and of high risk. the world health organization, european food safety authority, no problem. are all of these part of the conspiracy? and [indiscernible] ,f that is not enough for you here are a whole bunch of other organizations. scientific sounding names. these are real medical and protective organizations. allurope which is anti-gmo, over the world. we pay attention to when it comes to global warming or something like that. aey said would not pose reasonable risk. i could come up with dozens of these. australian and new zealand food safety groups have identified nine safety concerns for foods.

is this a reasonable? that something that is extraordinarily important here. this is nonsense and all of these organizations are just ignoring? >> you go watch the entire the safety of genetically modified foods tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. hereby thewould surge of unaccompanied children coming from the u.s. -- coming to the u.s.. it is on the causes of immigration and what the u.s. response should be. interim american dialogue this is one hour 20 minutes.

>> thank you very much for attending this meeting. many of you probably have participated in some other gatherings relating to this subject of the immigration crisis. lots of terms have been used, the surge, the crisis, the byproduct of development and violence, et cetera. and to some extent this is basically a byproduct of something we have been warning for at least six years, that is, that governments in central america are not taking migration seriously. for those of you who have attended our meetings on migration and development, we have been warning about a need to take this trend of migration more seriously because there will be serious implications for people in the short term and this is one of the examples of those implications. the current debate is mostly as peter talks, paying attention to the border crisis, as if that is the main issue.

when you take a closer look, the main issue is not simply of holding facilities and carrying capacity of the number of apprehended children and adults, but it's more about the migration trend that has been going on for the past five to seven years relating to a number of individuals, adults and minors, who have been leaving the region as a byproduct of the conflict going on in the region, particularly the continued growth of homicides in central america, the spate of violence that is taking place. so, you know, it is troublesome to me that while here this is a focus in washington of the debate about this surge, in none of the central american countries -- and with all due respect to government officials and diplomats from the region -- there is a legislator calling the president to ask them, how come they were not aware or if they were aware, they allowed to

at least have 10 to 20 minors leaving their countries every day for the past five years. this is a fact that was -- of which many government officials were aware. we work directly with different political officials in central america dealing with migration, immigration and development issues, and they were aware that there were problems but for the most part, countries like guatemala, for example, had a minor campaign of the dangers of migrating, a campaign that they invested less than $1 million for two years to tell you, you know, just be careful, take water just in case. and in a way there is a trivialization of the problem in the region that amounted to this crisis today. the crisis is not about the upsurge, because you cannot argue basically that you have --

that 50,000 people represent a crisis as opposed to 30,000 or 10,000 minors. who defines what constitutes a crisis? but i think the problem is that there is significant neglect in central america about what is happening. there are five points i'd like to conclude with before i talk about the results of the survey. i'm not going to deal with the study itself because you have the report with you but i want to point out five main -- six main issues. first one is that, yes, violence is the common denominator that comes across as a byproduct of the migration flow of adults and minors going on and it's more pronounced among adults than minors with the exceptions of honduras where you see that 70% of homicides -- excuse me -- of where kids are coming from is where all homicides have taken place.

but what it reflects is the presence of crime network, a different source, not just drug trafficking, narcotic trafficking networks but an underground economy operating at the level of extortion, kidnapping, political harassment of different sorts, groups that include groupings of five people in a neighborhood to networks of youth gang members in some cases. the widespread effect of that is rather epidemic that it has prompted basically a situation not just insecurity that is read in the surveys but a situation of fear that is quite widespread. is that situation of fear that has pushed people to move out and i'll explain why that's the case. second is that it's an important fact to keep in mind that poverty is not a driver of migration.

but there are issues development that are causing people moving out. if you looked at what did the work we did basically, we mapped out all of the areas in the united states where migrants come from because we have been collecting data on the flows of remittances and the money where migrants come from and sent money to that has allowed over the past years to map out the entire region of every single point where people are coming from and we're able to plot that to where minors come from as well as where violence is taking place using homicides as a proxy, as well as the local human development indicator at the municipal level. we also looked at the school enrollment rates, too. and basically when it comes to human development, there is no correlation in most cases with the exception of el salvador but the reason is that central america is at the mediocre level

of human development, in the middle in terms of the indicators. does it mean it's doing well? actually, no. because using the indicators, you have six years of schooling against 14 of the high human development index which is basically the benchmark that you are measured in terms of being competitive in the global economy. so there is a problem of development that is not clearly reflected in the indicators that are typically used. income itself is not enough of an indicator. but the reality is there. you cannot live on $300 a month on average when 2/3 of the population actually live on less than $200. the third point is that there is no question about the fact that migration is connected to labor market demand in the united states. there is a demand for foreign labor and transnational networks very well established between

