IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.

IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION
IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.

By: ANDRÉ LUIZ SICILIANO

Word Count: 7 429

Submission for Oxford Migration Studies Society
Migration: Theory and Practice
2013 Conference

Abstract
The present work is an investigation about immigration policies and on how the South American
regional integration has been a place for a regional migration policy, especially within MERCOSUR
and its associated states. This article is divided into two parts, the first one is theoretical and it aims
to define what a regional migration policy is and who immigrants are. In the second part, all regional
agreements on immigration will be analyzed and compared with regional migration figures in order
to identify whether they are able to facilitate migration between the member states of MERCOSUR
(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) and its associate states (Bolivia, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), or to improve the flow of people across borders. Finally, regional
advances as well as continuing difficulties will be pointed out with regard to regional integration.

Key-words: Migration policy, MERCOSUR, regional integration, immigration.

About the author:
André Luiz Siciliano is a lawyer who graduated from the Catholic University of São Paulo (Brazil) in
2003 and is currently a graduate student at the Institute of International Relations of the University
of São Paulo (USP-Brazil); his research is about the Brazilian Immigration Policy. In 2006, he lived
in Vancouver, Canada, where he began his studies in the field of international law. He currently
conducts research in the fields of human rights and immigration and his latest publication was “The
Role of the Universalization of Human Rights and Migration in the Formation of a New Global
Governance”, SUR – International Journal on Human Rights, vol.9, n.16., Jun/2012.

Introduction

This paper seeks to identify recent regional advances in facilitating migration between the
MERCOSUR member states (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) and its associate
member states (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) as well as shedding light on the
challenges still to be confronted for there to be a more profound regional integration. For this
reason, it will first be clarified what a migration policy consists of, who an immigrant is and which
are the possible perspectives to be adopted while dealing with the question of regional migration.
As a next step, the regional treaties which were celebrated with the aim of facilitating the
movement of people within the bloc and the associate states will be mapped out because they are
the normative instruments which shape the policies in use in the regional sphere. However, the
research will focus on isolated actions of countries within the region that are contributing to
improve the conditions of migration within the bloc.
Finally, an attempt will be made to identify the challenges to be met, be it by the individual
states or by the group of countries which compose the regional bloc in question, in the sense of
enhancing migration conditions between the states and of enabling a qualitative leap forwards with
regard to regional integration.

What is a migration policy?
A migration policy is usually understood as a series of actions of the government to regulate
the entrance into, staying in and departure of foreigners from one given national territory as well as
the measures aimed at maintaining the ties between that state and its nationals residing abroad.
International migration is a complex social phenomenon due to the fact that it not only consists of
the movement from one place to another but also from one jurisdiction to another (ZOLBERG,
2006).
Thus, a migration policy should be understood as a measure of the state to regulate its link
with the foreigners that are located within its territory as well as with its national citizens that are
under the jurisdiction of another state. It is worth citing the definition constructed by Zolberg:

“International migration is an inherently political process since the relevant
policies include not only the regulation of movement across state borders but
also the rules it entails about the acquisition, maintenance, loss or voluntary
renunciation of citizinship in all its aspects – political, social, economic and
cultural.” (ZOLBERG, 2006, p. 11).

It can be stated, therefore, that a migration policy is also a legal phenomenon since it
determines the conditions of bestowing citizenship on foreigners in its territory as well as the
conditions of the exercise of its nationals´ citizenship when under the jurisdiction of other states.
Zolberg (2006) goes on to clarify that migration policies are extremely interactive given the limits of
the international system of states: any kind of emigration implies immediate immigration into
another place; on the other hand, the possibility of immigrating affects the decisions to emigrate;
and the closing or opening of a specific national entry affects the potential fluxes in other states.
In that sense, international treaties celebrated in the regional sphere are a manifest
expression of the will of states to establish specific legal norms that aim to improve the quality
and/or quantity of migration fluxes in a given area affected by that treaty. Evidently, such treaties
will only be in force after the internalization of its dispositions by each state which want to be part
of it. Thus, the analysis of international migration in the regional sphere should take place at both
the domestic and the international level 1.
Another element to be highlighted is that the issue of migration has so far been examined
mostly from the perspective of the nation state. This approach owes much to political realism and
its view of the international system, in which the individual migrant, as a human being, is not
perceived as an agent or subject of rights but rather as a term in the equation of migratory fluxes
which generate effects for the respective states. One can observe that even among key authors from
the South this framework is not given up.
In a book published in 2012, by the Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN),
entitled “Public policies with regard to migration and civil society in Latin America – the cases of Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia and Mexico”, authors such as Leonir Mario Chiarello, Lelio Mármora, Neide Lopes
Patarra, Roberto Vidal and Cecilia Imaz Bayona analyze the migrations policies of Argentina, Brazil,
Colombia and Mexico from the perspective of migration policy as a public policy on migration.
Thus, migration policy is understood as the measures taken by the state, by its agents or by a
group of states with the intention of regulate the relations of the state with humans who are located
within its territory but are not national citizens as well as with its national citizens who are not
within its territory. Moreover, given the regional context, it is necessary to point out that the
migration policy will be determined by the groups of measures and, especially, by the normative
documents produced and accepted by the states in question.

