Abstract
Too often, negative perceptions of a country, whether from its government or a few citizens, result in broad restrictions applied to all nationals, either formally through policy or informally through officials’ discretion. A global norm persists in which nationals from poorer countries facing migratory pressures are subjected to heightened scrutiny and restrictive measures that deter movement to wealthier nations. Regardless of how liberal a receiving country may claim to be, states consistently adopt conservative stances on migration. Western nations, as primary destinations, often impose the harshest measures, such as travel bans and additional visa requirements, frequently based on speculative migration risks. Many others effectively bar or restrict access for certain nationalities. Iranian travelers, for example, are required to obtain special clearance to visit all nations in Central America and in Egypt, while Nigerians also face partial or total bans across multiple countries.
Nationals from Latin American countries stand as an exception. Despite being subjected to widespread corruption, violence, and significant migratory pressure, conditions that would ordinarily lead to greater restrictions, many Western nations, particularly in Europe, grant these nationals visa-free entry. In the United States, despite a longstanding pattern of restrictive migration policy, humanitarian parole was selectively extended to certain Latin American nationalities. This initiative, created by the Biden administration, aimed to reduce irregular migration from countries with high levels of unlawful entry by offering a temporary legal pathway that provided no long-term status. It can be viewed as a limited measure that extended unique benefits primarily because these nations presented a proximal migration challenge. The policy is also a rare departure from traditional and inequitable practices. It could be more effective if applied more broadly and for different purposes, perhaps prompting further examination of whether geographic proximity should influence a country’s decision to restrict the entry of foreign nationals.
In comparison, relocation assistance for nationals of countries such as Afghanistan and Ukraine stems from wartime humanitarian obligations rather than regional migration management. In the United States, the Latin American parole program was designed primarily to prevent mass migration across the southern border. This article examines why such policies are unusual and contrary to traditional practice, how they create inequities, and why European nations appear more receptive to Latin American visitors while maintaining restrictive systems for other regions.
Recommended Citation
Garon, Nicolas
(2025)
"The Latin Exclusion: Examining the EU and the White House’s Policy Favoritism Toward Migrant Sending Latin American Nations While Punishing Similar Pressures Globally,"
Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 15:
Iss.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol15/iss2/4