the united states and central american countries where you know where labor opportunities exist. if you are in the washington area, for example, you know that the salvadoran community from eastern el salvador and you get information about the migratory flows. so it cannot be disregarded. who are the people who are migrating? you have people from different range of occupations but they're mostly coming to work in the typical industries -- construction, domestic work, some level of agriculture and the hospitality industry in general. so the fifth point is basically so if we know that there are problems with insecurity, fear and violence on the one hand, it is a problem of development that needs to be impact beyond the basic indicators and that there is a reality of migration connected to labor market demands in the united states, then we need to have an approach

to development that the pace of to the labor sector as opposed to other sectors, like capital or agriculture. agricultural modeling in america is obsolete at this point in time and we need to pay attention to an asset building approach that basically deals with a labor force that is unskilled, informal, uneducated and underpaid and that's reflected in the report. so there are different ways to do that and we have learned a lot of lessons in development to tackle that. the problem is that central america has not been interested in development case and for many years. and finally it's important to integrate migrants into the solution, into the strategies for development. and there are ways to integrate them and we have talked about

that previously. so let me tell you a little bit about the research in five minutes so that peter can attest that latins can do it, too. [laughter] as i mentioned before, we triangulate -- we have been following this trend for several years because as you work on family remittances, you work with migration and as you work with migration you also learn where people are coming from, where money's sent, the differences in volumes and the motivations for which money's being sent and five years ago we started to notice that there was a flow of children leaving central america. and, you know, for example those of you who are familiar with el paro, for example, they produced a very important study in 2009 that tell of the experiences of this plight and even hollywood, you know, you don't have to go very far.

hollywood had a move called "el hombre," 2009, a honduran kid. the writing was on the wall way before anyone was talking about this and today suddenly there is a crisis. but the research basically looks at the mapping of all the locations where migrants are coming from and we plotted against the certain indicators including homicides as a proxy for violence. we did not include extortion. we did not include kidnapping which is happening at every level in the three countries. we also did a nationwide household survey in el salvador last month where we tried to understand a couple of things. one is anybody in the average people knew someone who had migrated and how, if they, the interviewed person, planned to migrate and why, and how did they see were the main problems of the country.

at the same time, because of the anti-immigrant backlash that came out saying that immigrants basically were opportunists looking to exploit some flaw in the law and that there were permits being given to kid who crossed the border so we did a survey in the washington area interviewing 215 people to get a sense of what did they see were the issues coming across. so with regards to first part, we definitely find that violence is statistical -- in statistical terms, looking at nearly 900 municipalities in the three countries, it's basically positively correlated to the migration of adults as well as unaccompanied minors. in honduras, the statistical relationship is the strongest. when it comes to development, as i mentioned before, only in el

salvador, development was negatively correlated. that is, the lower the level of development, the highest level of migration was going to take place. in a country like guatemala, circumstances were different and that asks a number of questions as to why guatemala is different but then there is a strong correlation of migration with adults. whenever there is migration of adults taking place, it correlates with the migration of minors, for the case of guatemala in particular. in honduras, the most powerful predictor is violence alone. in fact, not even the location where immigrants come from necessarily correlate at all times. and then we reach out to el salvadorans. we choose el salvador because there are different circumstances. in some ways it is historically more modern country than honduras but slightly less than guatemala. it's a country that has economic

growth experience in some ways better than honduras but not as good as guatemala. it's a country that faces problems of inequality in relative terms, similar to other countries like guatemala but not as inequal as guatemala and honduras. we tried to get a sense of that. it's a country with a dense network, at the transnational level between the united states and el salvador. basically, 60% of people know someone in the united states and the last majority of people who migrated left without papers crossing the border. we also have estimated the outflow of adults that have left for the past five years to get a sense and i can explain how we have done that. the second result that we found

is that 25% of salvadorans say they would rather live in -- leave el salvador than stay and the primary reason was crime. when we take a look at the percent of salvadorans who say they will migrate and among those who say crime is the major problem, they say they were leaving for the problem of security, because overall, they found crime to be a major problem, but also higher among those who wanted to migrate than among those who did not want to migrate. so 25% is a critical mass. in may of this year, the central bank of el salvador released a report and i don't think they thought carefully about the writing they put on it because they said remittances will continue to follow.

