Defesa pela Reforma - Trabalho Infantil Migrante nos Estados Unidos
Kyle Huffman • January 11, 2024
Click here to read this article in English
Em 25 de fevereiro de 2023, o New York Times publicou um artigo convincente
da jornalista Hannah Dreier, explorando o tema da exploração de crianças migrantes por grandes corporações nos Estados Unidos.
No artigo, o The Times entrevistou mais de 100 trabalhadores infantis migrantes em 20 estados nos Estados Unidos. A amplitude e diversidade dos trabalhos realizados por essas crianças são verdadeiramente chocantes, e um número deprimente desses empregos ocorre em ambientes altamente perigosos. Há exemplos de jovens migrantes limpando frigoríficos à noite após um dia inteiro de aula, empilhando peças metálicas no Hyundai Motor Group e trabalhando em turnos de 12 horas em uma esteira transportadora embalando cereais e produtos de lanche, entre muitas outras posições perigosas e intensivas em mão de obra.
A maioria das pessoas razoáveis ouvirá essa notícia e entenderá imediatamente o quão preocupante é essa situação, vendo a necessidade urgente de fazer esforços para corrigir essas práticas injustas e horríveis. Mas o que pode ser feito para abordar essa situação?
De acordo com a correspondente do Congresso da NPR, Claudia Grisales, "Será um desafio muito, muito grande para o Congresso. Os republicanos afirmam que uma repressão à segurança na fronteira é a resposta aqui. E vários observaram que o Comitê Judiciário da Câmara começará a trabalhar em um projeto de lei republicano sobre segurança na fronteira, mas não esperamos que vá longe com um Senado e Casa Branca controlados pelos democratas. Os democratas da Câmara estão pedindo uma solução bipartidária, mas será realmente difícil para o Congresso se alinhar aqui."
Na minha opinião, abordar essas questões focando na segurança na fronteira é uma abordagem equivocada. Certamente, mudanças na segurança na fronteira podem ter um impacto positivo nessa situação negativa, mas seria muito melhor buscar uma resolução do outro lado dessa equação: responsabilizar as grandes corporações que estão contratando crianças migrantes em violação da lei. Mudanças na política de segurança da fronteira dos Estados Unidos não resolverão os desafios econômicos subjacentes que resultaram no aumento recorde de menores não acompanhados chegando à fronteira sul dos Estados Unidos. Política de separar crianças de seus pais, que já é horrível o bastante, foi aplicada pela administração presidencial anterior, e mesmo assim, um número recorde de pessoas empreendeu uma jornada traiçoeira para os Estados Unidos.
Em vez de punir crianças e famílias que buscam uma vida melhor, os Estados Unidos deveriam concentrar-se em punir empresas que obtêm lucros recordes explorando essas famílias ao violar as leis trabalhistas. Vale ressaltar que várias das empresas mencionadas nos artigos estão atualmente sob investigação do Departamento de Trabalho dos EUA, e consequências mais severas ainda podem ser vistas. No entanto, no caso da Hyundai Glovis Facility no Alabama, até agora, as únicas punições emitidas foram para as três agências de recrutamento contratadas pela Hyundai para fornecer pessoal à unidade, cada uma das quais foi multada apenas em $5.050. O uso de agências de recrutamento pela Hyundai permitiu que a empresa escapasse até agora da responsabilidade pelo lucro com o trabalho infantil ilegal, atribuindo a culpa pelas violações da lei às agências de pessoal contratadas. Se os Estados Unidos estão buscando soluções potenciais para esse problema generalizado, uma abordagem seria começar por aqui. Os Estados Unidos poderiam fechar as brechas legais existentes que permitem que grandes corporações escapem da responsabilidade por suas práticas exploratórias e, em vez disso, impor penalidades rigorosas, o que é muito mais provável de resultar em resultados positivos significativos. Além disso, penalidades financeiras severas por esse tipo de violação das leis trabalhistas poderiam ser usadas para apoiar os programas do Departamento de Saúde e Serviços Humanos dos Estados Unidos, responsáveis pelo cuidado de menores não acompanhados nos Estados Unidos.
Em 2022, o mesmo ano em que essas práticas trabalhistas foram reveladas na mídia, e as agências de recrutamento da Hyundai tomaram medidas resultando nelas tendo que pagar um total de $15.150 em penalidades, a Hyundai relatou um aumento de 47% no lucro operacional para $7,35 bilhões. Ao procurar soluções para o que são claramente grandes problemas para os Estados Unidos, talvez os Estados Unidos devessem começar fazendo com que as empresas com centenas de milhões, se não bilhões, de dólares em recursos cuidem mais de suas políticas de contratação e imponham penalidades financeiras severas por violação das leis trabalhistas ao contratar trabalhadores indocumentados e menores de idade. Nenhuma empresa que faça negócios nos Estados Unidos deveria ser capaz de lucrar bilhões de dólares explorando trabalho infantil ilegal. Aumentar a punição financeira de empresas que se envolvem nessas práticas teria o efeito duplo de dissuadir violações das leis trabalhistas tornando a punição potencial mais assustadora do que o potencial de lucro e, ao mesmo tempo, criar uma nova fonte de financiamento para apoiar os programas encarregados de cuidar desses indivíduos vulneráveis, utilizando quaisquer penalidades financeiras impostas.
