Populist Rhetoric and Policy Divergence in Peru’s and Colombia’s Responses to Venezuelan Migration: Between Securitisation and Solidarity

The Venezuelan exodus has resulted in over 7.7 million Venezuelans leaving their country, with Colombia and Peru hosting the largest numbers of migrants in South America. In this context, this thesis examines the contrasting migration policy responses Peru and Colombia have undertaken to manage the Venezuelan mobilisation crisis. Focus lies on the role that populism, along with narratives of securitisation and solidarity, have played in shaping policy responses. The study applies a qualitative case-study design, utilising Program Theory Reconstruction, to analyse and compare the underlying assumptions and justifications behind the key migration policies implemented by both countries after Venezuela’s suspension from MERCOSUR in 2016 and its transitional policy measures. Two measures have been selected: the Peruvian Humanitarian Visa 2019 and the Colombian 2021 Temporary Protection Statute for Venezuelan Migrants (ETPV). The analysis draws on content analysis of official documents, media coverage, and secondary literature on Venezuelan migration management. The findings reveal a significant divergence in approaches. In Peru, migration policy became increasingly restrictive, with the Humanitarian Visa representing a decisive turn towards securitisation. This policy was implemented in response to growing public concerns about national security and the strain on public service delivery, which were exacerbated by exclusionary media narratives and right-wing populist rhetoric from government authorities. In contrast, Colombia adopted a strategy centred on solidarity aimed at regularisation and inclusion. The ETPV granted Venezuelans legal status, allowing them access to healthcare, education, and formal employment, among other advantages. This policy was intentionally framed within a humanitarian context, leveraging left-wing populist themes to position Colombia as a regional leader in migration management. Yet, domestically, it utilised right-wing populist language to mitigate public discontent and address concerns regarding the effects of Venezuelans on public order, institutional capacity, and efficiency. In both cases, Peru and Colombia, Venezuelan migration was instrumentalised by political leaders to respond to citizen pressures and serve political interests. Recommendations highlight the need to broaden comparative research to other countries with similar migration dynamics and explore how regional migration frameworks affect domestic-national responses. The study further emphasises focused examination of the motivations driving Venezuelan migrants’ reactions to these policies while urging policymakers to consider real assumptions and motivations derived from populist rhetoric to guide and produce more informed and coherent responses to migration.