In this process, the work was based on a dialogic method of consensus building that allowed to resume and recapitulate different experiences to integrate a first set of priority issues and emphasis that would allow generating a work base in the Forum and with a methodological scheme of reflection. -action to develop proposals from the experience of migrant leaders; same that at a later time would be enriched with the participation of representatives of the academy and civil society. With these feedback proposals, the dialogue began with representatives of the public function to seek strategies and establish agreements related to the lines of action and collaboration, in a process that is expected to take place over two years of work.

Prior to the event and with the aim of establishing a precedent during the discussions, conceptual documents were prepared for each of the topics, showing the background, the current context, the challenges and a series of recommendations that will serve as a basis for analyzing the proposed topics. .

During the first day of work, the migrant leaders divided into two groups to analyze the four themes. The first group worked on the Political Rights of Migrants Abroad and Immigration Reform, while the second group discussed Access to public resources for local social and economic development and Strengthening binational organizations of society. civil.

Initially, each group focused its efforts on identifying the difficulties of each topic, these being transcribed and projected before all the attendees. Once the migrants expressed those difficulties that they considered important, each of the interventions was reviewed, modifying them by consensus if necessary.

Once the review was completed, areas of opportunity were sought that would allow each of the emphases to be addressed, with the aim of having sufficient elements to structure an advocacy and joint work agenda with the authorities. Subsequently, each group prepared a first round of proposals that would be presented the next day to public officials.

After a break, the attendees were asked to change their places in the groups, so that the first group reviewed the progress of the second group and vice versa, focusing on the initial proposals with the aim of enriching them from their perspectives. This dynamic allowed all attendees to participate in the discussions of the four themes.

Given the large number of proposals that were generated and the existence of coincidences in them, an exercise was carried out to group them into general themes, seeking to concretize the general ideas in the least number of possible proposals.

The activities of the first day concluded with a plenary session in which the migrants discussed each group of proposals, trying to improve the wording without losing the essence of the ideas expressed. Despite the efforts to end the session on time with the agreed proposals for the four topics, it was not possible to meet this objective, so four commissions were created in charge of reviewing and perfecting the lines of action during the night. These commissions were made up of highly linked migrant leaders on each issue, who appointed two coordinators for each commission, who would serve as spokespersons to present the results and agreements.