall victim to the failure of US-led drug policy in the Western Hemisphere. A shift in trafficking routes was the proximate cause of the recent spike in violence. With security tightening in Colombian ports, international traffickers began using ports on Ecuador’s Pacific coast to smuggle cocaine to North America and Europe. Factors such as lax security, a weak judicial system, and official corruption made Ecuador an attractive transit point.

Control over these newly lucrative routes became hotly contested, a process worsened when the nation’s largest gang, Los Choneros, split into several factions in 2020. The policy of dividing inmates by gang affiliation exacerbated the prison violence it was supposed to prevent and made prisons a nexus of recruitment and coordination for major gangs.

Gangs’ increased need for manpower to control contested areas coincided with an economic downturn worsened by the pandemic. From 2019 to 2022, unemployment, underemployment, and poverty all increased. Gang recruiters began frequenting schools and soccer pitches in impoverished areas, recruiting youths with promises of income and status. When this fails, they often use force, threatening the family members of those who refuse to join.

According to InSight Crime, this is especially common in strategically important, contested areas where gangs need manpower to assert control. A prime example is Esmeraldas, a coastal region that has seen severe violence due to its utility as a chokepoint for cocaine entering the country from Colombia. “Ecuador has practically fallen to pieces,” says Miguel, a 40-year-old fishmonger from Esmeraldas. When he didn’t let Los Lobos recruit his stepson, they kidnapped and beat the boy. “He came home all beaten, swollen,” Miguel recalls. “We had to leave everything behind, because otherwise they were going to kill us.”

Twenty percent of our participants said forced recruitment of their children forced them to flee Ecuador. Another 23% were small business owners who said gang extortion made their lives impossible.  Reports of extortion grew nearly 800% from 2021 to 2023. According to InSight Crime, gangs that lose control of cocaine trafficking routes often turn to extortion to finance their operations.

Source: InSight Crime

Anthony, a 43-year-old father of three from Guayaquil, told us extortion ruined his growing business as a self-employed trucker. “When we said that we didn’t have any more to give, they said they were going to bring reprisals. They were going to kidnap my son, kill him,” he recalled. “Unfortunately, the politicians are corrupt up to the police themselves, so we couldn’t make a report.”

According to a November 2022 poll, 75% of Ecuadorians similarly viewed the police as unreliable. Police corruption has exacerbated Ecuador’s crisis, allowing the flow of thousands of weapons to gangs. In many cases, officers who try to challenge gangs’ power have been assassinated. This fate nearly befell Marcelo, 29, a police officer and restaurant owner in the city of Machala. In late 2022 gang hitmen arrived and committed the first murder in what Marcelo says had been a very peaceful city. “We arrested them the next day,” he said. “Because of that arrest, I received multiple death threats. They knew my address, my restaurant, my children.” Marcelo now lives in Ridgewood, Queens, selling bread and delivering for Grubhub to make ends meet.

While increased violence has fueled emigration from Ecuador, many interviewees were also motivated to come by economic advancement, particularly that of their children. As of 2022, 25% of Ecuador’s population lived in poverty and was classified as having “inadequate employment.” When asked why she came to America, Katy, 29, immediately responded, “My son. With my love as a mother, I wanted my son to have more opportunities, learn another language, go to college. I want him to have what I didn’t have.”

Others, especially those who came alone, were focused on improving their family’s situation back in Ecuador. “I come from a poor family, we don’t have many resources, that’s why we came,” says David, 33. “I want to buy a house [in Ecuador] for my daughter, because right now we don’t have a home.”

Some indigenous Ecuadorians felt constrained by both poverty and discrimination. Pedro, 38, from the Shuar people of the Ecuadorian Amazon, said his departure was motivated by a feeling that racism in Ecuador would prevent his daughters from succeeding. “Just for being indigenous, for being Shuar, people assume you’re ignorant,” he said. In addition, the candy vendors on New York City’s subways are largely Quechua women from the Andean highlands, many of whom were also vendors back home.

These women, like many recent arrivals, are currently struggling to find a reliable niche in New York City’s labor market as they seek to rebuild their lives. In our next article, we will highlight notable patterns in the experiences of Ecuadorians working to adjust to their new homes.

Marshall Plane is a Research Assistant at The Immigration Lab at American University

Erica Criollo is the Research Coordinator at The Immigration Lab at American University

Climate Disaster, Human Displacement, and the Risks of Non-Economic Loss for Latin America and the Caribbean

By Robert Albro

Associate Director, CLALS

April 8, 2025

Migrants use a dam to cross into the US in Texas on Saturday. By Free Malaysia Today

Recent devastating fires in Hawaii, the Pacific Northwest, and Los Angeles, similarly catastrophic floods in Kentucky and severe hurricane damage in North Carolina, have brought home to people in the U.S. that natural disasters made worse by climate change are more frequently displacing a growing number of people around the world. An estimated 220 million people have been displaced by weather-related disasters over the previous decade, which amounts to approximately 60,000 per day. That number is expected to grow.

Over that same period an estimated 7.7 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean have been displaced due to disasters, with climate change an increasing contributor. In recent years the region has been repeatedly devastated by hurricanes, as well as floods and wildfires, all of which have become larger, more frequent, and damaging as a result of climate change.

In 2017 hurricanes Maria and Irma pummeled the Caribbean. Maria wrought long-lasting damage, leaving Puerto Rico without power for almost a year, with an estimated 130,000 people leaving the island in the storm’s aftermath to resettle in Florida and elsewhere. Irma followed soon thereafter, displacing a total of 1.7 million in 15 countries and territories, making it the largest global disaster event that year. In 2019 Dorian, the strongest recorded hurricane ever to hit the Bahamas, left at least 70,000 homeless. In 2024 Beryl tore through large parts of the Caribbean and Yucatan Peninsula, displacing an estimated 200,000 while damaging or destroying 90 percent of homes and buildings.

Massive flooding events are also now more common in Latin America. A result of the El Niño-la Niña oscillation, climate change has made such floods twice as likely. Brazil alone has been the scene of recurring annual flooding. In 2022 torrential rains caused the worst floods on record leading to nearly 700,000 displaced Brazilians. Again in 2024 a period of intense rainfall during April and May produced the worst floods to hit Brazil in over 80 years, displacing over 600,000. Many of these were migrants from other countries living in Brazil.

Wildfires are also becoming an increasingly familiar annual occurrence, particularly in South America. Since the 1970s the number of days per year with conditions of high fire risk have quadrupled in some parts of South America. Over the past decade the average annual number of wildfires has steadily risen, and 2024 saw the highest recorded number of fire hotspots ever in South America. Below-average rainfall in many areas, together with higher temperatures, and prolonged draughts, aggravated by logging and deforestation, are the main contributors.

