As diplomatic spats go, it was short-lived.
On Jan 26, 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro turned away American army planes carrying folks being deported from america. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened 25% tariffs and journey bans on Colombian authorities officers. Regardless of insisting that “the U.S. cannot treat Colombian migrants as criminals” and wanted to “establish a protocol for the dignified treatment of migrants before we receive them,” Petro’s authorities backed down and resumed cooperation with U.S. immigration officers.
All this befell within the span of just some hours. However “migration diplomacy” – using diplomatic instruments and threats to manage the quantity and movement of migrants – isn’t new. Certainly, it was a function of Trump’s first administration. And it isn’t distinctive to Trump; it has been within the international coverage playbook of earlier U.S. presidents in addition to the European Union and governments world wide.
As an knowledgeable on migration coverage and worldwide affairs, I’ve noticed the evolution of this world development, wherein nations leverage migration insurance policies for geopolitical ends.
Richer international locations with more and more populist, nationalist bases are setting up anti-migrant insurance policies. However these similar nations rely on poorer international locations to just accept deportations and host nearly all of the world’s refugees – governments can’t unilaterally “dump” deported immigrants again into the house nation, or in a 3rd nation.
And whereas migration diplomacy will be cooperative, there’s at all times the chance a disagreement will spiral into diplomatic spats or outright battle.
Threats to manage migration
Migration diplomacy is a comparatively current tutorial time period. However the observe of utilizing international coverage instruments to manage migration is centuries outdated. Frequent instruments of migrant diplomacy fall between the “carrots” of bilateral treaties, growth support and infrastructure funding, and the “sticks” of tariffs, journey bans and sanctions.
Trump, throughout his first time period, centered extra on the sticks, regularly threatening tariffs or cuts in support to push via offers on migration. For instance, in 2018, Trump posted on Twitter that if Honduras and different Central American governments didn’t cease migrant caravans to the U.S., he would reduce all support: “no more money or aid will be given … effective immediately!”
A couple of months later, Trump adopted via with the menace, suspending US$400 million in support to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
Trump then upped the ante, posting: “Now we are looking at the ‘BAN,’ … Tariffs, Remittance Fees, or all of the above. Guatemala has not been good.”
Inside three days, Guatemala signed a cope with the U.S. to cooperate on asylum and deportations. Honduras and El Salvador adopted go well with two months later.
Equally, in 2019, Trump threatened Mexico that the U.S. would impose a 5% tariff on items “until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP.”
Inside 11 days, Mexico signed the Migrant Safety Protocols, often known as the “Remain in Mexico” coverage, institutionalizing what human rights teams referred to as “illegal pushbacks” that put folks vulnerable to torture, sexual violence and demise.
Imposing visa restrictions
Beneath the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. authorities can cease granting visas to any nation that “denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen.”
And through his first time period, Trump imposed visa restrictions on folks from Cambodia, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan and Sierra Leone as a result of these international locations had been deemed to be not cooperating with deportations.
Such visa restrictions labored with Guinea and Ghana, which each started accepting deportations of their residents from the U.S.
Migration as diplomatic weapon
Nations additionally use migration coverage as instruments to push different international coverage objectives not essentially associated to migration. As political scientist Kelly Greenhill explored in her e-book “Weapons of Mass Migration,” governments are utilizing coercive engineered migration to create stress towards different rival nations. This was seen in 2021 when Belarus bused asylum seekers to the Polish border in an obvious effort to overwhelm the EU’s asylum system.
Migrants on the Belarusian-Polish border in 2021.
Leonid Shcheglov/BELTA/AFP by way of Getty Photographs
Equally, Trump used migration insurance policies to bully different nations into cooperating with america. The “Muslim ban” of his first administration – rebranded in later iterations as journey bans – banned entry of residents from Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Whereas the primary govt order pertaining to the ban was instantly criticized as Islamophobic, the administration modified authorized reasoning in entrance of the Supreme Courtroom, arguing that the ban stemmed from nations not sharing details about potential terrorists and because of their passports being susceptible to fraud.
The journey bans had been an try and coerce nations into sharing info with the U.S. and imposing U.S. requirements of identification paperwork. Certainly, Chad was later faraway from the ban when it adopted these requirements.
Using migration diplomacy by the U.S. authorities predates Trump. Tit-for-tat restrictions on journey had been frequent all through the Chilly Warfare. In 2001, President George W. Bush utilized visa sanctions to Guyana when its authorities refused to cooperate on deportations. In 2016, President Barack Obama additionally utilized retaliatory visa restrictions on Gambia for failing to just accept U.S. deportation flights.
Conditional support from EU
The European Union tends to make use of carrots fairly than sticks to encourage cooperation on deportations. For instance, a 2016 EU-Turkey deal supplied 6 billion euros (US$6.25 million) in support for refugees in Turkey in change for accepting the deportation of what the EU describes as “irregular migrants.” In 2023, the EU additionally struck a 105 million euro ($109 million) cope with Tunisia in return for the North African nation’s cooperation on stopping irregular migration.
However like Trump, the EU isn’t against punishing states for refusing to cooperate on deportations. In April 2024, the EU tightened guidelines on visas for Ethiopians as a result of their authorities refused to just accept the return of residents who had asylum claims denied. Earlier, the EU suspended 15 million euros ($15.6 million) in growth support to Ethiopia on related grounds.
Migration interdependence
Trump’s threats and EU migration offers reveal a sort of migration interdependence: Wealthy states within the International North don’t wish to host massive numbers of migrants and refugees and wish prepared companions within the International South to just accept deportations, implement emigration restrictions and proceed internet hosting nearly all of the world’s refugees.
This interdependence is usually balanced by wealthy international locations footing the invoice and poor international locations accepting deportations. However migration diplomacy can also be utilized by much less highly effective nations conscious of the chance of exacting concessions out of nations, blocs or worldwide our bodies. For instance, the Kenyan authorities repeatedly threatened to shut the Dadaab refugee camp and expel all Somali refugees except it acquired extra worldwide support. Equally, Pakistan threatened to deport Afghan refugees except the worldwide neighborhood did extra, however backed down after vital will increase in support.
Rwanda extracted round $310 million from the British authorities with out resettling a single individual after a 2022 plan aimed toward deterring asylum seekers to the U.Okay. by deporting them to Rwanda – the place their circumstances can be reviewed and ultimately settled – was blocked by the European Courtroom of Human Rights and the U.Okay.’s Supreme Courtroom.
Equally, the small South Pacific island nation of Nauru was paid greater than $118 million with the intention of internet hosting all asylum seekers to Australia. The coverage broke down after stories of abysmal circumstances in Nauru’s detention services.
Whereas migration diplomacy does work each methods, richer international locations by and huge have the higher hand. And Trump’s threats towards Colombia – and others – are only one instance of this hardball migration diplomacy.