50% of el salvadorans want to leave the country and of course it was an intentional not lapse, but it was a mistake, i guess, coming from a government institution. but the numbers basically have been there telling you that people want to leave. in 2009, with the el salvador survey in central america and at that time it was 15% the number who wanted to leave. it was alarming at that time and no one paid attention to the issue. then we looked at the immigrants here and we tried to make sense, do you know someone? half of the immigrants knew someone who has come in the past nine months to the united states crossing the border without papers. half also knew that it was an unaccompanied minor. we have also interviewed independently as a case study context unaccompanied minors as

well as immigrants to get a full sense of the story, the issues that had to do, for example, with economies of scale with coyotes. but, when you ask them why did they -- we volunteered. the answer was insecurity in our country. only 3% said something about permiso. it is clear for which ever way you want to look at the issue with the problem comes from, again, knocking on the door with security in central america. development because the security is not nothing but the presence of an underground economy operating along the lines of networks that find the operating costs of working in the criminal

sector as a profitable one. therefore, economies are not just against, formal economy but in formal. context, ithis continues to be seen, it is important to go back to the development. ago, i came as a project of central america 2020 and provided a blueprint for economic growth for central america. it was unfortunately practically a nor -- ignored. a colleague who wrote a report te it is a realro

deal and you cannot ignore it. -- if it is human nature that was migrating, to increasing skills of the labor force and opportunity and investment and the local market strategiesincreasing for school retention. elementa very basic that cannot be disregarded especially not to disregarded when it is right in your face. and the demonstration asked for less than 10% of the request to work for central america. these are unaccompanied minors. >> thank you. thank you very much.

cristina ? >> ok. thank want to hang -- inter-american dialogue for having me. i am with an umbrella organization. we have partners and allies in latin america specifically in central america and mexico. and so, we were asked to come today to give our diagnostic in terms of how we see the issue from the migrant's perspective on the ground and what are we recommended in terms of proposed solutions or recommendations. first off, i went to start by giving a face to the story of the children that are common. who are they?

of our a sense from one members in boston who has been working with a lot of these families from honduras. fivef she has seen about families per week just this last couple two weeks. that they areting deaf -- they are reporting they are in during trauma -- endru uring trauma and really afraid in not really wanted to speak up of what is happening to down. owner is a small business and owns a small bodega. because of fleeing poverty, her family was ok. they were receiving threats that are never going to kill their five-year-old son. one day they came to their business and someone left a note

that if they did not pay them, their business was robbed several times. if they did not get more money, they would kill their son. -- ans one of the ladies organization that boston is working with. a story of 4 sisters, whose father had been paying a gang tax for protection. the father was killed when he decided he cannot pay the tax anymore. they all came to the united states. they were process a given ankle bracelets and they have days to appear in front of a judge in january. to give you a face to what did these fountains are going through and who they are. i just want to comment on what called this ay crisis. the data has been recorded and we see this as a crisis.

it is only a crisis when it is a decisive moment. this is something that could've been prevented. this is something that we saw coming. it is a pattern that we have in tracking as well over the years. there is not one explanation as to why the children are coming. it is multifaceted. and apart, the messaging -- in that has messaging been predominant has been of hate and harsh and harsh positioning from the administration. of fromately, as well both parties, republicans and democrats. they -- a lot of what we see, this huge fight of the children not only coming to the united states as opposed to what the media will have you believe.

the united nations high commissioner for refugees reported that there was a spike 5% and applications in mexico and panama and costa rica and belize. 2013.s from 2008 and at the time we see a record number of children coming from the same region. that was another big red flag right there. we could've been doing something about it. most of the children's site fear of return as the number one reason. we are very concerned in terms of how it is being dealt with the locally. aboute a little piece mexico but i am not going to go over it. mexican children sort of are being omitted. mexico isd many ways,

another country is plagued by violence especially along the border. not going toi was talk about it. i will leave it there. i want to get into the why and the what. why -- the recent triggers. i will not go into too much. besides violence and the rates of homicide and that manuel talked about, we also see the militarization, the approach that is taken in central america as well as within our borders as another sort of reason. kind of posturing this reallyity instead of working on internal development. another factor would be a broken and outdated u.s. immigration -- as was pointed out earlier, a light of these