In recent years Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Brazil have been particularly hard hit. In February 2024 an estimated 40,000 people in Chile’s Valparaíso region were displaced by fire, with 14,000 houses damaged or destroyed. So far in 2025 three large-scale fires in Argentina’s Patagonian region displaced more than 200 families. Finally, Brazil is in the midst of its worst draught since at least the 1950s. And Bolivia and Brazil experienced record numbers of fires in 2024, with thousands displaced.

Taken together, millions of people have been displaced in Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years as a result of climate-exacerbated natural disasters. But these numbers only account for rapid-onset destructive weather events. They do not reflect rising human mobility in response to slower-onset and harder to discern climate impacts and forms of environmental degradation, such as glacial melt, desertification, or sea level rise, which are directly negatively affecting agricultural economies throughout the region and forcing people to move. Addressing the consequences of displacement for these less obvious reasons promises to be among the major humanitarian challenges of the rest of this century.

The great majority of people displaced by environmental upheaval are internal and not international migrants. But particularly smaller and comparatively under-resourced states do not typically have the financial means or capacity to provide ongoing humanitarian assistance to victims of climate-related disasters. Regional entities, such as the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA), provide much needed resources and expertise, if often insufficient and unsustainable over the long term. International aid groups and multilateral agencies also assist with recovery and resilience efforts, but have been slow to organize and channel adequate resources to address the losses and damages incurred as a result of climate catastrophes. Short sighted U.S. disinvestment in humanitarian aid promises to make this situation considerably worse.

In the aftermath of disaster, understandably an initial priority of states is to mount a recovery effort, which includes stabilizing the economy and rebuilding critical material assets and infrastructure, including housing. But, as I’ve explored in depth elsewhere, intangible forms of non-economic loss are, so far, almost entirely neglected. And yet, as climate-induced displacement becomes widespread, we ignore their significance at our own peril.

Non-economic losses encompass family separations, the fragmentation of community, decline of social cohesion, disruption of cultural identities and relationships to heritage, among others. We should understand the difficulties posed by such losses as comparable to characteristic challenges of many post-conflict societies and failed states, where absent families, the erosion of norms, fractured social structures, and unaddressed grievances, often promote alienation and undermine human security as known factors contributing to the growth of gangs, and new forms of violence, criminality, and social instability. In Latin America, Haiti, Venezuela, El Salvador, and more recently, Ecuador, all serve as sobering reminders of what’s at stake. It’s time that we recognize the risks of ignoring the potentially comparable consequences of non-economic losses from increased climate displacement across the region.

Perfilamiento Racial y Desapariciones

Por Ernesto Castañeda

Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez y su esposa Luz dejaron Venezuela en 2018 debido a las difíciles condiciones sociales, políticas y económicas. Se trasladaron a Piura, Perú, donde la comunidad les ofreció un terreno, pero fueron objeto de discriminación por su ser venezolanos y luego extorsionados con pagos mensuales que apenas podían costear. Julio trabajaba a tiempo completo en la construcción y, también, como barbero para obtener ingresos extra. Su primera hija nació en Perú, pero por ser blanco del crimen organizado se mudaron a Chile en 2023. Julio trabajaba conduciendo y haciendo entregas, pero sufría asaltos con frecuencia, por lo que, tras ocho meses, decidieron ir hacia el norte.

Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez ingresó con permiso a Estados Unidos, junto con su esposa e hija, por Matamoros el 30 de noviembre de 2023. Solicitaron asilo y les asignaron números de extranjero y permisos de trabajo.

Después de hablar en la televisión sobre los vuelos que llegaron a El Salvador desde EE. UU. el 15 de marzo de 2025, fui contactado por familiares de Julio Zambrano, preguntándome si tenía alguna idea de dónde podría estar. Él tiene esposa y dos hijas pequeñas en Carlina del Norte. Su hermana también vive en Estados Unidos. Según informan, los hechos son que Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez, nacido en junio de 2000, fue detenido el 29 de enero de 2025 durante su cita de rutina en la oficina de ICE en Carolina del Norte. Su familia fue liberada, pero él no.

Lo separaron de su esposa embarazada y su hija pequeña y lo mantuvieron detenido debido a tatuajes incluidos uno en su mano con su nombre y una corona genérica. Se hizo el tatuaje cuando tenía solo 15 años. Horas después, el agente de ICE le dijo a su esposa que sospechaban que era miembro de la pandilla Tren de Aragua. Julio nació en Maracay, estado Aragua, Venezuela. Claramente, no todas las personas nacidas en el estado de Aragua son miembros de esta pandilla. Su esposa, hermana, madre y personas de Davidson, Carolina del Norte, afirman que no es miembro del Tren de Aragua ni ha cometido ningún delito. Julio estaba en los Estados Unidos con autorización y permiso de trabajo.

ICE lo trasladó desde la oficina de ICE en Carolina del Norte al Centro de Detención de Stewart en Georgia. Tuvo su primera comparecencia en la corte el 26 de febrero, cuando le negaron la libertad bajo fianza. Su segunda hija nació mientras Julio estaba bajo la detención de ICE y nunca la ha visto en persona. Su próxima cita en la corte de inmigración estaba programada para el 26 de marzo de 2025. Amigos, vecinos y personas de la escuela de su hija escribieron cartas sobre él, destacando que es una persona buena y honorable que trabaja en EE. UU. con un permiso de trabajo, para que pudiera presentarlas en la corte de inmigración. Pero ahora, es poco probable que esta cita se lleve a cabo — y no porque Julio se negara o evitara asistir.

Julio llamó a su familia el sábado 15 de marzo de 2025 a las 8 a.m., informándoles que había escuchado que lo sacarían del país en avión ese mismo día. Durante seis días, no pudimos encontrarlo en las bases de datos de detención. Los agentes en Texas, el último lugar donde estuvo detenido, dijeron que ya no estaba en Estados Unidos pero no dieron más detalles. No hay registros de que esté en Venezuela, por lo que su familia sospechaba que podría ser uno de los enviados a la prisión de máxima seguridad el CECOT en El Salvador o, si no, a Honduras, en un acuerdo similar pero menos discutido en los medios de comunicación. Sin embargo, la familia no lo sabía con certeza. Por eso, es apropiado hablar de desaparición forzada dirigida por el Estado, la violación del debido proceso dentro de Estados Unidos y la expulsión de personas que antes vivían en el país, bajo una débil acusación de pertenencia a una pandilla —convertidos en potenciales terroristas— sin pruebas demostradas en un tribunal.

