It was an otherwise calm Sunday on 25 January 2025 – that was until Colombian President Gustavo Petro and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, swapped a flurry of messages that sparked a diplomatic crisis.
On the X platform, Petro blamed Trump for treating Colombians as “criminals” and said he would not allow deportation flights. The response was quick: Trump suspended consular visa processing, revoked visas, and implemented tariffs – moves Petro said he would replicate.
As someone who studies migration policy in the Americas, and particularly how foreign policy collaborations can be used to manage human migration, I was not surprised by the mingling of foreign policy and migration management. The speed of the exchange, however, was stunning.
Petro eventually stepped back, and while critics argued that he made several missteps as the conflict escalated, his fundamental position of refusing to let any removal flights land was sound.
With a burst of 30 executive actions, Trump completely undid the migration management system and US immigration policies set in place by his predecessors, leaving people with no way of seeking asylum at the border, removing protection and integration opportunities for thousands of migrants from Latin America (and elsewhere) who had resettled in the US. He ramped up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the country's interior, and scaled up deportation and detention even in international spaces like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Panama, and Costa Rica. All this while also halting the work of employees and programmes funded through USAID that assisted vulnerable migrant communities.
These policies, and others that might emerge, drastically alter the lives of immigrants residing in the United States and significantly affect countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Precisely because various aspects of Trump’s agenda, like his deportation and detention plans, depend on collaboration with governments, Latin American countries should counter his migration policies by refusing to accept his terms automatically.
They should rally into a coalition of nations working together to devise a proactive strategy to resist US pressure and combat the cruelty, exclusion, and violence that we are only likely to see intensify over the next four years.
A new regional framework to manage migration
Since at least the declaration of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine – a policy issued primarily to protect Latin American nations from further European colonisation or intervention – US administrations have exerted influence over and downright meddled in Latin American countries' political and economic affairs to serve US interests. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the US began pressuring Latin American countries to bend to its migration agenda, often using money and resources to incentivise the policy shifts.
Global tension over tariffs and the war in Ukraine have shown how difficult it is to resist the force of a country that plays such a predominant role in international affairs. As we saw in Panama with the canal and in Mexico with tariffs, Trump’s strategy involves isolating Latin American countries with painful threats so it can exert maximum influence.
But instead of simply yielding to Trump’s demands, the region now has an opportunity to develop a unified strategy to promote cooperation and establish a regional framework for managing migration and supporting asylum seekers, refugees, and returning populations.
To achieve this, it should start by building a coalition committed to working together and developing a phased migration plan that engages Trump’s agenda not as responses to isolated threats but as a regional plan of action that privileges humanitarian ethics and viable integration options.
Rather than the ad hoc, country-by-country decisions we currently see, Latin American and Caribbean nations should collaborate to decide how and when to accept deportation flights with national and non-national returnees.
Uniting would bring clear benefits to those countries. First, it would have the potential to transform each country’s social and economic landscape by integrating individuals into society. Contrary to what those perpetuating false anti-immigrant narratives would have you believe, immigrants who gain access to formal labour markets, education, and public services by and large contribute to improving societies and economies.
Such an approach would also mitigate the political and economic consequences Trump may impose if individual governments reject the terms he sets, as he did with Colombia.
Countries could anticipate the threats that would hurt the most – such as the national industries most impacted by tariffs – and make a plan for decreasing reliance on US industries and markets for revenue. Similar to tourism campaigns in Canada, leaders could encourage would-be tourists to consider travel within the region (instead of to the US) to lessen the impact of threats against visas.
Rather than the ad hoc, country-by-country decisions we currently see, Latin American and Caribbean nations should collaborate to decide how and when to accept deportation flights with national and non-national returnees. As a regional coalition, there would also be a greater negotiation stance to insist on conditionalities from the US, like the return of humanitarian assistance and funding to support vital development projects.