families, these children have families here. -- a lot of these families, these children have families here. a% of children already have blood relative here in the united states. migratory strong relationship between central america and the united states. one we cannot talk about this without acknowledging that. there is strong family ties already here. it is only natural a child will want to be reunited with a mother or father. there is no policy reform for the immigration system in the last 20 years. that is exacerbating this issue. perspective, we see long-standing structural causes. the immediate triggers and also a history of political instability in the region and dating back to the 70's. that has left these countries

weak, along with the militarization peace, and to be a poster that governments have taken has not been in the best way to move forward. specifically, if we are talking about issues of development and insecurity. we also see source of the united states and involvement and approach meant towards latin america and in that region specifically in terms of providing military support, providing more weapons. lotunited states provided a of these weapons during the years all the wars. they kind of scattered out into gangs andof the people who should not have them. another big sort of structural cause is wealth inequality. over the last few years, wealth has been concentrated among the rich.

and really sweeping the poor into higher levels of poverty. high unemployment was already mentioned. all around, very few opportunities for families to make end's meet. policy has notic -- just the sort of whole dynamic of the shift that is happening. low skilledd about workers. there is a demand for low skilled workers and in the united states but we are unwilling to acknowledge or find a way for people to come here legally. people can not migrate illegally. that will propel people not by choice but because they have to come into the country. is, most people already know that in order to

people coming from mexico or central america, usually you have to have an, and homeownership to actually be able to obtain citizenship. there is no legal process through which people can migrate. central american governments have played a role to sort of intopolicy, really playing our approach to foreign policy. big one, we also have laid out a supply and demand flow in which the united states consumes the highest number of cocaine for example. countries from south of the border supply it. implicit in here and another thing not talked about. what has been congress' response?

it is bleak. for one and, republicans -- end, republicans, just sort of for have nobills that intention of passing. this narrative is being led by our republican -- congressman ted cruz and to those voices. relief such asl deferred action, sort of like a a harsh approach. --ocrats have not unfortunately, have not been any better. president the requested $2 billion for the crisis. most of that money was going for more militarization of more border enforcement. we do not see that as a solution. otherwas no mention of

sources of relief that could be implemented especially when the children have access to asylum other forms of relief. there was no mention of compassionate or compassionate approach to the children. we see that is very concerning. will get quickly to our recommendations. ok. [laughter] i will get right into it. in terms of, we see for big areas that are needed to critically at the moment. are notpport, children being given a due process. they are not being given access to legal counsel. they are rapidly being processed and being put into detention facilities. reunited with family members and not given a court date. but with no legal counsel.

their safety and protection should be first. we should not even be talk about other things without thinking about that. family unity should be a priority. they already have family members here, less he reunite them. let's reunite them. in terms of relief, several things could be done. , weorary protected status are missing the will to move. in terms of social services, the second portion. beginning,ned at the children are common with trauma from the dangerous journey. jumping on and off trains. we have seen a spike in girls, young girls, calming where that was not the case at first. girls are going through sexual assault and rape. the childrenion, are going to be living here at least in the short term,

education. people are my interpreters, languages innative some cases. and integration. how do we integrate them into overall society? communication,of we have been very active. we are trying to change in the discourse little by little from different areas of the country as well as latin america. we need to sort of give more humanitarian approach to this whole component. advocacy and policy is a big one for us. we need to prioritize. to change the way we look and talk about u.s. foreign policy towards latin america. we need to prioritize human development. investing in schools and local community and infrastructure and jobs.

approach to security. ever since 9/11, would've taken a radical approach to security that priority size militaristic that prioritizes militarization -- that prioritizes militarization and we see that as a big problem. treating immigration all around as a national security issue instead of a human issue. the mobility of people has not kept up with the goats. that references back to the economic policy that we have toward -- in latin america and each other. we need a system that is more equitable. over free trade. there.ill leave it more ifnd of talk about you have questions. in terms of what we are doing

nationally, i can also sort of answer to that as well as internationally. i will leave it there. you. >> thank you very much. cristina and manuel, a rich star for discussion. let me ask a specific type of question. fact that ad the large number of the children are joining relatives here and want to join relatives here, parents. first, who is making the decision for the migration? is it their parents here? is it their parents there? who is taking themselves? the older kids? do we have a really good sense of that? are exempt from that question. secondly, do people making the

decision, parents are often putting down large amounts of money. are they well informed about the process the children will face once they come into the united states? they willalize probably be reunited with the children? and before they get a hearing to leave the country, it may take a one-year, two years will stop do they know the process well? -- two years. -- do they know the process well? i want to know who makes the decision. is it based on good information? >> i can added that. theerms of who is making decision, a lot of times, it is the parents and themselves. a lot of the times it is the children themselves. other times, these children's parents are already here and they are sort of trying to save