El jueves 20 de marzo por la tarde, Julio Zambrano Pérez apareció en la lista de personas deportadas a El Salvador, incluyendo no-salvadoreños, que fue compartida por primera vez con el público, así fue que los familiares que no habían reconocido a sus parientes en los video distribuidos como propaganda implícitamente celebrando la “mano dura” de Trump y Bukele.

Julio trabajó en un hotel y luego en un restaurante, preparando comida y lavando platos en Cornelius, Carolina del Norte. Su jefe da testimonio de su trabajo y confirma que nunca tuvo problemas de conducta ni indicios de pertenencia a una pandilla. Julio no tiene antecedentes penales en Venezuela, Perú, Chile ni en Estados Unidos. ICE o el DHS nunca le informaron de lo contrario. Sin embargo, está siendo tratado y castigado como si fuera un criminal peligroso en el CECOT en El Salvador. Se violó el debido proceso, Julio no es terrorista, criminal, ni miembro de ninguna pandilla, EE UU. No esta en guerra con Venezuela por lo que la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros no aplica. Por todo esto Julio y otros en su situación deben de ser devueltos con sus familias en Estados Unidos, indemnizados y regularizados.

Aunque las personas ya no estén en territorio estadounidense, el gobierno que las expulsó debe ser considerado responsable de su bienestar en el extranjero, así como de haberlas privado de su libertad de manera extralegal e incluso de estar sujetas a trabajo forzado y otras vejaciones. Los reos están bajo custodia del CECOT pero bajo la responsabilidad y pago de EE. UU.

Disappearances Amid Immigration Stops and Profiling

By Ernesto Castañeda

March 21, 2025

After speaking on TV about the flights arriving from the U.S. to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, I was contacted by family members of Julio Zambrano, asking if I had any idea where he could be. He has a wife and two young daughters. His sister also lives in the United States. They report the facts to be that Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez, born in June 2000, was detained on January 29, 2025, during his check-in appointment at the ICE office in North Carolina. His family was let go, but he was not.

Julio Zambrano working in a kitchen in North Carolina
Julio Zambrano working in a kitchen in North Carolina

They separated him from his pregnant wife and young daughter and held him in detention because of a tattoo on his hand with his name and a generic crown —He got the tattoo when he was only 15. Hours later, the ICE agent told his wife that they suspected he was a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. He was born in Maracay, State of Aragua, Venezuela. Clearly, not all people born in the state of Aragua are members of this gang. His wife, sister, mom, and people from Davidson, North Carolina, affirm that he is not a member of the Tren de Aragua, nor has he committed any crimes. He is in the United States with authorization and has a work permit.

ICE transported him from the ICE office in North Carolina to the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia. He had his first court appearance on February 26 when he was denied being released on bail. His second daughter was born while he was under ICE detention. His next immigration court appointment was set for March 26, 2025. Friends, neighbors, and people from the daughter’s school wrote letters about him being a good, upstanding person working in the U.S. with a work permit so he could present them at the hearing. But now, it will be unlikely to take place  — and not because Julio would skip or refuse to attend the hearing.

He called his family on Saturday, March 15, 2025, at 8 am, letting them know that he had heard they would remove him from the country by plane that day. For six days, we could not find him in the detention databases anymore. Agents at the place where he was last detained in Texas said he was no longer in the United States but would not give more details. There are no records of him being in Venezuela, so his family suspected he was one of those sent to the CECOT high-security prison in El Salvador, or if not to Honduras, in a similar though less covered arrangement. But the family did not know for sure. That is why it is appropriate to talk about state-led disappearance, the violation of due process inside the United States, and the offshoring of people previously living in the U.S. with a weak claim of gang-belonging —turned into potential terrorists— not proven in court.

Even if people are not in U.S. territory anymore, the government that expelled them has to be held responsible for their well-being abroad and for being deprived of their freedom extra-legally and even being subject to forced labor and other vexations. 

On late Thursday, March 20, Julio Zambrano Perez appeared on the list of people deported to El Salvador, including non-Salvadorians, shared then for the first time with the public and family members.

Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez and his wife Luz left Venezuela in 2018 because of the tough social, political, and economic conditions. They moved to Piura, Peru, where the community gave them some land, but they were targeted as Venezuelans and then extorted for monthly payments, which they could barely pay. Julio worked in construction full-time and as a barber on the side for extra income. Their first daughter was born in Peru, but they were targeted by organized crime, and because of security reasons, they moved to Chile in 2023. Julio would drive and make deliveries, but he would be assaulted often, so after 8 months, they decided to head north. Julio Enrique Zambrano Pérez entered the United States with permission from Matamoros on November 30, 2023, along with his wife and daughter. They applied for asylum and were given alien numbers and work permits. He worked in a hotel and then in a restaurant, preparing food and as a dishwasher in Cornelius, North Carolina. The boss attests to this and shows no disciplinary or conduct issues or hints of gang belonging. Julio has no criminal record in Venezuela, Peru, Chile, or the United States. ICE or DHS never told him otherwise. Nonetheless, he is being treated and punished as if he were a dangerous criminal in the CECOT in El Salvador. 

The Trump administration says Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group – but it’s really a transnational criminal organization. Here’s why the label matters.

By Ernesto Castañeda
Published: April 4, 2025 8:17am EDT

The U.S. State Department declared on Feb. 20, 2025, that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as well as some Mexican drug cartels, are now considered foreign terrorist organizations.

Is the new label warranted?

Tren de Aragua is at the center of a controversial immigration case that the Supreme Court is going to consider.

The Trump administration is using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting more than 100 of the 238 Venezuelan and Salvadoran male immigrants it sent to a prison in El Salvador on March 15. The administration says that these immigrants are members of gangs such as Tren de Aragua and are foreign enemies, so they can be sent away with just an order from the White House.

The administration uses a checklist of items, including physical markers like tattoos, to determine these individuals’ association with Tren de Aragua. Although in reality, the Tren de Aragua gang members do not use any specific tattoos.

Family members and lawyers representing some of the Venezuelan immigrants say that they are not actually associated with the gang, and that some of them were living in the U.S. legally.

I am an expert on immigration, and I think it is important to understand why classifying Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization has sparked debate among observers.

One important reason is that Tren de Aragua is primarily a profit-driven group, not an ideological one – placing the organization more firmly in the transnational organized crime category rather than a political terrorist group.

Venezuelan immigrants deported from the U.S. arrived in El Salvador in March 2025. El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images
Venezuelan immigrants deported from the U.S. arrived in El Salvador in March 2025. El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

Understanding Tren de Aragua

Tren de Aragua originated as a small prison gang in the early 2000s within Tocorón prison in Venezuela’s state of Aragua, located near the country’s capital, Caracas.