1
Concerning two-level analysis, see (PUTNAM, 1988).

Who is an immigrant?

For Guido Soares (2004) and André Carvalho Ramos (2008) foreigners are individuals who,
despite being residents in a particular state, do not possess the nationality of that state. This is thus
the case of a negative point of reference: the status of an individual who does not have the same
rights or obligations as other individuals, who are considered nationals by the legal order. In this
way, the starting point of this study is the nationality of persons and the rights and obligations which
are attributed to nationals and which, in principle, are not recognized for foreigners.
The characterization of the concept of nationality for Guido Soares is a configuration on the
part of a local authority of a politically autonomous unit which becomes an indivisible unit that
composes international relations. The foreigner would thus be an individual outside of the social
group and, thus, the victim of major hostilities. For Carvalho Ramos, the foreigner can be seen from
different normative realities: i) the immigrant, i.e. the foreigner who migrates to another state with
the intention of staying there legally or illegally; ii) the transitional foreigner, who moves to another
state temporarily; iii) the foreigner in special conditions, who possesses the same right as the
national citizens due to bilateral, multilateral or regional agreements; and iv) the refugees.
The category of interest for this study is the one of the immigrant, referring to the foreigners
who would have rights guaranteed if they were under the jurisdiction of their own state but who
reside in the territory of another state which does not recognize them as nationals. Thus, as will be
shown below, within a regional bloc that constantly seeks to enhance its integration, the challenge
consists in enabling the immigrants to have their right recognized as if they were national citizens
while at the same time admitting for certain punctual restrictions.

Visions on Migration Policy
The literature on international migration is characterized by a divide with regard to the
perspective adopted by the observer, which can be either based on the countries from which the
migratory fluxes originate or the countries which are the goal of these fluxes. The latter perspective,
referring to the destiny countries of migration, is the one found in greater numbers given the fact
that, as mentioned above, the decision of close or open borders to immigration generates impact in
the potential migratory fluxes and produces effects in other states. This is what makes it more
relevant to international relations.
Furthermore, the countries which receive migrants are in most cases developed countries,
which is also where most research is produced. These studies examine, for example, the causes of
national rejection of the immigrant (MEYERS, 2004), the most efficient ways of selecting

immigration or the advantages and disadvantages of receiving immigrants (BOERI, et al., 2002;
ZOLBERG, 1994; 2006).
On the other hand, the research produced in the countries of origin tends to investigate the
impact of emigration on them, especially with regard to the remittances and to the relationship
which is kept with the emigrants (HUJO & PIPER, 2010), however the results of these actions have
a very limited impact on other countries.
Katja Hujo and Nicola Piper (2010) highlight that developing countries are usually not
studied as being countries that receive migrants but rather as mere exporters/emitters. They go on
to point out that there are moments and place where the borders between domestic and
international migration become fizzy and, in general, a change has been observed in the sense of the
liberalization of intra-regional movements within the context of regional economic integration
between developing countries.

Regional Integration and Migration Policies
According to Eytan Meyers (2004), regional integration of whatever type tends to
influence the policies of immigration control of the member states in the sense: i) of facilitating the
movement of people between the national territories of the member states; and ii) when this
facilitation of circulation of people occurs between the member states, of seeking to develop a
“common foreign policy of migration” which will probably be more restrictive towards immigration
than it had been before the formation of the regional bloc (MEYERS, 2004, p. 217).
This can clearly be verified in the case of the European Union, which featured the
unification of a consolidated migration policy through the creation of the Schengen area. The South
American experience, however, has not yet confirmed Meyer´s theory because despite certain
advances with regard to free movement of people within the bloc no ostensible measures have been
taken in the sense of closing the bloc off towards external immigration.
Inspired by the existence of the progressive unification of Europe, the Common Southern
Market (MERCOSUR) has aimed at integrating its member states in a way which granted them an
initially trade-related but increasingly political sphere with the aim of an improved economic
position in the international arena. The emergence of the Common Market presupposes the
existence of 4 liberties: i) liberty of free circulation of people; ii) liberty of capital flows; iii) liberty of
circulation of goods; and iv) the liberty of circulation of services. However, even the Treaty of
Asunción in its first article limits itself to seek “the free circulation of goods, services and productive
factors between the countries”, omitting the free movement of people intentionally.

