Immigration Politics Georgia

looking for a better life • news and pro-enforcement opinion

Immigration Research Archives

Michelle Malkin’s Twitter List of Recent Outsourcers/Offshorers

By

Michelle Malkin. Photo: The Hill.com

From ProtectUSWorkers.com

Leave it to the Queen of the fight for human rights, MICHELLE MALKIN, to blast several tweets calling out “some” of the latest outsourcing/offshoring companies. I say “some” because so many companies are able to conduct this awful business model under the radar. Also, this is merely “some” because there are so many companies that have done this (once, twice and sometimes multiple times) over the past thirty years that are not included on this list.

But how can so many American workers get fired, many forced to train foreign visa holders to do their jobs, and the jobs go to foreign visa holders in and out of the United States?
1. Terrible American immigration and business laws.
2. Greedy business owners and investors who place money over people.
3. Consistently terrible politicians on this issue because they are bought or uneducated.
4. Lying politicians who pretend they will help but do not help at all.
5. The fake “we need more foreign workers” slogan from the billionaires who benefit from this business model.
6. The one that hurts the most: the millions of terrified American workers who refuse to stand up against their termination, and forced training of foreign visa holders, because of a false self preservation sold to them by the billionaires who benefit from this business model.
7. The everyday American people who just have not learned, or just do not care because it does not yet touch them personally, who do not stand up for those who are victims.

Maybe this incredible list will help Americans stand strong and stand together to fight against this awful, greedy business model. Maybe, this is a stretch, but, maybe, a politician will use this information to make a change in the government to stop this parasite that is killing our middle class.

1. Wayfair. 550 US workers terminated February 2020.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/13/business/layoffs-underway-wayfair/

2. Tripadvisor. Laid off 200 American workers January 2020.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-23/tripadvisor-cuts-hundreds-of-jobs-after-google-competition-bites

3. LogMeln. Canned 300 American workers January 2020.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-based-logmein-laying-off-8-of-workforce/31037817

4. Silicon Valley companies Zume Pizza, VMWare, Shutterfly, Intel, Comcast, Xilinx, 23andMe & NortonLifeLock will lay off more than 1,000 US tech workers in February and March of 2020.

5. AT&T fired nearly 3000-5000 American jobs in the past several months. This is only the latest round for this company who loves this get-rich-quick business model.
https://www.axios.com/trump-att-outsourcing-h1b-visa-foreign-workers-1f26cd20-664a-4b5f-a2e3-361c8d2af502.html

 

Much more here.

On Gov Kemp’s HB444 – zero verification to exclude high-school illegal aliens from taxpayer-funded college seats (raw notes)

By

Image: The Dustin Inman Society

More here.

HB444 House sponsors: (original version here)
(1) Reeves, Bert 34th(2) Lott, Jodi 122nd(3) Rogers, Terry 10th

(4) LaRiccia, Dominic 169th(5) Knight, David 130th

Sponsored In Senate By

Strickland, Brian 17th

*See Gov Kemp’s floor leaders here.

HB444 Senate substitute   

Lines 55-63 here as passed by the Republican – ruled state senate on January 28, 2020.

‘Eligible high school student’ means a student entering ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth grade at an eligible high school. who is:

 (A) Entering or enrolled in eleventh or twelfth grade at an eligible high school taking any eligible dual credit course at any eligible postsecondary institution; or
(B) Entering or enrolled in tenth grade at an eligible high school when such student:

 Is enrolled in an eligible CTAE course at an institution within the Technical College System of Georgia;
(ii) Has obtained prior to the beginning of the term of dual enrollment coursework an SAT or ACT test score that would meet the assessment requirements of a Zell Miller Scholar pursuant to division (27)(A)(i) of Code Section 20-3-519 and is taking eligible core courses at any eligible postsecondary institution; or
(iii) Was enrolled as a ninth grader in one or more dual credit courses at an eligible postsecondary institution for which payment was made under this part on or before June 30, 2020.