a bundle of money to pay off the smuggler. a variety of different answers. in terms of do the parents know the process here, parents and to the families are not necessarily sort of well-versed with the protocol and legality behind every step of the way. -- for the most part, may understand the child is safer upon arriving to the united states border than a day are living with them in honduras. can get my child across and she will end up is probably she already in a better situation than living here where they are getting desperate. they are not necessarily in the

know. at least was we have seen will we talk to families about what will happen once they get here, as opposed to what the media has been floating that they are sending their kids because it is widespread belief everybody is going to get a permiso and that is not true. families are not aware of what is going to happen. >> who makes the decision? we are talking about unfortunately, it does not get you here or there. the family unit is international. what we have learned basically it's the decision is taken by the family. the uncle, grandmother, the immigrant here basically decides to move the next step. the decision point is triggered by 2 main factors. the first is frustration that

immigration reform did not happen this year. the number of people. peopleond one is, well, decide given the circumstances, they are aware of what happens day today and there is angst. the frustration going on. a neighbor was killed or someone was robbed. that is a factor. what wed one which is call coyotes. packages to have not only one child but two. as far as the interviews we have taken, there is not a sense you off atoyote to drop you a new border. the deal is to come to the united states.

no point did we see they would be dropped. they didn't send you to your home. we interviewed a lot of people. in many other cases, the toldrant said a coyote them they had to drop the kid at the border because of the three year old would drown. becamenomy scale factor a component. are they well informed? no. you put your trust in it. period. >> ok. we are open to your questions, comments. michael barnes? obama is likely to issue an executive order this month. [indiscernible] that presidentg

obama is likely to issue an executive order this month with respect to immigration policy. what is your hope that you will do in a that executive order? and what is your best estimation of what he was actually do? other questions. you do not mind waiting for an answer? tell us what you do for a living. [laughter] >> thank you. [indiscernible] i have two questions. one for mrs. garcia. in honduras. [indiscernible] they told me to be careful. they said be polite.

at the time, it was not so violent. correlation between other people who has been deported in the past four or five years from the united states with the increase? that is one. >> one more question. >> it is supposed to be on, right? two short questions related. who respect to the coyotes, pays the coyotes? family and the united states receiving or the family in the region, a combination perhaps? data shed some

light on that. and second of all, i am fascinated by your emphasis on development because it is the roots of all of this. thes the problem of economic development of these countries. oft critique would you have inter-american bank, the in termsdonors, etc. of their follow through on this development issue? the contentsput in of the countries and themselves. their own kind of approach. do you want to start us off this time? >> sure. i will take some questions and i might defer to manuel, perhaps the core relation one. -- correlation one. in terms of president obama and

will he pass, our hope is you will have an executive order. we have been hoping for the past eight years that it will happen for something greater would've happened in the first half of his presidency when he could've done it. well, politically -- we sort of see this as -- politically, we feel that he is in a good position to do it. to end think having come of the presidency and not risking reelection, he could and he should. he should proceed with something. some of the most likely forms of relief we think will likely asked when the a sort of engine of the deferred action that was given to the youth and

extending to their parents. that will probably not help all 11 million people in the country, but it will sort of lift a greater number of people out of undocumented status. actingblem is that kim -- him acting with executive action, they are faring and we have seen this in dialogues and our own conferences with the democratic party is that they fear losing seats in november. and so politically, the president is still sort of engaging whether he should or shouldn't. time and time again he has said he has been coming out periodically over the past few months making public statements

and we think is in a good position to get it done and politically and the fear there is he will not do as much as he is able to because of backlash from the other side. easy oneming immigration that he will open up the borders. i will leave it there. >> you took the easy one. cannot answer this specifically. the core relation question. ,hen it comes to deportations you cannot generalize about violence in central america or countries.