In 1996, through several agreements of economic cooperation, Bolivia and Chile became
associated with the bloc, acquired observer status and began to accompany some ministerial
meetings of the bloc. Subsequently, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru also became associated with
MERCOSUR and, on 13th August 2012 Venezuela officially entered the bloc despite Paraguayan
resistance.
Despite the fact that trade questions dominate the agenda of the bloc, some important steps
have been taken with the aim of improving the flux of people across the internal borders of the
bloc. In December 1997, the “Multilateral Agreement of Social Security of the Common Market of
the South” was signed in Montevideo (promulgated in Brazil through the decree 5.722/2006). By
means of this agreement, the time of contribution to social welfare in one state will be recognized by
the other before which the request for retirement will be made. Furthermore, immigrant workers
and their families are guaranteed the same right and obligations attributed to national citizens of the
state in which they reside.
In December 2002 the “Agreement on Residence for Nationals of MERCOSUR member
states, Bolivia and Chile” (promulgated in Brazil by the decree 6.975/2009) was signed. Through
this agreement, the citizens of each of the signatory countries who seek to establish residence in
another of these states will be able do so in a facilitated way with a possible temporary residence
permit of up to two years. This authorization will be convertible into permanent residence under the
condition that the visa conversion be requested up to 90 days before the temporary visa runs out.
It is important to underline that nationals from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay or
Uruguay who reside in the territory of one of the other countries and who which to settle there, can
present their request of regularization to the local immigration services as well as asking for
authorization for temporary residence which can be converted into permanent residence at the end
of two years independent of the migratory conditions under which they have entered the country. In
that way, any citizen who currently finds himself in an irregular migratory situation can request his
regularization without needing to leave the country and without a fine i.
In 2008, the “Agreement on Travel Documents of the Member States and MERCOSUR
and Associate States” was signed, which recognizes the personal identification documents of
citizens of each state as valid. Like this, national identities suffice as travel documents accepted for
movement across borders and for identification of residents in another member or associate state.
With regard to the measures that aim to protect education, several agreements have been
signed ii: the “Protocol on Educational Integration and the Recognition of Certificates, Titles and
Studies of Primary and Secondary Level of non-technical nature” 2; the “Protocol on Educational

2
Decision of the Common Market Council (CMC) nº04/1994.

Integration and the Revalidation of Diplomas, Certificates, Titles and Recognition of Intermediate
Level of technical nature” 3; the “Protocol on Educational Integration for the Continuation of
Postgraduate Studies at Universities of MERCOSUR member states” 4; and the “Agreement on the
Admission of Titles and University Degrees for Academic Work in MERCOSUR Member States” 5.
All these agreement in the area of education aim to permit the recognition of studies carried out in
on member states by another member states, allowing for the continuation of studies without delay
or major disadvantages.
In continuation of the integration measure, the “Agreement on the Exemption of
Translation of Administrative Documents for Immigration between the MERCOSUR member
states” was reached in 2000, which reduced the costs and bureaucracy of migration between the
countries of the bloc. Despite still not being able to precisely measure the impact of all these efforts
listed above on the flux of people between the countries, it is important to recognize the political
endeavor to produce normative texts with the goal of facilitating migration of citizens within the
bloc.
What, however, would be the impact of these treaties on the intraregional migratory flows?
Would it be possible to identify direct effects on the quantity of international migrants in the region?
While trying to answer questions such as these, it is important to consider that each country
internalized these treaties at different times, which is why it is not an easy task to establish a direct
causal relation between the treaties and the migratory fluxes. Moreover, in order to determine in a
consistent way the effects of the immigration laws on certain migratory fluxes it would be necessary
to examine the circumstances both of the emitting as well as receiving countries because both
influence the observed migratory fluxes. Additionally, one would need to differentiate between the
nature of the people flows (whether for studies, work, with the intention of permanently settling
there etc.), but currently realized surveys do not permit such identification6. It is worth pointing out
that currently not even visa systems have a uniform categorization.
Either way, it is important to at least estimate the number of people affected and the
potential of the region in relation to international migration within the regional bloc and for this
purpose the existing data bases suffice. In this manner, with the help of quantitative analysis, it will
be possible to establish some comparative references and, above all, to observe the degree of
evolution of regional integration with regard to international immigration.

3
CMC Decision nº07/1995.
4
5
6
The available data from the consulates are produced through a periodic census or collected by the respective
Ministries of the Interior, whose categories are limited to temporary and permanent immigrants, refugees/asylum
seekers, family reunions and whether they are men or women.

Migratory Fluxes iii
According to studies carried out by Adella Pelegrino (2009), the regional migratory
movements over several decades indicate a slow growth and a steady demographic impact. Pelegrino
goes on to show that the existence of MERCOSUR did not have a significant impact on migratory
fluxes, be it regarding direction or volume, and the state of these fluxes seems to be more related to
asymmetric processes of economic development as well as with the economic and political
vicissitudes of each country (PELEGRINO, 2009). Consequently, regional international migration
consists predominantly of low skilled workers.
The first important factor worth pointing out is that international immigration is extremely
low in all countries of the region. Figure 1, which compares the immigration in MERCOSUR
countries and its associated states with Costa Rica, Canada and the US, clearly demonstrates that the
quantity of immigrants present in South American countries is far from reaching critical levels. The
data presented in the following consider only the volume of immigration (with the purpose of
residence, be it temporary or permanent).

