Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Are Migrants’ Rights (still) Human Rights? Protection & Exclusion amid the Crisis of Liberalism in the Americas

By Farid Dabour

An international group of scholars researching Latin American migration politics convened on February 12–13, 2026 at the Latin American Institute (LAI-FU), with participants from UNLA (Argentina), Freie Universität Berlin, UNU-CRIS, TU Berlin, Bielefeld University, the University of Bristol, Durham University, Leuphana University Lüneburg, CONICET, SOAS, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), Leibniz University Hannover, and Queen Margaret University Edinburgh.

In February 2026, scholars from Latin America and Europe met at the Latin American Institute of Freie Universität Berlin for the workshop Are Migrants’ Rights (still) Human Rights? Protection & Exclusion amid the Crisis of Liberalism in the Americas, organized by Professor Luisa Feline Freier (FU Berlin) and the Department of Political Science. The conference focused on a timely question: what happens to migrants’ rights when liberal democracies are under pressure, hemispheric orders are shifting, and the authority of human rights institutions is increasingly contested? The contributors emphasized that Latin America ought to be central to debates on migration governance, as the region presents a laboratory for liberal policy “experiments” in the context of executive-dominated policymaking, and increasingly securitized migration discourses.

A group of people sitting in a conference room, listening to a presentation.
Conference impressions. Photo by the Institute for Latin American Studies (LAI), Free University of Berlin.

I. Where we stand: Migration as a reflection of structural crises

The conference was opened by a keynote from Pablo Ceriani Cernadas (UNLA, Argentina), former Vice-Chair of the UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (202425). He provided an overview of the legal and political history of migration policy development in Latin America, tracing the shift from rights-based policies to regressive, populist counter-reforms. Ceriani Cernadas concluded that between 2002 and 2017, Latin America experienced an exceptionally progressive phase in immigration law and policy, followed by a clear regressive shift from 2017 on. New entry visas, returns, militarization, and (the threat of) accelerated deportations characterize the present situation. Mirroring public discourses and policies in other regions, this trend is accompanied by growing xenophobia and the instrumentalization of migrants as a scapegoat for broader political interests.

During the two days of the conference, the experts highlighted how migration in Latin America is unfolding in a context of profound social inequality, political instability, and violence. Human mobility in Latin America is also characterized by pronounced regional asymmetries: while Mexico and Central America often function as transit zones and recipients of deportations, South America, especially in the context of the Venezuelan exodus, has become a central host region. While both progressive and restrictive policies have diffused across borders, the region lacks a coordinated approach to migration governance.

At the same time, migratory patterns themselves have changed. Not only has the number of migrants in Latin America risen sharply, but migration dynamics have also become more complex and riskier. Migration routes are becoming more diverse, mobility is increasingly multi-directional, and vulnerable groups, such as women, families, and children are more frequently on the move. Against this backdrop, the development of migration governance in Latin America over the last two decades has developed within the field of tension of liberal innovation and regressive counter-movement.

1. The fragility of the liberal experiment

Residence rights were extended, and inclusion into different systems, such as labor, health, and education, was promoted. The Cartagena definition of refugees – established in 1984 to include people fleeing generalized violence, civil conflict, or massive human rights violations, beyond the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention – served as the basis for more expansive refugee protection. At times, Latin America appeared to be a counter-model to restrictive policies in the Global North and was sometimes promoted as such by several governments in the region.

However, this liberalization remained fragile. Institutional harmonization, legal enforcement, and strategies against xenophobia remained limited. Progress depended heavily on the political will of the executive branch and thus on changing political circumstances. As Omar Hammoud-Gallego (Durham University) concluded for the area of refugee protection, Latin America’s apparent liberal turn was largely symbolic: despite generous legislation, weak state capacity and political shifts have led to inconsistent implementation, leaving many refugees, especially Venezuelans, without effective protection. The liberal phase can therefore also be seen as a legislative experiment without stable institutional, i.e. bureaucratic anchoring.

2. The securitization of migration

Since the mid-2010s, many Latin American countries have seen a regressive development in migration governance. More restrictive visa regimes, protracted asylum procedures, and border militarization since the COVID-19 pandemic have been accompanied by a new political framing. Migration is increasingly portrayed as a national security problem and has thus become part of a broader politics of fear and “othering” of migrants. These narratives go hand in hand with an unprecedented rise in xenophobia, especially toward Venezuelan migrants.