Over the past 25 years, Tren de Aragua has expanded rapidly across South and Central America, and evolved into a transnational criminal organization under the leadership of Hector Guerrero Flores. Also known as Niño Guerrero, Flores is a 41-year-old Venezuelan who first served time in Tocorón prison in 2010 for killing a police officer before he escaped for the first time in 2012. His current location is not known.

Flores is wanted by the U.S. and Colombia for various crimes related to expanding the group’s criminal network throughout South and Central America.

Today, an estimated 5,000 people are affiliated with Tren de Aragua, which is mainly focused on human trafficking and other crimes targeting migrants. The gang has also been linked to other criminal organizations in Latin America and is involved with extortion, kidnapping, money laundering and drug smuggling. The number of active members in the United States is in the low hundreds, and clearly the great majority of Venezuelans here are not members.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives at the presidential palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, to discuss the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to the country on March 26, 2025. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives at the presidential palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, to discuss the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to the country on March 26, 2025. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

Different end goals

Tren de Aragua has expanded in part because of its ability to exploit weak governance within the state of Aragua, and eventually across Venezuela, which faces political instability and a weak economy. An expansion beyond Venezuela has allowed the gang to connect with other transnational criminal networks.

Most accepted definitions of terrorism say it is a kind of violence, usually used against civilians, motivated by political and ideological beliefs and goals. Tren de Aragua does not fit that definition. It does not have a political ideology and therefore is not an actual terrorist organization.

The U.S. government considers a foreign terrorist organization a foreign group that engages in terrorist activity, or plans to do so, in a way that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the country more broadly.

Tren de Aragua is among the eight groups that the State Department first classified as foreign terrorist organizations in the first few months of 2025 after Donald Trump’s inauguration. The other new groups put on the list primarily include Latin American drug trafficking organizations, like the Mexican Sinaloa cartel.

While transnational criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations both engage in violence and illicit activities, their end goals are different.

Foreign terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State group seek political, religious or ideological change – or all three – as they try to use violence to reshape the political landscape of their regions.

Terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations are not the same

Tren de Aragua, as well as other transnational criminal groups like MS-13 – which originated in Los Angeles but now operates throughout the Americas – and the Sinaloa cartel, carry out illegal, violent activities across borders in order to make money.

These groups do not have political or ideological motives beyond creating conditions to maximize their own profits. They do not aim to take political power in the U.S. or elsewhere, or try to remake society in their own image. That is beyond their purview and capabilities.

Properly distinguishing between terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations is crucial for devising effective policies and responses to their violence. Mislabeling these groups can lead to inappropriate responses such as putting aside civil liberties, due process and human rights.

Incorrectly classifying Tren de Aragua and other criminal groups as terrorist organizations could shift U.S. foreign policy and resources toward counterterrorism efforts and away from decreasing the power and violence exercised by organized crime and drug cartels in many parts of Latin America.

However, the way in which many Venezuelans and other immigrants have been deported from the country over the past few months without passing through immigration court seems to indicate that the main rationale for the talk about alien enemies and these terrorist designations is to aid in the goal of mass deportations, rather than to fight domestic or international terrorism.

If the U.S. truly wants to curb undocumented immigration and reduce drug and human trafficking, then I believe that it should ensure that its classification of these organizations is accurate and aligned with its actual objectives.

Melissa Vasquez, a graduate student at American University studying international affairs and the Northern Triangle in Central America, contributed to this piece.

What is a migrant? What is ICE? 10 terms to help you understand

By Ernesto Castañeda, Daniel Jenks

President Donald Trump aims to upend the immigration system in the United States in his first few days in office. On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed various executive orders that temporarily prevent refugees from coming to the U.S. and block immigrants from applying for asylum at a U.S. border, among other measures.

Another executive order calls on federal agencies to not issue passports, birth certificates or Social Security numbers to babies born in the U.S. to parents not in the country legally, or with temporary permission. Eighteen states sued on Jan. 21 to block this executive order that challenges birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We are scholars of immigration who closely follow public discussions about immigration policy, trends and terminology. Understanding the many different immigration terms – some technical, some not – can help people better understand immigration news. While not an exhaustive list, here are 10 important terms to know:

1. Migrant

A migrant is a person who moves from their place of birth to another location relatively far away. There are different words used to describe migrants and their particular circumstances. Internally displaced people, for example, means people who are forced to move within their own country because of violence, natural disasters and other reasons.

International migrants move from one country to another, sometimes without the legal authorization to enter or stay in another country. There are also seasonal or circular migrants, who often move back and forth between different places.

Between 30% and 60% of all migrants eventually return to their birth countries.

There is not much difference in why people decide to migrate within their own country or internationally, with or without the legal permission to do so. But it is easier for people from certain countries to move than from others.

2. Immigrants

The terms immigrants and migrants are often used interchangeably. Migration indicates movement in general. Immigration is the word used to describe the process of a non-citizen settling in another country. Immigrants have a wide range of legal statuses.

An immigrant in the U.S. might have a green card or a permanent resident card – a legal authorization that gives the person the legal right to stay and work in the U.S. and to apply for citizenship after a few years.

An immigrant with a T visa is a foreigner who is allowed to stay in the U.S. for up to four years because they are victims of human or sex trafficking. Similarly, an immigrant with a U visa is the victim of serious crimes and can stay in the U.S. for up to four years, and then apply for a Green Card.

An immigrant with a H-1B visa is someone working for a U.S. company within the U.S.

Many international students in higher education have an F-1 visa. They must return to their country of birth soon after they graduate, unless they are sponsored by a U.S. employer, enroll in another educational program, or marry a U.S. citizen. The stay can be extended for one or two years, depending on the field of study.

Mexican migrants prepare to turn themselves in to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers after crossing the border into Ruby, Ariz., on Jan. 5, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Photo cerdits to Brandon Bell/Getty Images

3. Undocumented Immigrants, Unauthorized Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants

These three charged political terms refer to the same situation: migrants who enter or remain in the country without the proper legal paperwork. People in this category also include those who come to the U.S. with a visa and overstay its permitted duration.

Some of these immigrants work for cash that is not taxed. Most work with fake Social Security numbers, pay taxes and contribute to Social Security funds without receiving money after retirement.

Immigrants without legal authorization to be in the U.S. spent more than US$254 billion in 2022.

4. Asylum Seekers

An asylum seeker is a person who arrives at a U.S. port of entry – via an airport or a border crossing – and asks for protection because they fear returning to their home country. An immigrant living in the U.S. for up to one year can also apply for asylum.

Asylum seekers can legally stay temporarily in the U.S. while they wait to bring their case to an immigration judge. The process typically takes years.

Someone is eligible for asylum if they can show proof of persecution because of their political affiliation, religion, ethnic group, minority status, or belonging to a targeted group. Many others feel they need to leave their countries because of threats of violence or abusive relationships, among other dangerous circumstances.

