Page 15 - GHES-1-1

Global Health Econ Sustain Latin American Liberal migration policies

primarily focused on the importance of humanitarian rights responsible for exacerbating the economic crisis in
for foreign nationals and allowing refugees to travel to Brazil Latin American countries during the 1980s and 1990s.
and apply for resident status while in the country” (Wejsa Neo-liberal policies were associated with the structural
& Lesser, 2018). The case of Brazil demonstrates that, adjustment plan negotiated with the IMF (International
even under right-wing administration, migratory policies Monetary Fund), mainly relying on public expenditure cuts
continue to maintain a relatively “liberal” stance compared to balance national budgets, control inflation, depreciate
to Europe and the USA, as elucidated in the forthcoming local currencies, and reduce salaries. These measures were
sections. Moreover, migration is not exploited as a political aimed at attracting investments and fostering exports. “The
argument to gain votes by either populist or right-wing objective of this action was to modify the productive economic
parties, including the far-right movement led by Bolsonaro. system, boosted by privatization, and sustained by greater
competitiveness in the world market” (Pagnotta, 2014).
3. Migration policies between the This is not the appropriate context to delve into the
“pink tide” and the return of right-wing complex economic crisis that has affected many Latin
governments. American countries since the 1980s. However, what is

The rise of the “liberal tide” in migration policies coincided relevant to our discussion is the fact that left-wing leaders
with the phenomenon known as the “pink tide” — a wave identified neo-liberal policies with an arrogant West, which
of electoral victories for leftist presidential candidates at sought to impose its rules on the world. Opposing the
the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the new century. Western order also implied a critique of the globalization
“The wave began in 1998, when Hugo Chávez, a former model and its contradictions, such as the management
paratrooper who had led a failed military uprising six years of migrations. As Anthony Geddes observed, the “liberal
earlier, was elected president of Venezuela. Chávez was tide” of the 2000s was also a conscious attempt “to position
followed in quick succession by Socialist candidate Ricardo the region as separate and distinct from both the United
Lagos in Chile (2000); ex-metalworker and Workers’ Party States as the continental hegemon and regional approaches
(PT) leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil (2002); left- to migration in the EU, which were labeled as harsh and
of-center Peronist Néstor Kirchner in Argentina (2003); repressive” (Geddes, 2021, p. 86).
Tabaré Vázquez of the leftist Broad Front (FA) in Uruguay The rejection of Western migration policies was
(2004); and coca growers’ union leader Evo Morales of the reinforced by the treatment that Latin American
Movement toward Socialism in Bolivia (2005), the first immigrants encountered in Europe during the late
indigenous president in that country’s history. In 2006, 1990s and early 2000s. As mentioned in Section 1,
ex-revolutionary leader Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista migratory processes are reversible; countries that were
National Liberation Front (FSLN) returned to power in once destinations for immigration can transform into
Nicaragua, while independent left-wing economist Rafael countries of emigration. This transformation occurred
Correa won the Ecuadorian presidency.1 By decade’s end, in Latin American countries such as Argentina and
leftist candidates had also scored improbable victories in Brazil, which, late in the twentieth century, evolved into
Paraguay (ex-Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo) and El countries sending migrants to transoceanic destinations
Salvador (Mauricio Funes of the Farabundo Martí National following their respective economic crises. As Freier De
Liberation Front [FMLN], a former guerrilla movement). Ferrari, Luisa Feline (2016) argues: “the rejection of North
Incumbent leftist presidents or parties were subsequently American and European immigration policies, (…), became
reelected in Venezuela (2000, 2006), Chile (2006), Brazil an important element of Argentina’s liberalized immigration
(2006, 2010), Argentina (2007), Ecuador (2009), Bolivia discourse (Arcarazo, 2009). Such critique went in hand with
(2009), and Uruguay (2009). By 2009, nearly two-thirds calls for political solidarity and reciprocity. In the context of
of Latin Americans lived under some form of left-leaning substantial Argentinean emigration to Spain after the 2001
national government. The breadth of this “left turn” was economic crisis, Kirchner’s administration repeatedly called
unprecedented; never before had so many countries in the on Spain to remember Argentina’s historic solidarity with
region entrusted the affairs of state to leaders associated with hundreds of thousands of Spanish emigrants at the turn of
the political Left” (Levitsky & Roberts, 2012, p.2). the 20 century, and to regularize Argentinean immigrants
th
The left-wing governments of the “pink tide” included based on the logic of historical reciprocity.”
various ideological positions and policies, ranging from Brazil had shifted from being an immigration destination
moderate to radical left. However, while being relatively until the 1960s to becoming a country of emigrants during
“markets-friendly,” most of these governments rejected the 1980s (Póvoa Neto and Sprandel, 2010). In a posture
the neo-liberal ideology and policies that were considered similar to that of Nestor Kirchner, Brazilian President Lula

Volume 1 Issue 1 (2023) 9 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.0861