A paradox of officially rejecting but covertly accepting irregular migrants has long been identified in the immigration policies of Western immigrant receiving states. In South America, on the other hand, a liberal discourse of universally welcoming all immigrants, irrespective of their origin and migratory status, has replaced the formally restrictive, securitized and not seldomly ethnically selective immigration rhetoric. This discursive liberalization has found partial translation into immigration laws and policies, but contrary to the universality of rights claimed in their discourses, governments reject recently increasing irregular south–south migration from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean to varying degrees. This paper applies a mixed methodological approach of discourse and legal analysis and process tracing to explore in how far recent immigration policies in South America constitute a liberal turn, or rather a reverse immigration policy paradox of officially welcoming but covertly rejecting irregular migrants. Based on the comparative analysis of Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador, the study identifies and explains South American “populist liberalism” in the sphere of migration. We highlight important implications for migration theory, thereby opening up new avenues of research on immigration policy making outside Western liberal democracies, and particularly in predominantly migrant sending countries.

Historically, the European Union has had a dichotomy between the liberal view in immigration management represented by the Parliament (‘the good’) and the Commission (‘the ugly’), and the conservative approach embodied by the Council (‘the bad’). This article deals with the first important immigration instrument adopted under co-decision: Directive 2008/115 (the so-called ‘Returns Directive’). This Directive has received a great deal of criticism addressed to the European Parliament in its approval of the text negotiated with the Council in the first reading, without introducing a single amendment. This behaviour has cast doubts as to whether the future involvement of this institution will result in a more migrant-friendly approach in the European Union. The reasons why the European Parliament voted in favour of the Directive will be analysed in the following pages. But first, a question arises: Is the European Parliament becoming ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ or has its involvement improved the Council’s position in a way which would not have been possible without its participation? This is the main issue that this article, in the following pages, will try to answer by analysing the different steps in the adoption of the Directive from the Commission proposal until its official publication.

No abstract

Durante los últimos quince años, el discurso gubernamental sobre inmigración de gran parte de los estados en Sudamérica se ha vuelto cada vez más liberal con un claro énfasis en los derechos de los migrantes y en la promoción de la movilidad humana de carácter universal. El presente trabajo se interroga sobre si la liberalización en el discurso político sudamericano equivale a una simple paradoja de recibir de manera oficial a todos los inmigrantes mientras que al mismo tiempo se rechazan a ciertas nacionalidades o categorías, o si, por el contrario, nos encontramos ante un giro liberal en las políticas y legislaciones de inmigración en la región, con importantes consecuencias a nivel comparado y que pueda servir como ejemplo a otras regiones del mundo.

No abstract