A judge will eventually decide whether a person’s fear is with merit and can stay in the country.

Ukrainian immigrants attend a job fair in New York City in February 2023. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
Photo cerdits to Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

5. Refugees

Refugees are similar to asylum seekers, but they apply to resettle in the U.S. while they remain abroad. Refugees are often escaping conflict.

The Biden administration had a cap of admitting up to 125,000 refugees a year.

Refugees can legally work in the U.S. as soon as they arrive and can apply for a green card one year later. Research shows that refugees become self-sufficient soon after they settle in the country and are net-positive for the country’s economy through the federal taxes they pay.

6. Unaccompanied Children

This is a U.S. government classification for migrant children who enter the U.S. without a parent or guardian, and without proper documentation or the legal status to be in the country. Because they are minors, they are allowed to enter the country and apply for the right to stay. Most often, they have relatives already in the country, who assume the role of financial and legal sponsors.

7. Family Separation

This refers to a government policy of separating detained migrant parents or guardians from the children they are responsible for an traveling with as a family unit. The first Trump administration separated families arriving at the border as part of an attempt to reduce immigration.

At least 4,000 children were separated from their parents during the first Trump administration. The Biden administration tried to reunite these families, but as of May 2024, over 1,400 children separated during Trump’s first term still were not reunited with their families.

Legal migration systems that lack avenues for immigrants who work in manual labor to move with their families, and deportations, both also create family separations.

8. Immigration Detention

Immigration detention refers to the U.S. government apprehending immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization and holding them in centers that are run similar to prisons. Some of these centers are run by the government, and others are outsourced to private companies.

When a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official apprehends an immigrant, they are often first brought to a building where they are placed in what many call a hielera, which means icebox or freezer in Spanish. This refers to cells, cages or rooms where the government keeps immigrants at very low temperatures with foil blankets and without warm clothing.

Immigrants might then be quickly deported or otherwise released in the country while they await a court date for an asylum case. Other immigrants who are awaiting deportation or a court date will be placed in an immigration detention center. Some must post bond to be released while awaiting trial.

9. Coyote

A coyote is the Spanish word for a guide who is paid by migrants and asylum seekers to take them to their destination, undetected by law enforcement. Coyotes used to be trusted by the migrants they were helping cross into the country. As the U.S. has tried to make it harder to enter illegally, the business of taking people to and across the U.S.-Mexico border unseen has become more expensive and dangerous.

10. The Alphabet Soup of Government Players

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is a law enforcement agency created after 9/11. It includes a number of agencies that focus on immigration.

These include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, an agency that is in charge of collecting import duties, passport and document controls at airports, ports, and official points of entry along the border.

The Border Patrol is a federal law enforcing agency under CBP in charge of patrolling and securing U.S. borders and ports.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is a branch of DHS that works within the U.S., within its borders, focusing on detaining and deporting immigrants.

The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, takes care of unaccompanied minors after they enter the country.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and Professor at American University. 

Daniel Jenks is a Doctoral Student at the University of Pennsylvania,

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

Bolsonaro’s Long Shadow and Brazil’s Ongoing Democratic Crisis

by Fernando Medici, Mackenzie Presbyterian University

Photo Credit to Amauri Nehn/NurPhoto via AP

Few people outside of Brazil are likely aware that this South American country endured its own version of a Capitol attack. On January 8th, 2023 — two years after the infamous U.S. incident — a mob of supporters of former president Bolsonaro stormed government buildings, including Congress and the Supreme Court. This brazen assault on democratic institutions highlights the dangerous influence of right-wing radicalization and rampant social mediatized fake news, which continue to undermine the nation’s fragile democracy by amplifying a hate campaign against Brazil’s Supreme Court, and pleas for military intervention, while  celebrating the insurrection that ended with Bolsonaro’s followers storming the Supreme Court Building.

Like its American counterpart, the unrest was fueled by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud following Bolsonaro’s defeat at the polls. However, what set Brazil’s crisis apart was the additional troubling involvement and support of several high-profile military figures.

Subsequently many of the insurgents were indicted, but until recently little had been done regarding the still unknown leadership of the movement.

That changed this past November as former President Jair Bolsonaro and 36 others were indicted by Brazil’s Federal Police for crimes including an attempted coup d’état, violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, and involvement in an alleged attempt on the lives of President Lula, Vice-President Geraldo Alckmin, and Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

Of course, despite the political weight of these charges, an indictment is not equivalent to a conviction and does not automatically lead to a trial. It only provides evidence for the Prosecutor General’s Office to decide whether to proceed with the case or not. This is not the first time Bolsonaro has been indicted. He was previously implicated in investigations for fraudulent vaccine records and for trying to conceal Saudi Jewelry he was gifted as president, which, according to Brazilian Law, belongs to the government. Both criminal proceedings are currently underway, and Bolsonaro is prohibited from leaving the country.

Regarding the coup d’état-related indictments, after an extensive investigation, the Brazilian Federal Police concluded that the alleged coup attempt was supposed take place in late 2022, after Bolsonaro’s election defeat and led by prominent military figures, including General and formal State-Secretary Mario Fernandes and General Braga Netto, Bolsonaro’s vice president candidate in the most recent election. According to the investigators, Bolsonaro was aware of and supported the coup efforts.

This case underscores the frail state of Brazilian Democracy after years of political radicalization and the unchecked spread of rampant fake news. In large part the proliferation of fake news has been fueled by Bolsonaro’s “Hate Cabinet”, a group led Bolsonaro’s sons Flávio and Eduardo and responsible for managing far-right social networks, the spread of misinformation, and promotion of hate campaigns against Bolsonaro’s political adversaries.  

Now, Brazilians await conclusion of the legal process. Expectations are that at the soonest a possible legal action could be filed next year, since the General Prosecutor’s Office will need months to go through the evidence.

Uncertainty surrounding the legal process and the timeline for potential action reflect the broader challenges facing Brazilian institutions and democracy. While the indictments represent a significant step toward accountability, the slow pace of the justice system underscores deeper institutional challenges, exacerbating political polarization and social mistrust. It also feeds narratives of persecution and bias, particularly among Bolsonaro’s far-right supporters, who often portray the judiciary as politically motivated. The credibility of the Brazilian Supreme Court, already eroded by its controversial role in the Lava Jato operation and its perceived partisanship during past political crises, now faces renewed scrutiny. In a country already deeply divided along ideological lines, its lack of perceived impartiality risks intensifying public skepticism, further destabilizing Brazil’s fragile democratic institutions.