Lines 17- 22:

“This Code section shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Move on When Ready Act.’ ‘Dual Enrollment Act.’ The purpose of the Dual Enrollment program is to promote and increase access to postsecondary educational opportunities for Georgia high school students while increasing   high school graduation rates, preparing a skilled workforce, and decreasing time and cost to postsecondary credential completion.”

Senate Vote record here. (January 28, 2020)

House vote record (2019) here.

Public Charge Inadmissibility Final Rule: Revised Forms and Updated Policy Manual Guidance – from USCIS

By

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has published revised forms consistent with the final rule on the public charge ground of inadmissibility, which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including USCIS, will implement on Feb. 24, 2020. Beginning Feb. 24, 2020, applicants and petitioners must use new editions of the following forms below (except in Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court):

In addition, except in Illinois, applicants for adjustment of status subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and the Final Rule will be required to submit Form I-944, Declaration of Self Sufficiency. Certain applicants whom USCIS invites to submit a public charge bond will use the new Form I-945, Public Charge Bond, for that purpose, and the new Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, to request cancellation of a public charge bond.

Certain classes of aliens (such as refugees, asylees, petitioners under the federal Violence Against Women Act, and certain T and U visa applicants) are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility and therefore are not subject to the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final rule. For more information about the classes of aliens who are exempt from the final rule, please see the USCIS Policy Manual.

Reporting Information About Benefits

The final rule requires aliens to report certain information related to public benefits. Instructions for Form I-944 require aliens subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility to report and submit information about whether the alien applied for, was certified or approved to receive, or received certain non-cash public benefits on or after Oct. 15, 2019.

Instructions for Forms I-129, I-129CW, and I-539 require the petitioner or alien to report whether the alien received public benefits since obtaining the nonimmigrant status the alien seeks to extend or change.

Due to litigation-related delays in the rule’s implementation, USCIS is applying all references to Oct. 15, 2019, as though they refer to Feb. 24, 2020. Petitioners and applicants should do the same. In other words, aliens do not need to report the application, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain non-cash public benefits on the Form I-944 before Feb. 24, 2020. Similarly, petitioners and aliens do not need to report an alien’s receipt of any public benefits on Forms I-129, I-129CW, and I-539 if the benefits were received before Feb. 24, 2020.

Postmarks and Submission Dates for Forms

USCIS will accept the current edition of these forms if they are postmarked (or submitted electronically, if applicable) before Feb. 24, 2020. We will not accept them if they are postmarked on or after Feb. 24, 2020, except in Illinois. For applications and petitions that are sent by commercial courier (such as UPS, FedEx or DHL), the postmark date is the date reflected on the courier receipt.

Illinois Residents

​​USCIS is prohibited from implementing the final rule in Illinois, where it remains enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. If the injunction in Illinois is lifted, USCIS will provide additional public guidance. If you are applying for immigration benefits and live in Illinois, or are a petitioning employer in Illinois, please review the information on our website about how Illinois residents may access forms and apply in light of the injunction.

Further Information

USCIS has also published guidance based on the final rule in the Policy Manual. For additional information, see the Policy Alert.

For more information about the final rule, see the Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility webpage.

Congressional Budget Office: “Immigration has negative effect on wages”

By

Image: WSJ.com

Via Breitbart News: Immigration makes all of America richer, but it can make some Americans poorer, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says in a report issued January 9.

“Immigration, whether legal or illegal, expands the labor force and changes its composition, leading to increases in total economic output,” said the non-partisan report, titled “The Foreign-Born Population and Its Effects on the U.S. Economy and the Federal Budget—An Overview.”

