Colombia lower house approves pension reform, again
BOGOTA, June 28 (Reuters) - Colombia's lower house approved on Saturday, for the second time, a pension reform supported by leftist President Gustavo Petro, after the constitutional court ordered a repetition of the ballot because of procedural irregularities.
The court's June decision did not rule on the bill's constitutionality but required the lower house to vote again on the version approved by the Senate, saying there was not enough debate held ahead of the first vote in June 2024.
The bill was backed by 97 lawmakers on Saturday, while one voted against it. The measure was supposed to come into force in July but will not be valid until the court approves it, the court ruling said.
The bill is meant to strengthen state pension fund Colpensiones by requiring those who earn less than $800 per month to save with the fund. It ensures payments for those without sufficient retirement savings, or with no savings at all.
The legislation, which reduces the number of weeks women who have children must accumulate in order to be eligible for pensions, will not affect people who have already notched enough weeks to be within striking distance of retirement.
It does not change Colombia's pension age, which is 62 for men and 57 for women.
The government estimates that some 2.6 million older adults will benefit from the payments to those with no or insufficient pension savings.
Petro's ambitious economic and social reforms have faced uphill battles in Congress, though lawmakers in June backed a labor reform similar to an original proposal backed by Petro's government which was initially rejected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 hours ago
- Reuters
Colombia lower house approves pension reform, again
BOGOTA, June 28 (Reuters) - Colombia's lower house approved on Saturday, for the second time, a pension reform supported by leftist President Gustavo Petro, after the constitutional court ordered a repetition of the ballot because of procedural irregularities. The court's June decision did not rule on the bill's constitutionality but required the lower house to vote again on the version approved by the Senate, saying there was not enough debate held ahead of the first vote in June 2024. The bill was backed by 97 lawmakers on Saturday, while one voted against it. The measure was supposed to come into force in July but will not be valid until the court approves it, the court ruling said. The bill is meant to strengthen state pension fund Colpensiones by requiring those who earn less than $800 per month to save with the fund. It ensures payments for those without sufficient retirement savings, or with no savings at all. The legislation, which reduces the number of weeks women who have children must accumulate in order to be eligible for pensions, will not affect people who have already notched enough weeks to be within striking distance of retirement. It does not change Colombia's pension age, which is 62 for men and 57 for women. The government estimates that some 2.6 million older adults will benefit from the payments to those with no or insufficient pension savings. Petro's ambitious economic and social reforms have faced uphill battles in Congress, though lawmakers in June backed a labor reform similar to an original proposal backed by Petro's government which was initially rejected.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
How banana worker strikes over pensions triggered a state of emergency in Panama
Workers have plunged Panama into crisis after the government announced plans to phase out a popular retirement scheme. The Latin American country has declared a state of emergency in the north western Bocas del Toro province after controversial pension reforms sparked widespread protests. The government temporarily suspended constitutional rights and imposed internet blackouts following more than a month of strikes and road blocks which led to clashes with police. Local reports suggest at least one person has died, more than 300 have been arrested and dozens injured. The protesters warn they face poverty in retirement because of a new pension law signed in March. Strikes began in April, initially led by banana workers. Bananas are one of Panama's main exports along with shrimps and copper ore. The crisis escalated earlier this month after banana giant, Chiquita, laid off all of its 6,500 workers in the country. Chiquita has said the protests cost the firm at least $75m (£55m), with almost one million boxes of bananas lost, causing 'irreversible damage'. The deep social unrest exposes the perils of reforming a generous pension system in a country with limited trust in the government. For years, Panama has tried and failed to overhaul its defined benefit scheme in order to tackle a deficit now worth over $650m. As far back as 2006, the International Monetary Fund warned the scheme was facing crisis due to an ageing population and the level of benefits which it described as 'among the highest in Latin America' – and generous even by European standards. Under the scheme, the pension contributions of the working population fund the benefits of current retirees, rather than their own future pensions. Both private and public sector employees are covered by the system. Those who have made 20 years of contributions are eligible for 60pc of their average monthly earnings in retirement based on their highest paid 10 years. But this system has become unsustainable due to an ageing population. The number of over 65s in Panama has tripled in the last three decades from just over 100,000 at the end of the 20th century to more than 400,000 today. This means a growing number of retirees are dependent on the pension contributions of a shrinking pool of workers. To stop the scheme from sinking further into the red, Panama created a new mixed pension system in 2008. But without further reform, the deficit was still predicted to reach almost 4pc of GDP by 2045. In March, President Jose Raul Mulino signed into