It is not a surprise that Bolsonaro supporters have dismissed the allegations against him as political persecution and remain entrenched in their views, further deepening political rifts in Brazilian society. When large segments of the population operate under different understandings of reality, it becomes nearly impossible to foster the trust needed for a healthy democracy.

This scenario places Brazil’s democratic institutions under considerable strain. The 2023 storming of Congress and the Supreme Court demonstrated the vulnerability of these institutions when confronted with coordinated antidemocratic efforts. Now, with claims of military involvement, the alleged coup raises serious questions about how long Brazilian democracy can continue to withstand such blows.

The problem is made worse by Bolsonaro’s hate campaign against the Supreme Court, which has eroded trust in the institution, guaranteeing that any legal decision against him will be seen by a large subset of Brazilians as corrupt and politically motivated.

If Brazilian democracy is to survive, it will require more than just the prosecution of a few individuals, even if they are high-profile. A broader effort to rebuild trust in democratic institutions and to reduce the spread of misinformation will also be necessary. Without addressing the root causes of radicalization and polarization, Brazilian Democracy will continue to be vulnerable, whether to attacks by Bolsonaro’s followers or other political groups.

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

Immigrants are not a Threat

Neither Walls nor Deportations Can Stop Mobility and the Search for Asylum and Shelter 

by Ernesto Castañeda

Question by Patricia Caro: Your book with Carina Cione, “Immigration Realities,”contradicts many of the ideas circulating about immigrants. Did you feel like it was time to write a book like this?

Answer by Ernesto Castañeda: Yes, the lies about migration have been going on for many years, but Trump placed immigration as the number one issue of his campaign, and he has spread many falsehoods. The public has many misunderstandings about who immigrants are, why they come, and what are the real economic, social, and cultural effects of immigration.

Q. What do you think is the stereotype about immigrants that has caused the most damage?

A. That immigrants are a threat. In many countries, people think that immigrants are taking jobs and houses from the locals. When moving to a new place, it is true that they need a job, but they also pay rent and thus generate more economic wealth. Also, as they are new, they are more likely to create innovations, start businesses, and generate more jobs for locals hiring them directly or through the goods and services they need. But that is something that is not visible to everyone, it is not immediate, and people find it very hard to imagine something they don’t see. However, research and the data clearly show that immigrants and refugees are net contributions in terms of fiscal taxes, economic output, as well as social, intellectual, culinary, and cultural contributions.

The other dangerous myth is that immigrants are a cultural threat. That, if they hear you speaking Spanish, it is because you may not speak English. But many people are bilingual. American culture can be respected and understood very well without immigrants having to forget their own culture. Teachers and administrators in public schools worry when newcomers who do not speak Spanish arrive, but young immigrants pick up English relatively quickly. So do their parents, if they have the time to learn or access to programs to help them do so. History and social science research show clearly that the children and grandchildren of immigrants are culturally indistinguishable from the locals’ descendants. We see this itself with Donald Trump. His paternal grandfather was an immigrant born in Germany, his mom was an immigrant born in Scotland and a native Gaelic speaker, and now DJT thinks he’s the most American of all.

Q. In your book, “Immigration Realities,” you argue that the border area is one of the safest places. It is surprising because the authorities denounce the insecurity of the area.

A. Yes, I was surprised, too. Northern Mexico has become dangerous in the last two decades. Many people think that the border region —on the U.S. side— is dangerous because of the immigrants who arrive, but as we did research for years for this chapter, we found that for an American citizen, especially middle-class white men, it is one of the safest places in the country. However, if you are a newly arrived immigrant, woman, LGBTQ, undocumented, of Indigenous origin, or someone who does not speak Spanish, you may indeed lose your life in the area. For an average citizen, being in El Paso, San Diego, Arizona, or any city, town, or border state, is very safe, and official data shows that crime rates are among the lowest in the United States. The immigrant who arrives at the border wall, asks for asylum, surrenders to the authorities. Those who have escaped the violence of their countries or come looking for work and try to pass through the desert without being arrested or found may indeed die trying. Nonetheless, there are no cases of someone who has committed a terrorist act within the United States who has crossed undocumented across the border with Mexico. The main concern is political violence among citizens and domestic terrorism.

Q. Is there a migration crisis or not?

A. No, no, no. The focus must be on crises abroad. There are crises in Haiti and Venezuela. An invasion of Ukraine, and a civil war ending in Syria. There are wars and tragedies in those and other countries. The displacement of Ukrainian women and children to save their own lives is a humanitarian problem but the main issue is the continued bombing of cities. Conflict-related displacement is not a permanent state. E.g., now with the fall of Assad, we are seeing that many Syrians immediately are returning home. More will do so if things get stabilized there. If Russia ended the war tomorrow, Ukrainians would look forward to returning if their houses were still standing or if they could afford to rebuild. So, it is not a migration crisis first and foremost; it is an armed conflict, it is a genocide, a civil war, a famine, or climate change, that makes people move. Some say people go to other countries because they are rich, but another way of seeing it is that rich countries are rich because they have relatively a lot of migration.

Japan and China are in relative economic decline because of population decline and too little immigration. Japan does not find a way to attract international people, because it has no tradition nor a good record of receiving immigrants. America has been very successful in turning into American people coming from around the world, something that Trump wants to change. Nevertheless, these trends and traditions are difficult to do away with. But if successful, it would be a real decline for the American economy. It is a wish of MAGA people, but if it comes true, it is not going to make America Great Again, it is going to create some of the weakest America in history.

This interview is an edited and extended translation of the interview with Patricia Caro for El País U.S. Spanish edition published here on January 1, 2025.

You can purchase the book here.

Understanding Refugee Resettlement

By Mackenzie Hoekstra

January 19, 2025

In 2023, around 43.4 million people globally were recognized as refugees; of that 43.4 million, only about 60,000 were admitted to be resettled in the United States (UNHCR; OHSS). The number of refugees admitted for resettlement is determined by the cap established by the current president and Congress. This cap has fluctuated largely over the past eight years, with the lowest annual ceiling and number of admitted refugees set by former President Trump in 2017 at 50,000. During his final year in office, 2020, he lowered the cap to 18,000 and the number of refugees admitted fell to 11,000. These admittances were much lower than after, including tighter vetting and restrictions following 9/11.

Migration Policy Institute

What exactly defines someone as a refugee? Does it mean they are coming to the United States entirely of their own choice? Will they impose a significant financial burden on U.S. taxpayers? Are they a danger to the safety of U.S. citizens? These are all fair considerations, and while no system is perfect, the refugee vetting and resettlement process in the United States is very secure, safe, and economically beneficial. However, it is becoming increasingly limited, leading to many individuals being denied the opportunity to obtain refuge in the U.S.

Do refugees decide to come to the U.S. of their own autonomous choice?

