Search

Fleeing from the country's humanitarian crisis, around 224,000 Venezuelans, half of whom requested protection as refugees, had crossed the border into Brazil as of December 2019. The paper uses a case study approach combining quantitative and documentary evidence to systematically examine the Brazilian political‐institutional response to this mass displacement. Although Brazil has been internationally praised as a model, its policy response has been far more complex and ambiguous, lacking the clear progressive character ascribed to it. Despite having a 'progressive' migration and refugee legal framework, the state's framing of this displacement as a temporary 'migration crisis' has led to the militarization of migration management and the adoption of ad hoc regularization mechanisms for the temporary settlement of Venezuelans, with little articulation with other long‐term intersectorial socio‐economic policies. This case illustrates how countries in the global south manage the tensions between securitization and human rights concerns in their migration governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the Colombian government has embraced the migration‐development agenda by designing programmes to channel remittances to key sectors such as housing and finance,in an attempt to institutionalise migrant households' transnational economic practices. However, little is known about migrant households' multifaceted transnational practices, their broader impact on households' and localities' socioeconomic development and migrants' engagement with these migration‐for‐development programmes. Drawing on qualitative data collected along the Colombia‐UK migration network, this paper contrasts the narrow interpretation of development that underpins the migration‐development agenda, as exemplified by the remittances‐for‐housing programmes implemented in Colombia, with the more nuanced social and economic contributions that remittance‐financed housing investments have for migrant households' and communities' socioeconomic development. Thus, it provides a more nuanced interpretation of development to account for the often invisible, socioeconomic spinoffs that occur in the process of migrant households' attempts to produce and reproduce their livelihoods transnationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]