Spanish
The official discourse is clear: no person in an irregular migratory condition can remain in the country. This is repeated by the authorities, this is how detention and deportation operations are justified. However, the documents signed by that same State reveal a parallel policy that contradicts the public message.
In April 2023, the Dominican Republic signed an agreement with the World Bank to execute a donation of US$4.6 million plus RD$270 million destined for a project that registers irregular immigrants, trains foreign women, and promotes their inclusion in social structures, without requiring regular immigration status.
The project, called "Multi-sectoral Response to Human Mobility", involves the National Migration Institute, the General Directorate of Migration, the Ministry of Women, SIUBEN, Supérate, the Ministry of Economy, the National Statistics Office and DIECOM.
In practice, while one part of the State carries out operations to deport irregular migrants, another develops an internationally funded program to identify, protect, and integrate that same population. Both lines are executed simultaneously under the same institutional framework.
The project started in June 2023 and was extended until July 2026. According to official reports, more than US$3 million have already been disbursed.
Destination of the funds
The National Migration Institute leads the project with US$1.4 million for consultancies, technical services, and institutional strengthening. SIUBEN received more than US$1 million to adapt its platform and incorporate 85,000 foreign households into the State's social base, even if they do not have a Dominican ID or documentation from their country of origin. The reports acknowledge that, according to current law, these people would not be eligible for social programs, but propose creating legal mechanisms to allow their inclusion.You may be interested in: The high cost of lawsuits against the Dominican State | De Último Minuto
The General Directorate of Migration, responsible for detentions and deportations, has been allocated US$380,000 to reinforce protocols and make the operations "more humane", according to the documents. DIECOM received US$190,000 for communication campaigns aimed at promoting coexistence and modifying public perception of migration, including social media monitoring and audiovisual production. The Ministry of Women executes a component for immigrant women regardless of their status. Reports indicate that 50% of the women in shelters are Haitian, and the project includes training, document translation, and equipment provision. A critical element of the agreement establishes that no person can be excluded due to their migratory status and that the data collected should not be shared with the General Directorate of Migration. This clause is expressly stated in the documents.Perception Management
The purchase plan reveals that the funds do not reinforce the border or increase immigration controls. They are aimed at managing the social perception of migration. Among the approved items: US$85,000 in educational audiovisual material, US$83,000 in software to monitor social networks and digital media, and US$85,000 in a national survey on migratory perception, still pending. A pilot "peaceful coexistence" strategy between local and migrant communities (US$29,000) was also approved, and the General Directorate of Migration received US$68,400 for mobile biometric equipment in border permits.The Contradiction
No component of the project proposes to strengthen the border, increase controls, or detain irregular migrants. Planning focuses on inclusion, awareness-raising, and institutional adaptation. The result is a contradiction between public discourse and written commitments. While immigration control and compliance with the law are demanded, the State commits to not excluding irregular immigrants and to integrating them into social structures that many Dominican citizens do not have access to. Both narratives are executed with public funds under the same institutional framework, evidencing a fragmented migration policy where discourse and documents do not coincide.
