Ecuador as a transmigration hub in South-South migration: evolving policies and contemporary challenges

Introduction

The principle of freedom of movement, enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, posits a universal right to leave any country [1, p. 71]. However, the geopolitical reality of the 21st century is characterized by a pronounced "global mobility divide" [2, p. 1195]. While citizens of affluent nations enjoy extensive visa-free access, those from the Global South – particularly from Africa, parts of Asia, and conflict zones – face severe restrictions, effectively limiting their life choices and safety [3, p. 132]. This inequity has catalyzed complex migration patterns, including the rise of South-South migration and the emergence of key transit countries.

South-South migration, defined as movements between developing countries, has gained prominence due to regional integration efforts, proximity, and shared cultural or linguistic ties. However, it is often overshadowed in academic and policy discourse by South-North flows. Within this context, certain states emerge as critical transmigration hubs – nodes where migration routes converge, and where migrants pause, often out of necessity, before continuing their journeys or settling temporarily. These hubs are characterized by a confluence of permissive policies, geographic positioning, and existing migrant networks.

Ecuador has become a paradigmatic case of such a transmigration hub in Latin America. Its role is dual: as a destination for regional migrants, primarily from Venezuela and Colombia, and as a critical transit point for extra-continental migrants aiming to reach North America or other Southern Cone countries. This transformation was largely initiated by the radical visa liberalization policy of 2008 under President Rafael Correa, grounded in the constitutional principle of universal citizenship and free human mobility [4, p. 201]. This policy experiment positioned Ecuador at the forefront of a progressive, rights-based approach to migration in the Global South.

However, the tension between the normative ideal of open borders and the practical imperatives of state security, economic stability, and social service management constitutes the core problem of Ecuador’s migration governance. The country’s experience serves as a critical lens through which to examine the broader challenges of managing mixed migration flows in an era of both heightened human rights consciousness and securitized borders. This article investigates this tension, analyzing the evolution of Ecuador’s policies from 2008 to 2025, its current role in regional migration dynamics, and the multifaceted challenges arising from its position as a South-South transmigration nexus. It argues that Ecuador’s journey reflects a cyclical struggle to reconcile ideological commitments with on-the-ground realities, a struggle with significant implications for regional migration governance.

Research Methodology

The object of this study is Ecuador’s migration policy and its outcomes within the framework of South-South mobility. The subject is the transformation of Ecuador into a transmigration hub and the consequent policy adaptations, with a focus on the period from 2008 to 2025.

The research employs a qualitative methodology based on an interdisciplinary approach, integrating political science, international relations, and migration studies perspectives. The core methods include:

1. Documentary Analysis: A systematic examination of primary legal and policy documents. This includes Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution (specifically Article 40 on free mobility), the landmark 2017 Organic Law on Human Mobility, presidential decrees related to visa policy (e.g., the 2008 liberalization and subsequent restrictive amendments), and official statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility. Additionally, key documents from the Quito Process, such as its successive Declarations and the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework (CRPSF), are analyzed to understand the regional policy context [6, 10].
2. Case Study Analysis: An in-depth, longitudinal analysis of Ecuador as a critical case of policy shift and its consequences. Specific policy episodes are scrutinized, including the motivations and immediate effects of the 2008 visa liberalization, the reactive reinstatement of visas for specific nationalities, and the domestic implementation challenges of regional agreements like the Quito Process.
3. Analysis of Secondary Data: Synthesis and critical evaluation of existing quantitative and qualitative data. This encompasses migration flow statistics from Ecuador’s National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC), reports from international organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the World Bank [7, 8], and scholarly literature. Special attention is paid to data trends post-2020 to capture the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the evolving Venezuelan exodus.
4. Theoretical Framework: The analysis is guided by two key conceptual lenses. First, the theory of the "global mobility divide" helps to situate Ecuador’s policies within the broader structure of unequal global mobility rights [2, p. 1192-1213]. Second, the framework of "securitization" versus "humanitarianization" of migration discourse is used to analyze the competing narratives that have shaped Ecuadorian policy – framing migrants alternately as subjects of rights and protection versus potential threats to security and public order [5; 9, p. 265-290].

This multi-method approach allows for a comprehensive, historically grounded, and theoretically informed understanding of the complex drivers, implementations, and outcomes of Ecuador’s migration governance as a transmigration hub.

Results and Discussion

1. From Open Doors to Calibrated Control

The Evolution of Visa Policy. Ecuador’s 2008 decision to unilaterally abolish pre-arrival visas for all nationals was a landmark in migration liberalism, unparalleled in its scope at the time. The policy was not merely administrative but a profound ideological statement, a direct application of the new constitutional right to mobility and a deliberate challenge to the global regime of unequal travel rights [4, p. 198-217]. It embodied the principle of universal citizenship, seeking to decouple the right to entry from geopolitical privilege.