No, refugees are considered to be forcibly displaced peoples, meaning that their choice to leave is a matter of personal safety, of life and death. To apply for refugee status, a person must have fled and remain outside their home country. To be eligible for refugee status, they must be able to prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group” and be unable or unwilling to return to their home country (UNHCR). This initial qualification is decided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which then refers the case to a resettlement country (such as the U.S.).

Before traveling to the U.S., refugees must undergo a lengthy vetting process that can take up to 36 months and will continue upon arrival in the U.S. This vetting process includes background checks, security clearances, in-person interviews, and medical clearances run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If the refugee application is rejected during the interview process, it cannot be appealed. If it is accepted, it is only on a conditional basis and is dependent on further medical and security checks. Refugees will also receive a cultural orientation about what to expect upon their arrival in the United States. Finally, the refugee’s case will be designated to a particular refugee resettlement agency and location in the U.S. (there are only 10 approved agencies as of December 2024). Once the refugees arrive, they will receive care from their refugee resettlement agency for 90 days. The resettlement process for refugees in the U.S. is complex and rigorous, but it also serves as a vital lifeline for those fleeing life-threatening circumstances in search of safety and protection.

Do refugees cost U.S. taxpayers lots of money?

No, while refugees who have been in the U.S. less than five years have a median income of about $30,000, that median increases to $70,000 after twenty years. Additionally, studies have shown that refugees end up contributing more than they receive in benefits, paying up to twice as much in the long run. In 2019 alone, the 2.4 million refugees in the United States earned $93.6 billion in income through their contributions to American enterprises and organizations, paid $25 billion in taxes, and were left with $68.6 billion of disposable income, some of which will be spent or invested in U.S. businesses.

Graph created by Mackenzie Hoekstra, Immigration Lab, with data from the American Immigration Council

You may be wondering, if refugees are making so much money, does that mean they are taking jobs from U.S.-born citizens? The answer is no. Research shows that refugees fill three important gaps within the U.S. labor market: entrepreneurship, the service industry, and slightly rejuvenating an overall aging U.S.-born population. In 2019, 19% of refugees in the U.S. were entrepreneurs compared to only 9% of U.S.-born citizens and generated business income of $5.1 billion. Refugees also participate in the workforce at a rate of over 80%, a rate of almost 20% more than the overall national average (at around 60%), and are two times more likely than U.S.-born citizens to work in the service industry. The population of the United States is aging, and it is predicted that over 20% of people in the United States will be 65 or older in 15 years, compared to only 16% in 2016. Furthermore, almost 80% of the current refugee population is of working age compared to only 60% of the U.S.-born population. In conclusion, refugees contribute significantly to the U.S. economy and help address critical labor market needs, making them valuable assets.

Are refugees a danger to the safety of U.S. citizens?

Research demonstrates that the growing presence of refugees and immigrants in U.S. cities does not lead to increased crime rates; in fact, it often correlates with stability or reductions in crime. Studies spanning from 1980 to 2022 reveal a clear pattern: areas that welcome diverse populations experience steady or declining rates of both property and violent crimes.

Lowered crime rates for refugees come in conjunction with successful integration into a local community and job market. Refugees undergo thorough vetting processes, which makes it unlikely for individuals with a predisposition to criminal behavior to receive approval. Furthermore, as refugees are assigned to resettlement agencies, they receive support to help them integrate into their communities and the local job market. These agencies work closely with refugees and can address any inappropriate behaviors at the start of the resettlement process. The evidence clearly indicates that embracing refugees enriches communities and makes them safer.

Possible Impacts of a Second Trump Term on Refugee Resettlement

As you can see, refugee resettlement is a system with many benefits; however, its future is uncertain. Refugee resettlement organizations rely on government funding to resettle and support refugees during their 90-day resettlement period. During the first Trump administration, the cap for refugees allowed was significantly reduced, and subsequently, funding decreased. Despite the proven success of refugee resettlement, Donald Trump has promised to target the system once again under a second term. He may once again push to allow states the right to refuse refugee resettlement, putting an undue burden on certain areas of the country and creating further barriers to integration. Finally, Trump may also target private sponsorship for refugees which allows communities to privately sponsor, fundraise for, and resettle refugees, leading to better integration, economic participation, and a lesser cost for the government and U.S. taxpayers.

A Series of Travel Bans (AKA Muslim Bans)

Like during his first term, he may implement travel bans, further spreading the harmful and misinformed narrative that refugees from Muslim-majority countries have ties with terrorism. At the beginning of 2017, Trump signed an executive order, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which banned entry to the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries–Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–and prohibited entry for refugees from Sudan indefinitely. Six weeks later, he signed another executive order that removed Iraq from the list and halted all refugee admissions for 120 days. Later in 2017, Trump signed a third executive order, which included travel restrictions for two additional countries, Chad and North Korea, as well as stricter vetting procedures. Although many of Trump’s critics dubbed these travel bans as Muslim bans, many of his supporters as well as the Department of Homeland Security, were insistent that these bans were solely focused on addressing and preventing terrorism threats. But the fact is that these bans greatly and unduly affected immigrants and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Source: The Washington Post

The implementation of such bans unjustly put numerous refugees from these countries at risk and tore families apart. It also contributed to a rise in hate crimes targeting Muslim communities in the United States. Additionally, this ban was implemented under the guise of addressing ethnic and religious terrorism threats in the United States. However, the number of arrests for suspected terrorist plots and acts of terrorism in the U.S. has been very small. In fact, threats of domestic terrorism from far-right extremists occur at a higher rate (40% more) than Islamic terrorist events. This policy was ineffective, and it caused great psychological and physical harm to Muslim communities in the U.S. due to increased Islamophobia and hate crimes.

Opting Out of Resettlement

During Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order requiring local refugee resettlement agencies in the U.S. to obtain written permission from their local and state governments to continue resettling refugees. This order would also have allowed state governors to opt their entire state out of refugee resettlement. Although a federal judge blocked this order, Trump has continued to advocate for lower immigration levels and increased local control over resettlement.

Implementing a policy like this in his second term could alienate refugees and place an undue short-term burden on areas willing to accept them. Additionally, opting out of refugee resettlement could have significant negative economic impacts on the longer-term for areas missing out. Before the executive order was blocked, Texas Governor Greg Abbott had opted out of refugee resettlement, a choice that could have cost the state around $17 million. Implementing such restrictive policies could undermine the humanitarian goals of refugee resettlement and hinder economic growth in states with communities that are willing to embrace diversity and support vulnerable populations.