Figure 1

Percentage of Immigrants in the Overall Population
Including the US, Canada and Costa Rica
21
Percenage of Population (%)

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia
Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela
Canada USA Costa Rica

Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas (SICREMI).
OEA, 2012.

It is worth highlighting that, between 2001 and 2010, the countries of MERCOSUR and the
associated states did not manage to raise the percentage of immigration to above 1% of their
respective population despite efforts to facilitate the circulation of people in the bloc. However,
during the same period, the US and Canada feature a growth of approximately two percentage
points each, moving from 11% to 12.9% and 17.6% to 19.9% respectively.
Analyzing more closely just the South American situation, one can note that the number of
immigrants in percent of the overall population has remained quite stable in all countries of the
region during the last decade.

Figure 2

Percentage of Immigrants in the Overall Population
5
Percentage of Population (%)

4

3

2

1

0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


OAS, 2012.

On top of the fact that the number of immigrants in Latin American societies is significantly
small in relation to the overall population of each country, the rise of this percentage has been
modest, even after the adoption of the mentioned measures of integration. In Brazil, for example,
even with increasing immigration in recent years, the percentage of immigration in the overall
Brazilian population remains at less than one percent 7. Argentina, as will be shown below, is one of
the region´s countries with the most advanced immigration laws and which has shown the most
significant increase in numbers of legal immigrants (see figure 3); even so, it presents a low

7
However, there has been an expressive increase in the percentage of immigrants from MERCOSUR and associate
states, from about 16% in 2006 to almost 22% in 2012 (see Annex IV).

immigration percentage of nearly 4.5% of the overall population. This reinforces Adella Pelegrino´s
thesis that the impact of international migration in the region has been little and steady, and that the
creation of MERCOSUR has hardly influenced the increase in immigration.
This is the regional reality: all countries present a low percentage of immigrants of in the
composition of their societies, which leads one to believe that immigration still has a great potential
to be explored in contemporary South America. In the US, as seen above (figure 1), the immigrants
make up almost 13% of the population and total almost 40 000 000 people. In Canada, the number
of immigrants corresponds to about 20% of the population, adding up to about 6 800 000 people
and even in Costa Rica, which is a less attractive country for economic immigrants than the two
cited ones from North America, the immigrants account for 8% of the population, which is nearly
double the percentage of Argentina.
Argentina is the country which receives the greatest number of Latin American migrants,
with 1 805 957 iv8. It is worth underlining, however, that in 1960 when the total population of
Argentina was half its current size, there were 2 540 226 immigrants in the country. Figure 3 below
illustrates the absolute numbers of immigrants of MERCOSUR countries and associate states for
the last decades and shows that five countries feature a growth of the immigrant population since
the year 2000 (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador (more obviously) and Colombia (more modestly).

8
National Census of Argentina, 2010.

Figure 3

Immigrant Population in Absolute Numbers
2500
Htousands of immigrants

2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Argentia Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia

Source: IMILA/CELADE database for the 2000 census and previous ones; Brazil - SINCRE/Ministry of Justice,
Set/2012; Argentina and Uruguay – National Census of 2010; Chile – Departamento de Extranjería y Migración, 2010;
Colombia – World Bank, 2005; Peru – Census of 2007; Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay e Venezuela - IOM 9.

The data on the quantity of immigrants in each country demonstrate that both in Argentina
and Brazil there is a constant reduction of these percentages from the 1960s until the 2000s. Since
then, and during the last decade, this tendency has reverted and, currently, both countries feature a
growing immigrant population. However, this growth – while significant – is not very expressive in
absolute terms.
Another important element to be examined is the quantity of immigrants that are effectively
authorized by the national governments because this authorization implies: i) the existence of norms
that permit such authorization; and ii) the recognition of the immigrant by the state and his
reception with the society. As can be seen in figure 4 below, this element is the most sensitive with
regard to the adopted policies by the countries in the region.

9
Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009). Trends in
International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2008).

Figure 4

Authorized Immigration (2001-2010)
Temporary + Permanent (year by year)
250

200
Thousands

150

100

50

0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay

OEA, 2012, p. 240

When taking a closer look at the above figure, the immigration peak in Argentina is
particularly striking. It can be explained by the fact that in 2006 the program “Pátria Grande” 10 came
into force, which enabled the regularization of immigrants´ documentation as well as permission for
residence and work. According to the Argentine government, 423 697 immigrants had been
beneficiaries of the program from 2006 until the end of 2008 11.
In a study on Argentinean Migration Policy coordinated by Lelio Mármora (MÁRMORA,
2011), it was identified that the constant demand for work force in the different sectors of economic
activity led to the creation of policies of opening and immigration since the beginning of the
Argentine Republic. Thus, the Argentinean migration policy is not just perceived as a set of norms
created for the contention or favoring of the migratory flow but especially with regard to the
measures of inclusion of migrants in the Argentine society. The political participation of foreigners
is a recognized right.