But this national expansion does “not necessarily [deliver] to increases in output per capita,” or income per person, the report said:

For example, business leaders say the nation’s enormous population of immigrants has expanded the nation’s workforce, increased consumption, and driven up housing prices. But that inflow has also shrunk the wages of less-educated Americans, the report said:

Among people with less education, a large percentage are foreign born. Consequently, immigration has exerted downward pressure on the wages of relatively low-skilled workers who are already in the country, regardless of their birthplace.

The CBO report contradicts business claims that a bigger economy ensures bigger wages for everyone.

More ominously, the report also suggests that the American middle-class — including millions of young college graduates — may suffer a similar economic disaster if immigration policy is shifted to raise the inflow of foreign college graduates. The report says:

The effects of immigration on wages depend on the characteristics of the immigrants. To the extent that newly arrived workers have abilities similar to those of workers already in the country, immigration would have a negative effect on wages.

Many business advocates in Washington are calling for a dramatic increase in “high-skilled immigration” — meaning foreign college graduates who would compete for the same jobs as American college graduates. For example, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is trying to pass his S.386 bill that offers the prize of renewable work-permits — and eventual citizenship — to an unlimited number of foreign graduates.

Each year, up to 120,000 foreign graduates — and their spouses and children — can get green cards via their employer’s sponsorship, even as perhaps 800,000 Americans graduate from college with skilled degrees. More here.

DACA: include Murder, Rape, Weapon and Assault Charges – USCIS Releases Report on Arrest Histories of Illegal Aliens who Request DACA

By

DACA protester. Photo: Getty Images

USCIS Releases Report on Arrest Histories of Illegal Aliens who Request DACA

– 

WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated data  (PDF, 756 KB) on arrests and apprehensions of illegal aliens who requested Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The release of this report reflects the agency’s ongoing focus on transparency. The report provides updated information on known arrests and apprehensions of DACA requestors. The data may include arrests that did not result in convictions or where the charges were dropped or otherwise dismissed.

Among the findings of the release are the following:

  • Nearly 110,000 DACA requestors out of nearly 889,000 (12%) had arrest records. Offenses in these arrest records include assault, battery, rape, murder and driving under the influence.
  • Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, 85% (67,861) of them were arrested or apprehended before their most recent DACA approval.
  • Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, more than 31% (24,898) of them had more than one arrest.
  • Of all DACA requestors, 218 had more than 10 arrests. Of those, 54 had a DACA case status of “approved” as of October 2019.

“As DACA continues to be the subject of both public discourse and ongoing litigation, USCIS remains committed to ensuring transparency and that the American people are informed about those receiving DACA,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “This agency is obligated to continue accepting DACA requests from illegal aliens as a direct result of the previous administration’s decision to circumvent the laws as passed by Congress. We hope this data provides a better sense of the reality of those granted the privilege of a temporary deferral of removal action and work authorization under DACA.”

Under current DACA guidelines, illegal aliens may be considered for DACA if they have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more “non-significant” misdemeanors not arising out of the same act, omission or scheme of misconduct, and they do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. The number of arrests illegal aliens have do not necessarily disqualify them from receiving DACA as a matter of discretion.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis), and LinkedIn (/uscis).

 

What Is DACA? Is it a rule or is it prosecutorial discretion?

By

DACA illegal aliens protesting for permanent t amnesty. Photo: The Independent.

Center for Immigration Studies

Janet Napolitano’s DACA memorandum states that DACA is an “exercise of our prosecutorial discretion”..Prosecutorial discretion is not judicially reviewable.”

What Is DACA?

Is it a rule or is it prosecutorial discretion?

By John Miano on November 15, 2019I previously wrote about how the elite media has totally ignored the legal issues in its coverage of the DACA case before the Supreme Court. I thought I would fill in some of the gaps left by the press’s gross malpractice here. My only real interest in DACA is over the alien employment issue. However, more mundane issues of administrative law are likely to dominate the Supreme Court’s opinions.

A key question for the Supreme Court is “What is DACA?” The New York Times answers that question this way:

The program was introduced in 2012 by President Barack Obama as a stopgap measure that would shield from deportation people who were brought into the United States as children. The status is renewable, lasting two years at a time. The program does not provide a pathway to citizenship.