Este blog não se destina a fornecer aconselhamento jurídico e nada aqui deve ser interpretado como estabelecimento de um relacionamento advogado-cliente. Por favor, agende uma consulta com um advogado de imigração antes de agir com base em qualquer informação lida aqui.
On March 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented a policy update that limits gender marker selections on all immigration forms and systems to two biological sexes: male and female. This change eliminates the option for applicants to select a non-binary or “X” gender marker—an option that had previously been permitted on some forms. While USCIS emphasizes that this update does not change who qualifies for immigration benefits, it may significantly impact how certain applications—particularly asylum claims based on gender identity-related persecution—are understood and evaluated. What Has Changed? Under the revised policy, applicants may now only choose “Male” or “Female” when completing USCIS forms. The ability to select a non-binary or third-gender option is no longer available. Applicants may still request to change their gender marker with USCIS, but only within the male/female binary. Supporting documentation, such as medical or legal records, is not required to make the change. This means that transgender individuals can still align their gender marker with their identity—if it falls within the two binary categories—but non-binary individuals are no longer represented. The change follows guidance issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for greater consistency in the collection of sex and gender data across federal agencies. Impact on Asylum Applicants This policy update is especially important for individuals applying for asylum based on persecution related to their gender identity. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is available to people who have suffered persecution—or fear future persecution—based on their membership in a “particular social group.” This includes people targeted for being transgender, gender non-conforming, or otherwise not aligning with socially expected gender roles in their home country. Although the legal standard for asylum remains unchanged, the removal of the non-binary gender marker could make it harder for some applicants to clearly present and document their identity. In asylum cases, credibility and clarity are crucial. The ability to accurately reflect one’s gender identity on official forms can play an important role in establishing the foundation of a persecution claim. Now, applicants who identify as non-binary or outside the traditional male/female categories may be forced to select a gender that does not align with their lived experience. This could lead to confusion in their case file or require additional explanation during interviews or hearings. This policy could weaken the strength of some asylum claims—not because the underlying facts have changed, but because the official forms now fail to reflect the applicant’s true identity. For example: A non-binary person applying for asylum after being targeted in their home country may now have to select “Male” or “Female” on their asylum application, despite not identifying as either. This mismatch may lead adjudicators to question the applicant’s identity, possibly weakening the strength of the claim or requiring added clarification and documentation. In defensive asylum cases—where applicants are in removal proceedings—such inconsistencies could create unnecessary hurdles and complicate the evidentiary presentation. What Can Applicants Do? Despite the change, individuals can still pursue asylum based on gender identity. The underlying eligibility criteria remain the same. However, applicants should be prepared to clearly explain any differences between their stated identity and the gender marker required on USCIS forms. Applicants are encouraged to: Include a personal declaration explaining their gender identity in detail and how it relates to their fear of persecution. Provide evidence such as affidavits, country condition reports, or expert testimony that supports the claim. Work with an experienced immigration attorney who can help present the claim effectively and prepare for any questions that might arise from the new form limitations. The new USCIS policy on gender markers may seem like a technical update, but for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution, it has real implications. While individuals are still legally eligible to seek protection, the limitation to binary gender options could make it more difficult to fully and clearly present their case. If you or someone you know is facing immigration challenges related to gender identity—or is concerned about how this policy may impact an asylum claim—please contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced immigration attorneys. We’re here to help ensure your voice is heard and your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
For international business owners and entrepreneurs engaged in cross-border trade with the United States , the opportunity to expand operations and establish a physical presence in the U.S. may be more accessible than expected. The E-1 Treaty Trader Visa is specifically designed to facilitate this type of business activity and offers a strategic pathway for qualifying individuals to live and work in the United States while managing or developing trade relationships. While 2025 has brought a trend of changes in immigration policy, the E-1 visa continues to stand out as a viable and welcoming option . Despite increased scrutiny across various immigration categories, this visa remains suitable for those involved in consistent, qualifying trade with the U.S. Its structure and purpose align well with current business realities, making it a stable choice even amid policy shifts. The E-1 visa is available to nationals of countries that maintain a treaty of commerce and navigation with the United States . To qualify, applicants must demonstrate that they are engaged in substantial trade—defined as a continuous flow of sizable international transactions—primarily between their home country and the U.S. Unlike investment-based visas, the E-1 visa does not require a fixed monetary threshold. Instead, it emphasizes active commercial exchange, such as the regular transfer of goods, services, or technology. This visa is applicable across a wide range of industries , including but not limited to manufacturing, logistics, professional services, consulting, finance, tourism, and technology. If more than 50% of your international trade is with the United States, and the business activity is consistent and well-documented, the E-1 visa may be a strong fit for your current business model. In addition to its flexibility, the E-1 visa is renewable as long as the trade activity continues. It also extends benefits to eligible family members: spouses and unmarried children under 21 may accompany the principal visa holder, and spouses are eligible to apply for U.S. work authorization, offering added support and financial opportunity for the family. This visa category is particularly well-suited for business professionals who are already operating in international markets and looking to formalize or expand their presence in the U.S. It rewards active engagement, proven commercial performance, and long-term trade partnerships. If you are currently engaged in trade with the United States and are considering expanding your business operations, the E-1 Treaty Trader Visa may provide a clear and effective route forward. Our attorneys at Santos Lloyd Law Firm are here to help you assess your qualifications and guide you through each stage of the process with clarity, strategy, and confidence.