10
Law N. 25.871/2004.
11
Ministry of the Interior, National Direction of Migration, statistical report, August/2012.

For Mármora this law, along with the ratification of other agreements, reinforces democracy
and citizen participation through the evolution of spaces and with processes of integration and
consensus adopted in South America. This law, without doubt, is one of the most advanced texts in
terms of migration policy in countries of Latin America since it adopts of humanist perspective with
regard to the migration question by recognizing the human right to migrate and having human
rights as its principal concern.
Another prominent element on Figure 4 is the peak of authorized immigrants in Brazil in
2009, which was certainly influenced by the Amnesty Law 12, approved on the 2nd July that year and
which, according to the Ministry of Justice, enabled the regularization of more than 40 000
immigrants (particularly Bolivians). Brazil has still not reformed its immigration law and the gap
between the valid norms (in force since 1980) and the demands of the contemporary Brazilian
society has been patched by numerous normative resolutions frequently edited by the National
Council for Immigration (CNIg) 13.
In the case of Chile, according to information from its Ministry of the Interior, the
explanation derives from the application of extraordinary procedures of regularization of migrants
since 2007 (Ministério del Interior, 2010, p. 1). Furthermore, is it necessary to highlight that more
the 61% of immigrants in Chile come from neighboring countries (Ministério del Interior, 2010, p.
3). It can also be noted that the Chilean migration policy can serve as an example to be followed
with regard to border questions because, since the government of Ricardo Lagos (2000-2006), Chile
has witnessed the beginning of modernization measures of its border control while at the same time
there was an attempt to carry out actions to enable greater openness of the country towards
migrants. Despite not having a formal migration policy, greater integration with Argentina, Peru and
Bolivia was sought, which culminated with the creation of the “Borderland Card” (LEVINSON &
DOÑA-REVECO, 2012).
This card allows people who reside in communities near the borders to travel to cities in
neighboring countries with greater ease, be it for work, medical treatments or tourism. In that
period, the right of migrants´ children, independent of their migrant status, to attend school under
the same conditions as national citizens was recognized. A second policy allowed the health
treatment in public hospitals for pregnant women and for immigrants´ children, also independent of
their migrant status.
Uruguay is a special case because in 2008, despite not having registered an increase in the
numbers of authorized immigrants, it approved its new legislation on immigration which formally

12
Law n.11.961/2009.
13
CNIg is an inter-ministerial organ which has the prerogative to deal with questions of migrations in the sphere of
the Executive.

recognizes migrants´ rights and those of their families. Particularly interesting in the Uruguayan law
is the extension of the chapter related to family reunification which includes the right of permanent
residency until the third generation and not only for the spouse but also for the partner. Despite the
fact that the impact of these measures is hard to visualize in the figure above since the volume is
relatively small, the data in Annex III confirm an expressive growth in the Uruguayan records since
2008.
In other words, when putting together the selected information above, one can state that the
policies in force in the regional sphere did not substantially increase the quantity of migrants
received by each country on a yearly basis. However, specific measures of some countries allowed
for the regularization of undocumented immigrants and thus enabled their integration in society and
the recognition of their rights. The cases in hand demonstrate that, in truth, one can still not speak
of a growth of the volume of immigration but it is impossible to deny the increase in the registration
of immigrants in the region and, consequently, of the quality of regional integration.

Challenges
Despite the verified advances in the migration policies of MERCOSUR member states and
associate countries, the progress is still little with regard to the increase of the quantity of
immigrants and, especially, concerning the participation of the immigrants in the destination society.
Most countries of the region allow for permanent immigrants to vote in local elections; however,
this practice – while it should indeed be incentivized – is insufficient to promote the
accommodation of the immigrant.
According to Zapata-Barrero (2004), when speaking of integration of whatever meaning
given to the term, one is always referring to one sole addressee: the immigrants. The
“accommodation”, on the other hand, has as unit of analysis the relation between the immigrants
and the citizens with different institutional structures (public spaces). These public spaces of
interaction are the proper context of the policies of “accommodation” (ZAPATA-BARRERO,
2004). He affirms that terms such as “integration” semantically do not entail the necessary
component of interaction, of “bi-directionality”, which he believes to be intrinsic in migration
policy.
Moreover, Zapata-Barrero and Gemma Plnyol (2008) discuss the role of administrators in
the process of migration. For them, the migratory dynamic cannot be understood without bearing in
mind the actors who influence it and who, in most cases, substantially modify the dynamic. The
decisions taken by the public actors, such as the interventions of other social or economic actors,