45% of homicide are gang related. only 5% in honduras. the minority of homicide in honduras are drug cartel related. you are dealing with different population groups. with guatemala about 20% are gang related. the rest is coming from undisclosed association to organized crime because it is not drug cartels. it is a lot of extortion networks that are composed of five people and there might be 1,000 of them across the entire country. people who ask to you get paid in extortion, not in cash but with phone cards. now there are prepaid cards that are being used for those activities. i have a very serious problem

talking about the northern triangle countries because it's a term that was actually used during the cold war to refer to completely different circumstances and now it's being extrapolated as if the three countries are having the same problems and they are not. on the question about who pays. the payment takes place in the home country and people carry cash as a contingency in the likelihood of some emergency. and now in some cases and this is tricky and problematic because in some cases you might be talking about 3% of the cases, we don't know exactly. there is a lot of kidnapping. once you've been taken to the u.s. and a lot of the kidnapping

occurs in facilities by trafficking networks in the united states, in texas and places like that. and they are getting paid using wire transfer companies. not that the company is in the business but it's the quickest way to get paid. this is something nobody is looking into it. it's a political one. but if there is human trafficking taking place, it's taking place in the united states. so this is an issue that nobody is paying attention but the organizations in mexico that have been working for years to deal with the problem of relief to people who are kidnapped were beaten up because they were not able to pay and a lot of it happening in arizona and texas

in holding facilities by the networks. and finally, the follow through. i think the follow through is a by product of politics in terms of developing strategy of usaid. all of the members of the washington consensus have different views on what to do on development. those contrasting views have seldom coincided and they are not prepared to work together. the central american governments unfortunately are always expecting to be told what approach to take. so what approach central america took the approach of developing clusters. and it was to develop non-traditional exports. and the third was tourism. central america is growing now on four drivers, migration and

agriculture exports. that's what the economy runs by. so the models relatively obsolete because it relies on unskilled labor forces. why people like the world bank or idb don't -- they know there is a limitation. why is there not a shift? i don't think -- it would be simplistic to say what's wrong with these guys. and it's not that easy. because you want immediate resolve and immediate resolve you see visibility is increasing export markets. expanding market access. and you see it in a matter of quantitative perspective. increase unemployed people in

the labor force opening new markets and you do that in the industries. unfortunately that is something that blinds you. and then the central american government do lack a vision of the right developing strategy. i think we need to departmentalize the approach more thoroughly. >> i'm a maryland state delegate. my question was partially answered by your last response and it's a concern that i think we are not yet dealing with the larger issue of the crisis.

i think that everything you said is our symptoms of something very serious that needs attention in our countries. i was in el salvador recently and i was quite surprised at the lack of attention that this issue was getting by the government officials as well as with the legislators. i asked to debrief. there wasn't really that much interest usually on immigration, i have opportunities to share a lot with the legislature being a legislator myself. then all of a sudden it appeared that there was a summit. unfortunately, i was down there. we had been calling with a group here for a summit because we

think there needs to be a regional perspective and politically it even helps to take the decision away from congress and from obama. but again i was down there. i don't know if there is anything that resulted from the summit. it was not that well covered. so my question is, being that there needs to be a broader regional view, what is it that we can be pointing to here to make this issue more of a topic with our international agencies, with our u.s. agencies because i've also personally seen the shift in investment in el

salvador away from all social issues, education, health not even mentioned. and the money that is being provided targeted to that approach. i think we're completely missing the in depth understanding of what are the next steps, what kind of solutions we need to take. and i think they need to be addressed both here and in latin america because our countries are so different, i'm afraid there is not going to be a united view. but i'm appalled they are not even talking among themselves. it's as if under the circumstances a different problem. i know it's a long winded question. >> we'll get a long winded answer for you. >> why is it that every time we ask for donations for hurricanes

and things like that we get it? how many hispanic families would be willing to donate money? how many hispanic companies, how many states would be willing to donate? why not ask them instead of the government taking all the pot, why not show what a great country we are? gentleman. the wrong gentlemen. are both >> retired foreign service officer with service in south america. for a couple of years director for the center for immigration studies. question i have you touched on it but i wonder and your presentations have been fantastic in putting these

enormous issues together and seeing how they fit. i am wondering if though there isn't some stimulus coming particularly for the children. i don't know whether it would be nefarious, not necessarily of the coyotes promoting more business by getting these kids involved or people encouraging and want the u.s. government to do something about all of this to get the children involved to embarrass us and to make us a little bit more forthcoming. i'm just wondering if that is part of the stimulus from somewhere. >> take one more right here. this young lady. >> international trade and communications corporation. the central american countries know what the coyotes are doing.