Participation in the program comes with a range of benefits. Along with permission to remain in the country, recipients can also get work permits, through which many have obtained health insurance from their employers.

To make this description complete, one needs to add that the alien has to file an application and pay a $495 fee.

In any event, this describes what DACA does, not what DACA is. So what is DACA? The answer to that question should drive the case, but the parties have tried to avoid the issue.

Janet Napolitano’s DACA memorandum states that DACA is an “exercise of our prosecutorial discretion”.

Prosecutorial discretion is integral to our system of law. Assume you are riding a crowded bus in Florida and you need to get past someone in order to get off. So you tap that person lightly on the shoulder to attract their attention. In doing so you have committed the crime of battery and could go to jail absent prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute such cases. At the same time discretion can be abusive, as in the Jeffrey Epstein matter.

If DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the case before the Supreme Court is simple. Prosecutorial discretion is not judicially reviewable. Faced with that established law, the University of California argued before the Supreme Court that when the prosecutorial discretion involves a large number of people it becomes reviewable. Justices Alito and Gorsuch (twice) asked the obvious question: What rule should the Supreme Court adopt to distinguish between prosecutorial discretion that is not reviewable and that which is. The answers were:

It’s a composite — in this case, it’s a composite of principles, a determination that — a categorical determination involving a substantial number of people …

and

Well [] — there — as I said, it’s a combination of factors which include the government inviting people to rely upon and make decisions based upon that policy, the provision of benefits connected with it, individuals making choices, and — and then — and the Heckler case — [] specifically.

These are non-answers. It is surprising the University of California did not prepare a proposed rule for the court to adopt.

Going back to Napolitano’s original memo, it states:

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law.

The memo from John Morton, director of ICE, ordering the implementation of DACA in his agency said:

As there is no right to the favorable exercise of discretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit the legal authority of DHS or any of its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.

Napolitano as plaintiff argues that DACA created reliance on the program while her memo directing the creation of the program disclaims that is creates anything to be relied on and ICE made it clear that DACA could be rescinded at any time. (I refer to the respondents as the plaintiffs because that usage is likely clearest to most readers.)

At this point, it is time to stop calling a “spade” a “gardening tool”. DACA is not an exercise in prosecutorial discretion and Napolitano’s DACA memo was just a subterfuge. To participate one has to file an application. One has to file a $495 fee. DACA has a two-year duration. One gets a work authorization. DACA does not reflect the agency looking at individual cases and deciding whether they should be prosecuted.

The chief justice picked up on exactly that:

the whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits. Both administrations have said they’re not going to deport people. So the deferred prosecution or deferred deportation, that’s not what the focus of the policy was. Yes, the other statutes provided that, but it was triggered by — by the memo.

The University of California correctly notes that the employment under DACA came from “under other unchallenged laws [i.e., regulations]”.

Indeed, that is because neither party had any incentive to question whether the regulations granting work authorizations were lawful. DACA recipients were never going to argue that the regulations that allowed them to work were unlawful. The immigration bureaucracy within DHS was not going to question whether its own regulations were lawful. When several states challenged the related DAPA program, the ability to confer work authorizations was addressed in an adversarial context.

This issue is one where amicus briefs stepped in. Four of the seven supporting the government raised the employment authorization issue that the government had neglected to raise. (See here, here, here, and my own, here.)

Unless the Supreme Court changes the rule that agency enforcement discretion is not judicially reviewable, the DACA rescission cannot be reviewed.

In any event, to be reviewed for being arbitrary and capricious, it has to be a reviewable agency action. That means a rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.

Logically, the rescission of DACA has to be the same type of agency action that created it. If it is not, that opens another string of legal argument beyond what I can address here. To that end, the courts below rejected the argument that the DACA program, created without notice and comment, had to be rescinded with notice and comment.