Can these developments be ascribed to the new executive and legislative shift to the right in the region? Evidence suggests otherwise. Rather, what we see is a trajectory of a contradictory coexistence of liberal norms and restrictive practices. While such attention existed since the early days of policy liberalization, progressive laws now often remain in place, but are undermined by restrictive implementation. What is new is that migration itself is being increasingly politically instrumentalized, serving as a tool for domestic politics and agendas. Progress, restrictiveness and regression in migration policy thus exist simultaneously.

Argentina, once a pioneer of human rights-based migration policy, is now managing migration under the logic of state security. Similar dynamics can be found in Chile and Ecuador. The case of Chile, before José Antonio Kast’s took office, exemplifies how the migration securitization was “sugar-coated” through the use of language invoking humanitarianism and legality, while mobility was simultaneously governed through exceptions, discretionary powers, and deterrence, as Marcia Vera-Espinoza (Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh) pointed out. Ecuador’s legal framework on the right to migrate is one of the most progressive in the region. However, in practice, migration is increasingly treated as a security issue. As Daniela Célleri (Leibniz University Hannover) argued, this tension is shaped less by economic competition and more by institutional constraints, bureaucratic dynamics, and rising xenophobia rather. While rights-based and humanitarian discourses remain central, migration governance increasingly relies on deterrence, exceptionality, and security-driven practices across the political spectrum.

Leiza Brumat (UNU-CRIS) discussed South American border regimes and migration. South America has one of the most far-reaching regimes for facilitated mobility and protection of migrants in the world, yet at the same time it is militarizing its borders. Border militarization does not spell the end of liberal migration policy; rather, as Brumat argued, it has always been an integral part of it. Mobility is regulated selectively and presented as a protective measure. Rights and control are not seen as opposites, but as practices that mutually legitimize one another in order to safeguard the sovereignty and rights of the national political community.

3. Venezuelans: between (failed) integration and return

María Gabriela Trompetero (University of Bielefeld) discussed the Venezuelan exodus as a central test case for regional migration governance. Displacement from Venezuela represents one of the largest mobility crises worldwide and acts as a catalyst for regional tensions. While many Venezuelans have achieved a certain degree of socioeconomic integration – in some cases through access to legal status, labor markets, and basic services – these gains remain unevenly distributed and fragile across host countries. At the same time, the limited implementation and institutionalization of rights-based measures, combined with increasingly restrictive and security-oriented migration frameworks, have led to persistent legal and structural barriers that undermine prospects for sustainable long-term integration. Additionally, Venezuelans are affected by xenophobia and stigmatization in many host contexts, which, together with broader political dynamics, further complicates integration processes.

While the arrest of Nicolás Maduro in 2026 has raised hopes among the Venezuelan diaspora, migrants’ reactions in terms of their intentions to return remain deeply ambivalent. Expectations of return depend not only on political change, but also on credible democratic guarantees, economic recovery, and the dismantling of authoritarian power structures. Without these conditions, large-scale voluntary return is unlikely, and deportations and onward migration will continue to shape mobility patterns, Trompetero argued. At the same time, the Venezuelan case highlights migrants as active political and social actors whose transnational networks, knowledge, and civic engagement could play a key role in peacebuilding and post-crisis reconstruction.

4. Migration governance beyond the nation state

Migration is not controlled on the national or federal executive level alone. In her bottom-up analysis of Brazilian migration governance, Clara Peter (SOAS) argued that cities, local authorities, and bureaucracies also play a crucial role in governing migration policy challenges. Brazil is another case of growing protection gaps between liberal migration laws and their implementation at the national level, which cities have begun to fill through bottom-up legal innovation, expanding and de facto implementing migrants’ rights beyond formal legal status, thus challenging the nation-state as the primary site of migration governance.

At the same time, migration governance is increasingly shaped by international mobility agreements. Diego Acosta (University of Bristol) highlighted the global expansion of free movement regimes, which create legal pathways for entry, residence, and work between participating states. With more than half of UN member states participating in some form of free movement regime, Acosta argued that such agreements represent an important yet still understudied dimension of global migration governance, including in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In this context, new legal categories are developing, for example regarding climate-related mobility. As Diogo Andreola Serraglio (PIK) stated, Latin America has emerged as a global frontrunner in the normative recognition of climate-related human mobility, integrating human rights, migration governance, and climate adaptation into innovative regional and national frameworks. Although significant gaps remain in implementation and long-term protection pathways, migration in Latin America is increasingly linked to broader debates on structural vulnerability, climate justice, and social transformation. Lila García (Leuphana University Lüneburg) showed that the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/2025 marks a turning point by explicitly linking climate change, human mobility, and human rights, expanding protection obligations to include people who are mobilized, immobilized, or at risk of displacement due to climate impacts.