can significantly influence a migration process, lead it, manage it or limit it in a way that makes these
involved actors induce and manage social and political change.
Among the actors involved in the implementation of the immigration policy the subnational
entities deserve special attention. Regional integration, which is usually thought of in terms of a
relationship between countries, can never reach higher levels without mobilizing its subnational
entities (provinces, federal states, municipalities) to help in the implementation of a migration policy
of regional integration. Maloney and Korinek (2011) endorse this perspective because they consider
local polices of integration of immigrants into society as part of migration policy.
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly clear that the majority of immigrants are living in cities
as well as in smaller cities in rural areas and, therefore, the awareness that the integration of migrants
occurs at the local level should definitely enter into political and scientific discourses about
integration (CAPONIO & BORKERT, 2010). In that way, the municipal adminstrators should be
seen as important actors in the implementaion of immigration policy.
A final observation needs to be made with regard to the production and availability of
information about immigrants. There are a lot of data available but there is no synergy between the
states of the region in order to enhance this information and, consequently, the policies regarding
international migration.Thus, it would be of fundamental importance that the Common Market
Group (CMG) of MERCOSUR be interested in making the member states´ and associate countries´
interests more compatible with the aim of establishing a common data base on international
migration in the region 14.
A second step, more ambitious but equally necessary, would be the uniformazation of the
visa systems 15, in order to enable that all countries of the region had at least the same modalities and
categories of visas for foreigners.

Conclusion
Resuming the above, one can state that the regional agreements are important for
establishing guidelines on immigration in MERCOSUR and associate states, and that, above all,
measures that allow for the regularization of the immigrant´ situation, even when adopted
individually, have an impact on the quality of regional integration. However, the regional agreements
and the actions taken to regularize the situation of irregular immigrants are not instruments that can
generate significant impacts in the migratory fluxes.

14
Currently, only the OAS and the IOM feature consolidated information in international immigration in the region.
15
The IOM classifies the visa systems of the countries of the region into 3 groups; see (OIM, 2012, pp. 75-76).

The consolidation of a migration policy for the region would result in a transformation of
the process of regional integration, which – well beyond strict trade questions – would contemplate
social, cultural and humanist aspects of MERCOSUR and associate states. Currently, the
institutional reality of the region and the gap between the adoption of measures with regard to
immigration in each state do not allow the affirmation that there is a regional migration policy
despite the recognition of recent advances. Moreover, the actions taken in the regional sphere are
restricted to establishing norms that seek to make some social dynamics more compatible, such as
work, education and health. Nevertheless, this has been insufficient to induce an integration which
is reflected in an increase of immigration, since there is neither a clear political orientation for the
region nor a broad set of measures to be followed.
In some countries, such as Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, significant advances can be
noticed in dealing with migration issues, such as treating the immigrants in accordance with
international norms of human rights and recognizing their participation in their societies in a
broader sense. It is desirable, without doubt, that these examples be followed by the other countries
in the region.
In the regional sphere, however, it is necessary to rigorously seek to accommodate the
immigrants in the receiving society by enabling their effective participation in the local community
as if they were nationals. In order for that accommodation to take place it is mandatory that the
subnational entities (federal states, provinces, municipalities or districts) get involved in the
implementation of the regional migration policy. In the end, it is in the cities and districts where, in a
more evident way, the spaces of interaction and contact between the nationals and the immigrants
take place. This area of “conflict” is the ideal space for the state to act in the sense of promoting
regional integration.

Bibliography

ALBA, F., 2010. Migration Information Source. [Online]
Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=772
[Accessed 05 Dezembro 2012].
ASIS, M. M. B., 2006. Migration Information Source. [Online]
[Accessed 05 Dezembro 2012].
BOERI, T., HANSON, G. & McCORMICK, B., 2002. Immigration Policy and the Wealfare
System. New York: Oxford University Press.
CACCIAMALI, M. C. & AZEVEDO, F. A. G. d., 2005. Prolam/USP. [Online]
Available at: http://www.usp.br/prolam/downloads/cacciamali_azevedo.pdf
[Accessed 25 junho 2012].
CARVALHO RAMOS, A. d., 2008. Direitos dos estrangeiros no Brasil: a imigração, Direito de
Ingresso e os Direitos dos estrangeiros em situação irregular. In: Igualdade, diferença e Direitos
Humanos. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, pp. 721-745.
DAUVERGNE, C., 2005. Humanitarianism, Identity and Nation - migration law in Canada and
Australia. Vancouver: UBC Press.
DAUVERGNE, C., 2008. Making People Illegal - what globalizations means for migration and
Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
HANTTON, T. J. & WILLIAMSON, J. G., 2005. Global Migration and the World Economy -
Two centuries of policy and performance. s.l.:Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
HUJO, K. & PIPER, N., 2010. South–South Migration - Implications for Social Policy and
Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Human Develop Report - OIM, 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development,
s.l.: s.n.
LEVINSON, A. & DOÑA-REVECO, C., 2012. Migration Information Source. [Online]
[Accessed 23 Outubro 2012].
MEYERS, E., 2004. International Immigration Policy: A theoretical and Comparative Analysis.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ministério del Interior, 2010. Informe Anual - Departamento de Extranjería y Migración, s.l.:
s.n.
NEWLAND, K., 2007. Migration Policy Institute. [Online]
Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=580
[Accessed 01 December 2012].
OEA, 2012. Migración Internacional em las Américas, Segundo Informe del Sistema Continuo
de Reportes sobre Migración Internacional en las Américas (SICREMI), s.l.: Organização dos
Estados Americanos.
OIM, 2012. Panomarama Migratório de América del Sul 2012, s.l.: s.n.
PATARRA, N. L., 2005. Migrações internacionais de e para o Brasil Contemporâneo. São Paulo
em Perspectiva, pp. 23-33.
PATARRA, N. L., 2006. Migrações internacionais: teorias, políticas e movimentos sociais.
Estudos Avançados, 20(57).
PATARRA, N. L., 2011. Políticas Públicas e Migração Internacional no Brasil. In: L. M.
Chiarello, ed. Las Políticas Públicas sobre Migraciones y La Sociedad Civil en América Latina.
São Paulo: Scalabrini International Migration Network, pp. 151-276.
PELEGRINO, A., 2009. Las migraciones entre los países del Mercosur: tendencias y
características. In: O. d. P. P. d. D. H. e. e. Mercosur, ed. Las migraciones humanas en el
Mercosur. Una mirada desde los derechos humanos.. Montevideo: s.n., pp. 17-26.