Which of these is the DACA? We know it is not a failure to act. License and sanction are easy ones to take off the table. An order means “a final disposition” so that one can go as well. Relief is a:

(A) grant of money, assistance, license, authority, exemption, exception, privilege, or remedy;

(B) recognition of a claim, right, immunity, privilege, exemption, or exception; or

(C) taking of other action on the application or petition of, and beneficial to, a person.

The granting of a DACA application could be relief but does not describe the DACA program.

That leaves a rule, which is:

The whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefor or of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any of the foregoing.

If we call DACA a “rule”, which is certainly its most accurate description, that creates a whole new set of issues. The courts differentiatebetween substantive rules and interpretive rules.

Read the rest here.

 

Can Immigration Solve the Problem of an Aging Society? (Not so much)

By

Photo: Miami University

“…we roughly estimate that 32 percent (13.8 million) of the people immigration has added to the country since 1990 are illegal immigrants or their progeny.”

Center for Immigration Studies

July 201By

Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler

We estimate that immigration between 1990 and 2017 added nearly 43 million people to the population, but had a minimal impact on the share of the population that is of working age. This is because immigration added to both the working-age population and to those outside of the working-age population in nearly equal proportions. We also find that post-1990 immigration had a somewhat larger impact on the ratio of workers to retirees. However, raising the retirement age by one year has as large an impact on the ratio as do the nearly 43 million post-1990 immigrants and their progeny.

Among the findings:

  • In 2017, there were 30.8 million post-1990 immigrants (legal and illegal) and 12 million of their U.S.-born children and grandchildren in the country — 42.8 million in total, or one in eight U.S. residents.
  • The 42.8 million people post-1990 immigration (legal and illegal) added to the country is larger than the combined population of 22 states.
  • While adding significantly to the population, the presence of post-1990 immigrants and their progeny only increased the working-age (16-64) share of the population from 63.9 percent to 64.4 percent in 2017.
  • Immigration had a small impact on the working-age share because immigrants arrive at all ages, grow older over time, and have children, so they added to both the working-age and those too old or too young to work in nearly equal proportions.
  • Even if the number of post-1990 immigrants and their offspring was doubled to almost 86 million, about one in four residents, it would still only have raised the working-age share to 64.8 percent — 0.9 percentage points higher than if there had been no immigration.
  • The working-age share can be seen as the best way to think about the ability of society to pay for government or support the economy, as both children and the elderly generally do not work and are supported by the labor of others.
  • Excluding children, and looking only at the number of working-age people (16-64) relative to those of retirement age shows that post 1990-immigration increased the ratio from 3.7 potential workers per potential retiree to 4.1.
  • If the retirement age were raised by just one year, assuming no immigration, the ratio of workers to retirees would be 4.1, matching the effect of post-1990 immigration.
  • Increasing the retirement age by two years, assuming no post-1990 immigration, would have increased the worker to retiree ratio to 4.5 in 2017. It would have required doubling post-1990 immigration to nearly 86 million to match this effect.
  • In terms of using immigration as a way to pay for entitlement programs, it must also be pointed out that a large share of post-1990 immigrants and their children struggle, living in or near poverty and using welfare programs at relatively high rates. This makes it difficult for them to generate a fiscal surplus that can pay for social insurance programs.
  • In 2017, 45 percent of households headed by post-1990 immigrants or their adult children used one or more major welfare programs, compared to 26 percent of native-headed households. The rates of poverty or near poverty for post-1990 immigrants and their children were 50 to 60 percent higher than that of natives.
  • While this analysis is focused on all immigrants (legal and illegal), we roughly estimate that 32 percent (13.8 million) of the people immigration has added to the country since 1990 are illegal immigrants or their progeny. Since legal and illegal immigration together have a modest impact on the working-age share or the worker-to-retiree ratio, the impact of illegal immigration by itself is very small.

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center.