A group of people in front of the logo of LAI, smiling towards the camera.
Group photo of the participants. Photo by the Institute for Latin American Studies (LAI), Free University of Berlin.

II. Where should research go from here?

1. Latin America as a laboratory for liberalization

Future research should continue to study Latin American migration governance as a laboratory for studying policy liberalization in practice. Migration governance in Latin America unfolds in highly presidential systems, where executive decrees often play a greater role than public opinion. This makes the region particularly suited to examining the gap between liberalism as an ideology and liberalism as a set of political practices. Understanding how liberal norms are translated, reshaped, or bypassed through executive action will be a key task for future research.

2. Rethinking the region through comparison

Additionally, the workshop participants stressed the need for more systematic comparative research within the Americas. Too often, Latin America is treated as a homogeneous region, despite significant differences between Mexico, Central America, and South America. Countries such as Costa Rica, for example, remain understudied despite their growing relevance. At the same time, migration dynamics across the region cannot be understood without situating them within the broader context of U.S. migration and deportation policies, as Günther Maihold (SWP) pinpointed. Studying the Americas as a diverse but interconnected migration system therefore emerged as a central research priority.

3. From state-centric to multi-actor migration governance

Another recurring theme concerned the need to move beyond state-centric approaches. Migration governance in the region increasingly involves a wide range of actors, including cities, local governments, bureaucracies, international organizations, norm entrepreneurs, and even criminal non-state actors. The role of cities in expanding migrants’ rights in Brazil illustrates how local governance can reshape migration policy from the bottom up. Future research must therefore adopt multi-level and multi-actor perspectives that capture the complex governance landscape in which migration policies are made and implemented.

4. Migrants as agents of social and political transformation

The conference discussions also highlighted a growing shift toward studying migrants as political and social actors rather than passive recipients of policy. Questions of self-identification, integration as a potential site of conflict, and migrants as agents of peacebuilding and social cohesion were raised. Research on climate-induced mobility further underscores the importance of understanding migrants’ agency in contexts of environmental change. Expanding this perspective promises to fundamentally reshape migration research in the region.

5. Migration, securitization, deportations and global culture wars

Migration policies in Latin America are increasingly embedded in global cultural and geopolitical conflicts. The experts emphasized the growing importance of securitization, xenophobia, inequality, and geopolitical tensions in shaping migration governance. Future research should therefore analyze migration governance as embedded in broader geopolitical tensions, and “culture wars”, rather than as a standalone policy field. This includes exploring links between migration, reproductive rights, colonial citizenship, and global security discourses. The discussions also pointed to the urgent need for more research on deportation and border regimes. Deportations occur not only at international borders but also within national territories, linking border studies with processes of internal securitization and control. Understanding deportation practices, return policies, and their social consequences will be crucial for developing a more comprehensive picture of migration governance in the Americas.

6. A changing research landscape

Finally, the participants noted that the research landscape itself is changing. Funding for migration research in the United States and Latin America has declined significantly, while European interest in the region remains limited. At the same time, new research avenues are emerging, including the growing presence of Latin American migrants in Europe. These shifts raise important questions about future research agendas, collaborations, and funding priorities. In summary, migration in Latin America touches on fundamental questions of democratic belonging, state capacity to act, and social solidarity. The question of whether migrant rights continue to be considered human rights is ultimately inseparable from the question of what role human rights as a whole will play in an increasingly uncertain world.


About the Author

Farid Dabour earned his bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Dresden University of Technology, where he researched the representation of Islam and Muslims in German school curricula. He works as a journalist and documentary filmmaker in Berlin, focusing on the lived experiences of displacement, loss, and memory. In October 2025, he began a master’s degree in Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. His academic interests include global refugee movements and migration control regimes, with a particular focus on how borders, policies, and institutions shape mobility and belonging. His research also engages with Palestinian history in Germany, with a particular focus on Palestinian history in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). His work combines journalism, documentary filmmaking, and academic research, seeking to connect personal narratives with broader political and historical dynamics.


Citation: Farid Dabour, Are Migrants’ Rights (still) Human Rights? Protection & Exclusion amid the Crisis of Liberalism in the Americas, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 21.04.2026, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/65261


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (April 21, 2026). Are Migrants’ Rights (still) Human Rights? Protection & Exclusion amid the Crisis of Liberalism in the Americas. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved May 11, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/163ne


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.