law reforms merging the two systems into a state-managed defined contribution scheme. Under the reforms, employee contributions will remain unchanged at 9.75pc of wages, employer contributions will rise gradually from 12.25pc to 15.25pc by 2029 and the government will pay almost $1bn a year to address any shortfalls. In addition, workers are promised a minimum pension of about $145 dollars a month. The government has claimed this is generous compared to the universal basic pensions available in other countries in Latin America. But workers have said the pension reforms will leave them in poverty in retirement. This is because their income will depend on investment performance as well as their own contributions. Mariano Thompson, a Latin America pensions expert, of insurance company WTW, said: 'An individual account system requires consistent contributions and reduced volatility in both national and global financial markets to ensure a decent return, as the benefit depends on the funds accumulated by retirement.' Many Panamanian workers are employed in the informal sector for at least a portion of their working career, potentially limiting the number of contributions they can make, and therefore, the size of their pension pot. Low trust in the government is another reason why the reform has triggered social unrest. Mr Thompson said: 'While the government justifies the reforms due to the growing deficit of the system, union protests are driven by a lack of trust in the government's ability to fulfil its promised contributions and minimum benefits.' He continued: 'These groups do not trust individual account schemes and would prefer a defined benefit model, which they regard as a solidarity-based system.' Workers are also suspicious about future retirement age increases, he added. The reform maintained the retirement age at 62 for men and 57 for women – but scheduled a review in six years' time. Pension reform is not the only thing motivating the protests. President Mulino has become increasingly unpopular for signing a Memorandum of Understanding, which gives US military vessels free passage and allows US soldiers to train on Panamanian soil. The government has insisted this does not impact Panama's sovereignty or the neutrality deal. But it has provoked outrage from Panamanians who accuse the president of cosying up to President Donald Trump, who has previously threatened to seize back control of the Panama Canal.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Some immigrants chose to leave the US. But is ‘self-deportation' really becoming a thing?
Their stories have emerged in new reports and on social media feeds: individuals and families, sometimes of mixed immigration status, who have lived in the United States for years and are now choosing to leave. Or, as it's sometimes called, 'self-deport'. There was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's former deputy communications director Diego de la Vega, who lived as an undocumented New Yorker for 23 years before he and his wife left for Colombia in December, shortly after Donald Trump's election. Or the decorated army veteran, a permanent resident in the US for nearly 50 years, who left for South Korea this week after being targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice). Or newlyweds Alfredo Linares, an undocumented chef, and his wife, Raegan Klein, a US citizen, who recently moved their lives from Los Angeles to Mexico. But experts warn that just because we see stories of so-called 'self-deportation', we should be careful about believing there's any real trend. Not only does taking this route create potentially serious legal and financial issues for those leaving, convincing the public that a lot of people are self-deporting is also part of Trump's larger strategy to create an illusion of higher deportation numbers than he can truly deliver. The emphasis on self-deportation is clearly a recognition by the administration that they can't really accomplish what they've promised, says Alexandra Filindra, professor of political science and psychology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. 'It's way too costly to identify, arrest, process and deport large numbers of immigrants, especially when there are so many court fights and so many organizations that are willing to support the rights of immigrants.' Filindra says Trump is trying to take the cheap route, hoping his performative politics – everything from the widespread Ice raids across the US to sending the national guard to Los Angeles – will get people to pack up their own accord. It's impossible to put a precise number on how many immigrants have decided to leave the country since Trump took power. But for those who have, the decision is deeply personal. Linares, who was born in Mexico, still thinks of California as home because it was where he came as a teen and lived undocumented for decades. Klein was born in Canada and became a naturalized US citizen nearly two decades ago. They married last year in Los Angeles. 'We received a small amount of money for our wedding,' Klein said. 'We planned to use it to start Alfredo's immigration process.' After Trump won, though, Klein was the first to have second thoughts. 'I didn't like Trump in his first term, and then when he got away with 34 felonies and was elected again as the president, I just was like, well, come on! I mean, he's going to do any and everything he wants to do. No one's holding him accountable for anything, so I'm not sitting around.' Linares – as well as most of their family and friends – thought Klein was overreacting. The couple met with three immigration attorneys. Though he married a legal US citizen, Linares crossed the border as a teen illegally. Attempting to rectify his status would be expensive and take untold years of waiting – with no guarantee of a path to legal residency or citizenship. Furthermore, beginning the legal process to adjust his status would put him on the government's radar and may have even increased his risk of deportation. In fact, immigration court has become a dragnet of sorts. People lawfully going through the process of becoming a citizen have been showing up for mandatory court dates and getting arrested by Ice officers outside the courtrooms. Klein was eventually able to persuade Linares that they should take their small nest egg and leave while they still could. They created a video about their departure to Mexico that was equal parts love story and epic adventure. 