are.hey know who they why isn't there legislation to stop these people? the human trade is trading with children. overloadt want to you. >> i'm going to touch on the last two questions first. i think that's my question all along. what are the central american governments doing? i think i made the distinction between coyotes and traffickers. the coyotes are there because there is a need to have somebody to mediate in the process to

cross the border. and there is not a force process. now i don't know what would be the implications of stopping them. but definitely something has to be done about that. at the very least, the government should be able to detect these networks and break them down. i think more importantly, the issue of the stimulus that you talk about, i think that's definitely a by product of presence of coyotes, etc. i meanwhile violence is driving, developing is driving, a demand for foreign labor in the united states is driving migration. there is something of an opportunity when the network of intermediaries is easily accessible.

and you can't deny that. so i think you point -- i think your point is well taken. there is definitely an element of fact in the sense that coyotes do a very good marketing job at this. you can argue that they prey on mystery. i don't think they do it to embarrass government. i was able to -- i don't know how to say it in english. on your question what to tell. i think there are three things one can tell. you have to hold central american government accountable and we are not doing that totally. the central american presidents with all due respect, it was a little of a shame.

i think you have to hold them accountable on different basis. someone migration is occurring because people are not getting the right solutions in their home countries. takeaway the united states debate that there is a demand for foreign labor. i can demonstrate there is one. but then if you make migration a choice rather than a necessity, people will think twice. the second issue is that it's important to take on a developing strategy in the region that requires a lot of commitment from the united states international community and the central american governments. and we are not short of ideas

and solutions on how to implement that strategy. what is central is to put central america in the path towards the economy not make the export market the only growth for the region. that's why focus on the labor force is really important. and the third element is one needs to integrate migrants in many ways to eliminate entry for them to invest in their home country, to increase production through trade. to increase mobilization in their home countries both for them and their families. it's a wealth of money that is mostly formal that hasn't been dealt with because of neglect from central american governments. and so i think that's the kind of message one needs to provide.

>> to that i would just add that the idea that sort of we need to sort of work -- look at central america in a silo and then use the united states in another silo is i think should be obsolete. i think we need to be able to look at the region together. we share a lot of the work force. we share a lot of sort of this kind of flow of goods, flow of people. i think yes, we do need to hold central american governments accountable. but just as much as we need to be able to hold our own government accountable. so i feel like you can't speak of one without speaking of the other. and i think that there really

needs to be more political will on behalf of both sides. there needs to be more -- a different approach that is taken in terms of how we deal with migration in the general sense of the word. our country here hasn't done anything, as i said, in the last 20 years to allow people to migrate in a legal manner. and so when our president, central american president and our own come and meet and speak and i was i wasn't a little ashamed. i was a lot ashamed we had predicted nothing would come out of that meeting unfortunately. it's sad. there is no political will on behalf of either and the region needs to be looked at as a whole.

as consumers and as american people we need to be more vigilant in terms of how our tax dollars get used. that's is back on us. where are we investing, how are we investing it? why are we throwing billions of dollars to the border and we're still where we're at today? that's the larger question i would ask ourselves is how can we sort of but our advocacy hats on tighter and get out there and take a critical look at how ore own government is spending our own money. >> thank you. >> you start off this round. >> i could not agree more with the last two comments. i think that unless you address not only development in these countries why the violence is

taking place, it has to do with the drug consumption in the united states. we are guilty on the drug consumption and weapon side. something have to be done. why doesn't the u.s. government talk to these governments more effectively to get something done? one last point, nobody has mentioned mexico and the obligations they have to do with the train. >> question i think in your conversations with migrants, did you talk to people who had come without human smugglers and if so what characteristics do they have?

what country did they come from? do they tend to be poor? that's all. >> we are a human rights organization and we are working closely with commission of human rights addressing this issue. i have the two questions about mexico. if you could expand a little bit about the problem with mexico migration of children because this has been silent, the problem. and as far as i understand the situation has allowed officers to deport mexican children in even 24 hours so they don't even go to court. and the second question i had was related to violence.

we have identified violence with drugs and unorganized crime but there is also state violence that mrs. garcia mentioned a little bit about. we have heard about people fleeing from their countries because there is violence from the army or from state police. have you identified any of you both have you identified any of those cases with any of the people you are talking to because these will deal with different issues of protection than only refugee protection fleeing for violence related issues, it would arouse the issue of torture and domestic violence. we have heard about cases of domestic violence as also a reason for fleeing out of the country and these will relate to the institutional response by the state with a lack of judiciary with a weak state police and judiciary, people are

afraid of going to their governments. >> you said that than 80% of the children who come stay with family. i wonder how much is family reunification if the family had the possibility of bringing those children to the u.s. >> one last question and then we're going to respond. >> the government of el salvador, you talk about economy, in 1996 they have a

program to insert themselves in the economy -- >> i've seen the power point. >> they have the vision to upgrade the skill of the youth and education. so the problem in latin america, i'm not talking from the world bank. we have changes in the government and sometimes when you are building something you destroy something >> just to answer quickly on the children. in terms of what some -- so the children already have some blood relatives here. and so it could be a mom or dad or uncle or aunt.