Much more here.

 

 

Criminal Arrest Histories of illegal alien DACA Applicants: USCIS

By

 

DACA illegal aliens protest in front of U.S. Supreme Court, November 12, 2019. Image: Harper’s Bazaar
From USCIS
New Data Shows Criminal Arrest Histories of DACA Requestors

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released new data (PDF, 140 KB) regarding arrests and apprehensions among the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) requestor population. The data contains both criminal and civil information of those approved and denied under DACA.

The findings are part of a continuous release of information by the agency to its website on both the DACA policy and its requestor population; including most recently, data regarding ages and education levels of DACA recipients. The new data relates to arrests and apprehensions, which do not necessarily result in actual convictions.

Among the findings of the release:

  • Almost 8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others.  “Requestors” includes individuals approved and denied DACA.
  • Of those individuals whose DACA requests were approved and had one or more arrests or apprehensions, 53,792 were arrested or apprehended prior to their most recent approval.
  • Approximately 13-percent (7,814) of approved DACA requestors with an arrest had an arrest after their grant was approved and prior to renewal.
  • 54.8-percent of DACA requestors with more than one arrest (17,079) most recently had a DACA case status of “approved” as of the date the systems were queried.
  • 199 individuals who requested DACA had 10 or more arrests. Of those, 51 most recently had DACA case status of “approved,” as of the date the systems were queried.
  • Of the total 888,765 DACA requestors, 797,297 had no arrests or apprehensions, and 710, 842 were approved.

“In striving for transparency, USCIS has released a variety of information on both the DACA policy and its population as part of a continued effort to keep the public informed. As such, criminal activity of DACA requestors has long been the subject of widespread discussion and speculation, with a regrettable lack of available data until now. The truth is that we let those with criminal arrests for sexually assaulting a minor, kidnapping, human trafficking, child pornography, or even murder be provided protection from removal. Yet the courts rule that we are unable to change this policy – even though those with criminal histories are getting through the system and permitted to remain in the country, despite having a high number of arrests for any types of crimes before or after receiving DACA protection,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna.

“There are legitimate concerns over a portion of the population who have requested, and been granted, the privilege of a temporary stay of their removal under the illegal DACA policy. Until it can be repealed, this criminality data only reinforces the need for its continued review and scrutiny, which was imposed unilaterally by the Obama administration in circumventing Congress. It’s our hope that it helps the public and policy makers better understand the reality of the entire DACA population,” Cissna added.

Under current DACA policy, an individual may be considered for DACA if he or she has not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more “non-significant” misdemeanors not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of misconduct, or does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. Numbers of arrests alone do not necessarily disqualify a person from receiving DACA as a matter of discretion.

 

Last Reviewed/Updated:

91.1% of Guatemalans Migrate to the U.S. for Economic Reasons – Fewer than 1% leave because of violence or gangs

By

Center for Immigration Studies

By Kausha Luna on August 7, 2017

Last month, the Guatemalan government participated in the “Encounter with Migrants 2017”, an event that aims to bring the Guatemalan migrant community in the United States and Guatemalan entrepreneurs closer together in order to promote investment, boost productivity of remittances, and curb emigration. During the event, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Martínez noted that the majority of Guatemalans migrate to the United States for better economic opportunities.

According to the “Survey on International Migration of Guatemalans and Remittances 2016”, by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), 91.1 percent of Guatemalans emigrate to the United States for economic reasons. Per the report, 56.8 percent of Guatemalans migrate in search of better employment, 32.9 percent to improve their income, 1.2 percent to buy a home, and 0.1 percent to open businesses. (These add up to only 91 percent, though the survey report says 91.1 percent, presumably due to rounding.) Moreover, IOM found that 3.7 percent migrate for family reunification. Meanwhile, only 0.3 percent migrate due to violence; 0.2 percent migrate as a result of extortion; and 0.2 migrate because of gang problems. Read the rest here.