'Apparently our video went really, really viral,' said Klein, who kept busy as a freelance television producer until a big industry slowdown a couple of years ago. Friends started contacting them and saying influencers were reposting their video. Major media outlets soon amplified the newlyweds' saga. Klein and Linares now dream of opening a restaurant together in Mexico. They say they don't think of their situation as self-deportation but rather 'voluntary departure' – the government didn't force them out or pay them to leave, they made the decision themselves. Filindra also takes issue with the phrase 'self-deportation', and warns against the rebranding of an old phenomenon known as return migration. 'Return migration has always been a phenomenon,' she says. Filindra points out that migration levels between the US and Mexico are 'practically zero' because so many people eventually go back home to Mexico, so the numbers of those arriving and those going back all but even out. According to the Pew Research Center, an estimated 870,000 Mexican migrants came to the US between 2013 and 2018, while an estimated 710,000 left the US for Mexico during that period. During the decade prior, however, more migrants left the US for Mexico than came here. 'The same was true in the 20th century with European migrants who often spent 20 or 30 years here, made enough money to retire and then went back home,' says Filindra. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion But this isn't exactly self-deportation, and the phrase itself has a problematic history. Though now being used in serious policy discussions, it was created as a joke by comedians Lalo Alcaraz and Esteban Zul in the early 90s. The duo posed as conservative Latinos supporting Hispanics Against a Liberal Takeover (Halto). They even invented a militant self-deportationist and sent fake press releases to media outlets promoting satirical self-deportation centers. In 2012 Mitt Romney, seemingly unaware of – or perhaps unbothered by – the comedic roots of the term, started using 'self-deportation' during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Now the US Department of Homeland Security has latched on to the term. In May, the DHS claimed that 64 people took a government-funded flight to Colombia and Honduras as part of its new program encouraging undocumented immigrants to 'self-deport'. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is overseeing the program, which it calls 'assisted voluntary return' (AVR). Undocumented people can apply for AVR using the CBP Home app. Though the details remain murky, applicants supposedly receive a $1,000 stipend and travel assistance home. However, according to a source familiar with the program who requested anonymity, approximately 1,000 individuals have been referred by the US government to the IOM through the AVR program, but to date the agency has facilitated the departure of 'only a few' people. Immigration experts say this also squares with what they are seeing. 'A thousand dollars is chump change when it comes to giving up a life in the United States,' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at American Immigration Council. 'The majority of undocumented immigrants have been here for more than 15 years. They have a job. Many have family here, some own property. Some run their own businesses.' Furthermore, many immigrants are here because of dire situations and life-threatening conditions in their home countries. They have nowhere to return to. Immigration attorneys also warn that because the Trump administration hasn't been transparent, too little is known about the program to trust it. In fact, an additional directive from the administration on 9 June announced that the DHS would 'forgive failure to depart fines for illegal aliens who self-deport through the CBP Home app' – though most people would have no idea that fines are levied or how much those fines are. Even with the administration's recent Ice raids and the supposed sweetening of the self-deportation deal, Filindra says most migrants will still not just leave. 'What is more likely is that people who have a non-permanent status and need to visit immigration offices to extend their status, or those who have hearings, will not go out of fear of being arrested and deported.' And she says we should all hope that the administration's obsession with all types of deportation is a flop. If too many immigrants are forced, threatened or incentivized to leave, industries from agriculture to healthcare will take a huge hit. 'Economically, this could be devastating for the US,' said Filindra. Linares and Klein also warn that while they believe they made the right decision, leaving home is rough. Linares describes it as a rollercoaster. 'The people have embraced us in Mexico, but it's also been a challenge to figure out how things work here.' He's still trying to get his Mexican driver's license and passport. And he misses his LA friends, co-workers and even Griffith Park, his favorite place to hike with his dog. 'It was 20 years of my life there that I dedicated to building something. It's gone.' After going public with her story, Klein expected to hear from many undocumented people or mixed-status families choosing, or at least considering, leaving the US on their own terms – but so far, she hasn't. 'I don't think a lot of undocumented people are leaving right now,' she says. 'But if something doesn't change – like if Trump isn't put into check very soon – I think you will see a lot more people abandoning the US in 2026.'