Depending on a country’s economic and social stability prospects, the best policy might involve refusing to accept non-nationals on deportation flights, as the Bahamas did in December 2024 and Ecuador recently announced it would do. Alternatively, the region’s most stable actors could accept non-nationals in a humanitarian manner, but that welcome must come with viable pathways for individuals to obtain refugee status in those countries.
Agreeing on a joint approach with humanitarian aims would help Latin American and Caribbean countries respond to the dynamics of “return flow” by establishing countries where it is possible to claim refugee status, regularise, or at the very least obtain temporary permits. Welcoming newcomers could also elevate the region’s reputation as a place that prioritises ethical responsibility towards people and humanity.
Teamwork is the way forward
To truly transform the region, the process needs to be truly efficient and come with access to the formal labour market, education, and other social services: The current reality in most countries is far from that.
For example, in February, Panama began receiving returnees from countries outside of Latin America. For years, several Latin American countries have received non-national returnees from the region; but this was the first instance of a country accepting non-nationals from outside Latin America. Costa Rica has also agreed to act as a receiving country for non-nationals.
Nearly 300 individuals from China, Iran, Afghanistan, and beyond have now been deported to Panama. Upon arrival, they were taken to a hotel in Panama City and prohibited exit until boarding repatriation flights. The approximately 100 who refused the offer of return because they feared persecution if sent back were transported to the “San Vicente” camp near the Darién Gap jungle. US lawyers had no time to consult with their clients before the deportations, and couldn’t communicate with them afterwards. There were reports that they were poorly fed and “treated like prisoners”. In early March, the Panamanian government sent 65 of them back to Panama City and gave them a 30-day humanitarian pass that can be extended for 60 more days, but it provided them with no help to find a place to stay or a way to return to their home country.
Reports from the nearly 300 Venezuelans recently deported to El Salvador and held in their mega-prison – despite a US district judge prohibiting their removal – suggest there are widespread human rights abuses of those detained and now almost no way to exit the prison or fight their removal.
This shows that once outside the US, it becomes nearly impossible for people to contest deportations or seek humanitarian protections, as seen in numerous instances of deportations and offshore detention.
The examples provided illustrate the shortcomings of a migration agenda when countries respond to isolated demands as individual countries.
A collaborative, comprehensive strategy is the best way forward, and there are instructive models throughout the region for what an approach would need to include.
While still far from perfect, Mexico’s asylum system, for example, could serve as a model, as it aims to provide refugees with access to work permits, healthcare, and educational opportunities. Refugee status in Mexico also allows individuals to seek family reunification with relatives abroad and, after several years, they can apply for naturalisation as Mexican citizens.
Yet, even with a generous recognition of those eligible for refugee status, there is significant room for improvement in the programme’s implementation. Many newcomers, especially Black, Asian, and non-Spanish speaking groups, report experiencing racism, xenophobia, and social exclusion in Mexican society. It often happens that once they have the necessary documents, they report encountering employers and school officials who refuse to accept their documents.
Such examples demonstrate that even when programmes and policies exist, countries must back them up with proper funding, staffing, training, and public campaigns to sensitise local communities to the changes.
Through collaboration, regional leaders could achieve more to address these issues.
A migration-focused compact could enhance economic agreements like MERCOSUR and CACM or create new partnerships, ensuring that new immigration options come with formal job opportunities. This system could consider each country’s strengths and needs, tailoring permanent residence and jobs where demand is highest. By uniting, Latin America and the Caribbean could spearhead sustainable solutions for displaced communities, enhancing economic independence and strength.
The US used to be a leader in embracing its “duty owed” to the world community by offering options for refugee resettlement and asylum to those facing persecution.
It is now painfully evident that this era is over, having been replaced by an administration inclined towards cruelty, and which responds with further acts of cruelty when its plans are rebuffed.
Through collaboration, Latin American and Caribbean nations can set a new standard for extending a humanitarian welcome to those in need, improving newcomers' lives and transforming individual countries and the wider region in the process.