doesn't have to be an immediate parent. but so what is hang is they are being placed in housing site run by institutions like heartland aligns that gets federal dollars from hhs and they are waiting trial. they are awaiting trial for their court preegged. and what we as advocates are seeing is that because the children are now being given access to legal counsel, initially there are some children who have been deported because of this hard line approach to the coming of the children in large numbers from central america, appearing tough on illegal migration if you will. that was being swept under the carpet. the immediate due process of that. kid were not being given. so it's not until now that

providers and legal organizations nationally are sort of rallying around this issue to ensure that children are being given a legal representation. and perhaps there is some relief. as u.n. report noted is a lot of these children could potentially have access to some form of relief here. because they are not going through the channels of having legal counsel, we are not necessarily knowing because the child has gone through a dangerous journey. he's not going to tell you x and y has happened to me. it's a blur. so you have to give the child some time to recuperate from that dramatic experience and be able to talk to attorneys and social workers, etc.

that's a big gap that we're trying to address right now. other organizations and ourselves. in terms of sort of like what is the mexican government doing, not a lot. unfortunately i wish i had a better answer. they themselves haven't been responsible i guess in terms of seeing for their own migrants. there are people that are migrating from mexico to the united states. they have i think responded, i think the latest i was reading on the mexican president was responding to this crisis by sending more troops to the southern border. exactly the same model we're utilizing in the united states which we have seen not work. 700 mile board and there is a lot of patchy areas. it's very forested and it's impossible to man or militarize the entire board just likes the impossible to do it here.

the other thing they try to do is stop the train. but how is that exactly supposed to get to the core root of the problem? stop the train which say train that traverses all of mexico which migrants jump on and off of. so not nearly enough in that regard. and the question of sort of corruption and military and officials being implicit in this entire web of corruption and trafficking. it's a blur. i don't know if he has better data on that but as far as we can see under the circumstances a blur. so families and children aren't necessarily ready to kind of spill all and name individuals or be at free will to be able to

denounce if there are authorities 1r068d, we know that there -- involved. we know that there are but we haven't seen a way that can be proven thus far. >> i'm just going to touch on the question on the human rights issue. it's very hard to make this distinction, especially in a country like these. political violence occurs when the use of force is used by a security and authorities in a country to achieve a political gain or a political aim.

in that very strict sense of the word, there are many cases of violence taking place politically motivated. after the coup there has been a lot of cases. what the scale of it is one in 1,000. now the next step is migration. and in that case, under the circumstances a very hard issue to demonstrate especially when we're talk about the u.s. legal system. we're not dealing with refugee but asylum claims. where you have to demonstrate that you are escaping for fear of your life. and you may be escaping because police forces, security forces threaten you but not for political reasons, they were doing it for reasons associated to organized crime. that makes it a little difficult. however, i think it still

constitutes if you escape gang violence, if you demonstrate it, it can constitute ground for asylum. there are other grounds when you can demonstrate. the problem is how many people that escape, that left their home countries able to demonstrate that effectively. this is why some groups are talking about refugee status because the situation is one of a critical mass of people who are just simply leaving in mass given they fear for their lives. none of the people we have talked to came without a smuggler. so we read reports where they say about half of people don't use a smuggler to cross a border. we haven't come across with that to be the case.

and the other issue is that -- i lost the train of thought. oh the train. when you look at the numbers, it's perhaps might be one in four or five people who use the train. so the issue is not the train alone but the whole journey itself that gets people through the united states from mexico. i'm a by product of the cold war. i left my country for political reasons and crossed the board in the 1980's. and train or no train, i was going to leave the country. so i think we are going through the same experiences today but in different circumstances.

>> i think we're going to have to call it a day. i want to thank you and your team for your report and the presentation today. thank you very much for your bringing a different perspective than we usually discuss here. thanks very much. let's give them a hand. [applause] inter-american dialogue also has a discussion on the eventcs and the current as well. they talk about the president's and u.s.p style sanctions. hour.just over an