PUTNAM, R. D., 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games.
Internaitonal Organization, Summer, Volume 3, p. 42.
REIS, R. R., 2011. A política do Brasil para as migrações internacionais. Contexto
Internacional, Jan/Jun.33(1).
SOARES, G. F. S., 2004. Os direitos humanos e a proteção dos estrangeiros. Revista da
Informação Legislativa, Abr/Jun, 41(162), pp. 169-204.
ZAPATA-BARREIRO, R., 2013. Borders in motion: Concept and policy nexus. Refugee Survey
Quarterly, pp. 1-23.
ZAPATA-BARRERO, R., 2004. Inmigracón, innovación política y cultura de acomodación en
España. Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB.
ZAPATA-BARRERO, R., 2010. Cultural Policies in Context of Diversities: the city as a setting
for inovation and opportunities. s.l.:Icària.
ZAPATA-BARRERO, R. & PLNYOL, G., 2008. Los gestores del proceso de inmigración -
actores y redes de actores en España y Europa. Barcelona: Fundación CIDOB.
ZAYAS, A. M. d., 1975. International Law and Mass Population Transfer. Harvard
International Law Journal, Volume 16, pp. 207-258.
ZOLBERG, A. R., 1994. Changing Sovereignty Games and International Migration. Indiana
Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2(1), pp. 153-170.
ZOLBERG, A. R., 2006. A Nation by Design - Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of
America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .

NOTES:
i
In 2005 a detailed study was carried out by Maria Cristina Cacciamali and Flávio Azevedo with regard to the use of
undocumented immigrants in the textile industry of São Paulo, which used irregular Bolivian work force, often in
slave-like conditions (CACCIAMALI & AZEVEDO, 2005). Since 2009, with the entering into force of the Agreement
on Residency for Nationals of the Member States of Mercosur, Chile and Bolivia, the problem pointed out by the
authors has tended to disappear due to the new possibility of regularization of the migrant situation. A new study
on this matter would be of great relevance because, if the irregular exploration continued, it might be states the
vulnerability would not derive from the condition of being an undocumented foreigner but possibly from the high
costs for formalization to work in Brazil due to the duties of work.
ii
The institutional structure of MERCOSUR is composed of the Common Market Council (CMC), which is the
highest organ of political deliberation of the bloc; by the Common Market Group (CMG), the executive and
technical organ; by the Trade Commission of MERCOSUR (TCM), auxiliary organ to the CMG and responsible for
the application and monitoring of the common trade policy; by the Common Parliamentary Commission, the
representative instance of the parliaments of the member states and in charge of harmonizing the legislation
between the countries; by the Consultative Economic and Social Forum, which consists of a consultative collegiate
on economic and social topics; and by the Administrative Secretariat, which looks after the maintenance of the
headquarters in Montevideo, Uruguay.
iii
The data presented in this study were obtained through reports of the IOM and the OAS. In a first step, the
headquarters in São Paulo of each of the general consulates of the countries of the region were contacted.
However, the obtained information does not follow the same pattern, which would require an extensive work of
making them compatible. However, it resulted that both the OAS and the IOM use the same source indicated by
the general consulates in their reports (National Census or reports of the Ministry of the Interior). Thus, in the end,
the compilations of the IOM and OAS were used.
iv
It is interesting to note that during the accumulated time of 2004-20122, more than 75% of the authorization of
permanent residency for immigrants was given to Asian citizens (mostly Chinese), while for citizens of MERCOSUR
it was only slightly more than 2%; the authorizations for temporary immigrants were 32.6% for American citizens
outside MERCOSUR (mostly Cuban), 26.3% Asians (mainly Chinese) and 15.8% for MERCOSUR citizens. However,
one can note that in the Argentinean case the entering into force of the regional agreements meant a strong
decrease of the register of temporary immigrants (see Annex III).
(Source: Records of the application “SAdEx” of the DNM (Ministry of the Interior, p.15-16)