New American Economy Research Fund

The United States has long provided refuge to those fleeing persecution, violence, and life-threatening circumstances. Refugee resettlement has great humanitarian importance and provides a safe, secure, and economically beneficial system that strengthens communities and the workforce. However, this important system faces significant threats. During his first term, Trump’s policies drastically reduced the number of refugees allowed in the United States, perpetuated negative stereotypes, and attacked resettlement infrastructure. The second Trump term could once again target this system through travel bans and restrictions on local resettlement–actions that would harm refugees, the U.S. economy, local communities, and international reputation.

Rather than working to tear down a system that saves lives and benefits our country, there must be a shift in focus on protecting, expanding, and strengthening it. Refugees enrich a society through economic contributions, filling labor shortage gaps, and expanding cultural diversity, all while undergoing one of the most secure and rigorous vetting processes in the world. The United States should move away from narratives driven by fear and misinformation and instead endorse policies that promote the overall well-being of refugees, benefiting the nation’s prosperity as a whole.

Mackenzie Hoekstra is a senior in Sociology student at American University.

Edited by Ernesto Castañeda and Mary Capone

Es Tiempo de Mujeres en México

Por Dra. Nayana Guerrero, Azucena Enríquez, Paola Baltazar, Luisa Barajas, Cecilia Pineda, Jimena Sandoval y Victoria Rivera

16 de diciembre de 2024

La Doctora Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo rompió el techo de cristal en México. A 71 años de haber obtenido el derecho a votar y ser reconocidas como ciudadanas, hoy las mujeres de México pueden permitirse aspirar a ser presidentas. Ya no existen más los imposibles en las metas de las nuevas y viejas generaciones, se demuestra con la Presidenta Claudia Sheinbaum que si se puede y se podrá para muchas mujeres más. A continuación, se presenta el impacto de tener una mujer a la cabeza del país en México, el largo camino del derecho al voto de las mexicanas y la importancia de la utilización del lenguaje incluyente y no sexista.

Barbie dijo, “Sé lo que quieras ser,” y hoy ya podemos ser presidentas. Las niñas ya no solo pueden jugar a ser presidentas también pueden serlo. Tener una mujer presidenta es una motivación e inspiración para las niñas y jóvenes. Antes ocupar un puesto de liderazgo político era cosa de hombres; hoy, en México, es una realidad que cualquier mujer puede ser líder y tener un alto cargo en el gobierno del país. Es inspirador que una mujer ocupe un puesto de liderazgo político porque mujeres empoderadas, empoderan mujeres.

Sin embargo, no ha sido un recorrido sencillo ni corto. Tuvieron que pasar 71 años para romper el techo de cristal, una metáfora que designa un tope para la realización de la mujer en la vida pública y profesional, generado por los estereotipos de género.

El derecho al voto para la mujer no fue un derecho concedido, es parte de una lucha que duró años y que empezó a exigirse a inicios del siglo XX. El sufragio femenino en México fue impulsado por múltiples mujeres entre las que destacan Elvia Carrillo Puerto, Hermila Galindo, Margarita Robles de Mendoza, María Ríos Cárdenas y Esther Chapa.

Margarita Robles de Mendoza y Elvia Carrillo Puerto, son reconocidas como unas de las primeras sufragistas mexicanas exigiendo los derechos políticos de las mujeres, siendo esta última una de las primeras mujeres electas.

María Ríos Cárdenas, Esther Chapa, y Hermila Galindo exigen el derecho al voto a través de mítines políticos, huelgas de hambre y manifestaciones. Marcando un momento clave en la lucha por el sufragio femenino, Hermila Galindo solicitó por primera vez al congreso constituyente el voto femenino en 1917.

No fue hasta mitad del siglo XX, el 17 de octubre de 1953 que las mujeres lograron el derecho a votar y a ser votadas. Sin embargo, en México sólo 8 mujeres han sido candidatas a la presidencia. En 1982, Rosario Ibarra de Piedra se postuló como la primera candidata a la presidencia de México. Pero no fue sino hasta 2024 que como lo indicó la presidenta Claudia Sheinbaum en su discurso de toma de protesta “por primera vez no en 200 años, sino en 500 años no había habido una mujer presidenta de México.” Ha sido una lucha larga y con altibajos en la que Sheinbaum dijo ¡No llego sola, llegamos todas las mujeres de México!

Por primera vez en la historia de México se utiliza la palabra presidenta. Si existe la palabra reina para referirse a la máxima soberana de una monarquía, ¿por qué no feminizar presidenta cuando se trata de una república?

En el “video del acertijo” la periodista Inma Gil Rosendo habla sobre la parcialidad implícita que se define como un prejuicio inconsciente que puede dar lugar a una falta de neutralidad. Estos estereotipos subconscientes relacionan conceptos y rango de poder con categorías de personas. Por ejemple, cuando pensamos en quién puede liderar un país frecuentemente pensamos en un hombre.

La Presidenta de México indicó en su discurso de toma de protesta la importancia del lenguaje incluyente no sexista. Constantemente en sus intervenciones la Dra. Sheinbaum subraya la necesidad de visibilizar la presencia de las mujeres en las diferentes profesiones, cargos y oficios.

La carencia histórica de términos femeninos referidos a cargos y oficios se vincula con la lucha de la historia de las mujeres en abrirse caminos en espacios mayormente masculinizados.

El lenguaje incluyente y no sexista hace referencia a toda forma de expresión sin discriminación. El lenguaje inclusivo busca promover una cultura de igualdad y reconocimiento de los derechos de las mujeres.

Lo que no se nombra no existe. La forma de expresión ha sido mayormente androcéntrica. El androcentrismo expresa una visión del mundo donde el hombre es el referente por default, el modelo a seguir. Históricamente los espacios de toma de decisiones han sido ocupados mayormente por hombres, pero esto está cambiando.

La presidenta Claudia Sheinbaum ha dicho que es “tiempo de mujeres” lo que representa romper los estereotipos y las barreras que enfrentan las mujeres en varias esferas de la vida, es una oportunidad contra la violencia de género, pero sobre todo el momento de alcanzar la igualdad sustantiva.

Dra. Nayana María Guerrero Ramírez es profesora titular de la asignatura empresarial “liderazgo de las mujeres en las organizaciones para el desarrollo sostenible” que se imparte en la Facultad de Contaduría y Administración de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, es antigua académica global en American University y forma parte del comité directivo de la Red UNAM DC.

Azucena Enríquez García es profesora adjunta de la asignatura empresarial.

Paola Baltazar Vargas, Luisa Maria Barajas Torres, Cecilia Pineda Vargas Frida, Jimena Sandoval Vázquez y Victoria Rivera Mejia son alumnas de la asignatura empresarial.

Este texto es parte del trabajo final de la asignatura “liderazgo de las mujeres en las organizaciones para el desarrollo sostenible” que se imparte en la Facultad de Contaduría y Administración de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.