[ad_1]
If the vote in the Senate Chamber of the Migration and Foreigners Bill had to be defined, it would be like a rip-roaring discussion. It has not been complex, but it has been full of controversies that have delayed the approval of each of its articles separately, as the opposition senators behind the project requested it.
It all started this Wednesday, the day on which, after an extensive day, only three articles were approved: the one referring to job search opportunities; the one that says that “migrant women will have access to all the institutions and mechanisms that protect their well-being. Pregnant women, victims of trafficking and smuggling of migrants, or of gender or intra-family violence, will have special treatment by the State, guaranteeing a visa that regulates their stay ”-the latter was the most controversial and debated this Wednesday- and the which indicates that the benefits and social security benefits will only have effect for those foreigners who have resided in Chile for a minimum period of 24 months.
This Thursday, in the morning, the rest of the articles were to be dealt with, with more than 22 pending. However, they were not able to settle all of them in their entirety, leaving the rest of the discussion for next week.
During this day, the Senate approved three other articles of the bill. The first, related to family reunification, was approved with 26 votes in favor and 13 against. Specifically, the subsection states that “residents may request family reunification with their spouse or with that person who maintains a relationship that, in accordance with applicable law, produces effects equivalent to marriage.”
The text includes “parents, minor children, children with disabilities, unmarried children under 24 years of age who are studying and minors who are under their personal care or guardianship, and the State must promote the protection of the unity of the family”.
Government stumble
The second point voted was the one that referred to the regulation of regular income, which says that the President of the Republic is the one who will define the National Policy on Migration and Foreigners, for which he must take into consideration various elements. One of them is to “ensure the maintenance of high levels of regularity of the migrant population.”
At this point, the Government suffered a setback, rejecting an indication regarding the “irregular entry” of migrants. In this understanding that the President defines immigration policy, various elements must be taken into consideration. One of them is to “ensure the maintenance of high levels of regularity of the migrant population”, a provision that was approved unanimously.
At this point, however, the Executive presented an indication that also established avoiding “irregular entry.” This indication was rejected with 19 votes in favor and 20 against. Those who rejected this indication assured that it was “redundant” to incorporate that phrase and that the irregularity rates are not due to entry, but to the fact that after arriving in the country for a period they did not leave and did not regularize their situation.
On the other hand, those who were in favor of the initiative warned that irregular migration should be discouraged.
Prior authorization or visa
Finally, the third approved article talks about the prior authorization or visa to enter the country. In this sense, a provision was approved stating that “a person who does so as the holder of a temporary residence permit will not require prior authorization or a visa to enter and stay in Chile.”
The norm that establishes that for reasons of national interest or low compliance with immigration regulations by nationals of a particular country was also maintained, a prior authorization or visa granted by a Chilean consulate abroad may be required.
At this point there was a sentence that spoke of low compliance with immigration regulations, which had been eliminated by the Human Rights Commission, for which it was submitted to the consideration of the Chamber, which rejected said elimination with 18 votes in favor, 24 against and one abstention.
Then, the Chamber approved with 24 votes in favor, 4 against and 12 abstentions to maintain said rule.
[ad_2]