ANNEX I

Population born abroad
2001 2002 2005 2010
Total (mil) 1532 1806
Argentina
Percentage of pop. 4,1 4,5
Total (mil) 94 146
Bolivia
Total (mil) 684 1575
Brazil
Percentage of pop. 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,9
Total (mil) 184 369
Chile
Total (mil) 105 110
Colombia
Total (mil) 104 194
Ecuador
Total (mil) 173 161
Paraguay
Percentage of pop. 3,1 3,1 2,5
Total (mil) 60 90
Peru
Percentage of pop. 0,2 0,2 0,3
Total (mil) 80
Uruguay
Percentage of pop. 2,4
Total (mil) 1015 1007
Venezuela

Total (mil) 31548 39917
US
Percentage of pop. 11 12,9
Total (mil) 5448 6778
Canada
Total (mil) 276 374
Costa Rica
Percentage of pop. 6,8 8
Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International
Migration in the Americas (SICREMI). OAS, 2012. Data on Venezuela is added
which was gathered from the IOM (available at
http://esa.un.org/migration/p2k0data.asp, accessed on 07/Feb./13)

ANNEX II
Authorized International Immigration
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Argentina Permanent 18652 20161 25447 50215 80968 96284 96072
Temporary 6635 36149 29380 84753 144399 117740 82076
Total 25287 56310 54827 134968 225367 214024 178148
Bolivia Permanent 2487 2278
Temporary 15067 17508
Total 17554 19786
Brazil Permanent 8561 9779 13329 12655 16440 27058 18182 14213 56852 17060
Temporary 12448 12424 13431 15168 17367 18836 22714 27749 37374 43526
Total 21009 22203 26760 27823 33807 45894 40896 41962 94226 60586
Chile Total 29835 32099 38149 48516 79377 68379 57059 63912
Colombia Permanent 2522 1322 1044 1100 1313 1452 1532 1814 2339 3352
Temporary 31894 20359 10208 7307 7848 8628 9762 11313 13863 15878
Total 34416 21681 11252 8407 9161 10080 11294 13127 16202 19230
Ecuador Permanent 40273 49428 52928 57802 61406
Temporary 23771 26774 27376 32043 33859
Total 64044 76202 80304 89845 95265
Paraguay Permanent 5222 5530 3416 2519 567 1601 3563 5354 4340 5552
Temporary 723 256 348 336 266 299 493 566 1634 6970
Total 5945 5786 3764 2855 833 1900 4056 5920 5974 12522
Peru Permanent 76 118 201 557 976 1388 2341 3056 4637 7251
Temporary 1855 1808 1765 2504 2232 1979 3385 2782 3273 2312
Total 1931 1926 1966 3061 3208 3367 5726 5838 7910 9563
Uruguay Total 993 1680 1851 1631 1216 1156 1344 3981 3825 2183
Source: Second Report of the System of Continuous Reports on International Migration in the Americas
(SICREMI). OEA, 2012

ANNEX III
ARGENTINA
Category by region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
TEMPORÁRIA
America 1.283 1.259 1.072 97 60 33 116 541
(MERCOSUR)
America 1.050 1.148 1.513 1.394 1.189 873 906 1.187
(Non-Mercosur)
Asia 442 540 1.306 1.517 1.360 961 615 720
Western Europe 685 900 1.114 1.054 900 613 513 450
Category by region
PERMANENTE
America 12 29 12 3 2 35 8 6
(MERCOSUR)
America 54 44 53 44 56 107 131 76
(Non-Mercosur)
Asia 129 125 160 224 338 1.009 947 804
Western Europe 10 7 8 4 6 91 157 106
(Source: Records of the application “SAdEx” of DNM (National Directory of Migration, Ministry of the Interior, pp.15-16)

ANNEX IV
PRESENCE OF DOCUMENTED MIGRANTS IN RBAZIL, 2006 e 2012

2006 2012
Nationality Brazil Brazil
Argentina 46.080 68.267
Germany 45.211 59.465
Bolivia 33.820 97.951
Cuba 3.564 5.312
China 37.800 58.914
Colombia 10.498 20.946
Chile 32.464 38.093
Korea 22.459 28.910
Spain 73.822 83.926
Ecuador 2.998 4.666
Italy 86.276 99.336
Japan 125.042 133.931
México 5.863 20.946
Nicaragua 758 1.240
Panamá 1.451 1.880
Paraguay 15.354 30.202
Peru 16.184 30.851
Portugal 317.583 330.860
Poland 9.274 11.948
Uruguay 34.021 46.059
Venezuela 4.481 8.218
Other countries 296.430 393.722
Total 1.175.353 1.575.643
Percentage of Mercosur+Assoc./total 16,6% 21,9%
Source: SINCRE/Ministry of Justice, 20th April 2006 e 24th September 2012.

IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (14)

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.

Similar a IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR. (20)

Último

Último (20)

IS THERE A MIGRATION POLICY FOR REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA? EMERGING EVIDENCE FROM MERCOSUR.