However, the practical consequences were swift and unforeseen. The policy effectively transformed Ecuador into the most accessible country in the Americas for extra-continental migrants. Arrivals from countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, and Cuba surged, with many using Ecuador not as a final destination but as a strategic, visa-free entry point to the continent from which to embark on the perilous northward journey towards the United States. This transmigration function triggered significant domestic and international backlash. Concerns over irregular migration pathways, the growth of sophisticated human smuggling networks, and politically potent – often racially charged–security fears (e.g., unfounded links to terrorism) created immense pressure on the Correa administration [5].

The policy recalibration began swiftly. By 2010, visa requirements were reinstated for citizens of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia. This cycle of liberalization and restriction highlights the core policy paradox: the noble normative commitment to open borders clashed irreconcilably with the practical and politically charged concerns of national security, sovereignty, and administrative manageability. As of 2025, Ecuador maintains a de facto dual-tier system that mirrors global inequalities: visa-free access for citizens of most OECD countries, North and South American nations, and Europe, contrasted with visa requirements for many African, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries. Thus, Ecuador’s policy trajectory demonstrates how a state in the Global South, despite an initial radical departure, can be compelled to replicate the very structures of the "global mobility divide" it sought to dismantle.

2. The Venezuelan Exodus and the Institutionalization of Regional Response

While extra-continental flows tested policy boundaries, the massive influx of over 7 million Venezuelan migrants and refugees since 2015 became the defining demographic and humanitarian challenge for Ecuador and the region. At its peak, Ecuador received several hundred thousand Venezuelans, straining its social services and infrastructure. This crisis necessitated a shift from unilateral national policy to coordinated regional action.

In response, the Quito Process, launched in September 2018, emerged as the primary regional intergovernmental mechanism. Co-led by Ecuador alongside Colombia, Peru, and Brazil, it evolved from an ad-hoc crisis response into a more structured, institutionalized framework for dialogue and standard-setting. Its cornerstone achievement is the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework (CRPSF), a progressive document that advocates for a harmonized, rights-based approach. The CRPSF promotes key principles such as access to regularizing documentation, healthcare, education, and formal labor market integration for Venezuelans, aiming to shift the response from emergency humanitarian aid to sustainable socio-economic inclusion [6, 11].

For Ecuador, active participation in the Quito Process has served multiple strategic purposes: it has provided a diplomatic platform to advocate for equitable burden-sharing and attract international technical and financial assistance; it has helped legitimize its own domestic policies by aligning them with regional consensus; and it has fostered operational cooperation on border management. However, a critical analysis reveals a persistent implementation gap between regional commitments and national realities. Ecuador’s domestic institutional and fiscal capacity remains chronically strained. This strain has led to periodic episodes of policy retrenchment that contradict the Quito spirit, such as the controversial though short-lived 2023 measure requiring a Venezuelan passport for entry – a document notoriously difficult for many refugees to obtain. These episodes underscore the ongoing policy volatility and the tension between regional solidarity and domestic political pressures, particularly during times of economic difficulty or heightened public anxiety.

3. Contemporary Dynamics and Challenges (2020–2025)

The post-pandemic landscape, coupled with ongoing regional crises, has added complex new layers to Ecuador’s role as a transmigration hub, testing its governance systems further:

• Resumed and Diversified Extra-Continental Flows: After a temporary lull during global border closures, transit migration through Ecuador has not only resumed but diversified. While flows from Africa and Asia continue, there has been a notable increase in migrants from Haiti and Cuba, often arriving via Brazil or Chile and using Ecuador as a northward transit point. These journeys rely on complex, decentralized smuggling networks that adapt quickly to enforcement measures. The Darien Gap – the treacherous jungle border between Colombia and Panama – remains the focal choke point for this route. Data from Panamanian authorities indicates record crossings in 2023 and 2024, with many migrants originating their journeys in Ecuador [7]. This underscores Ecuador’s entrenched role in a transnational migration corridor.
• Deepening Internal Strain and the Rise of Xenophobia: The sustained presence of large migrant populations, both Venezuelan and extra-continental, has exerted prolonged pressure on urban centers like Quito, Guayaquil, and Manta. Competition for affordable housing, spots in public schools, and informal sector jobs has intensified. This socio-economic friction has, in several instances, been channeled into overt xenophobic sentiment and discrimination, challenging the official narrative of Ecuador as a historically "welcoming country." Incidents of stigmatization and social media-driven hostility highlight the growing challenge of social cohesion and the need for targeted public information and integration programs that involve host communities.
• The Security-Solidarity Nexus and State Response: The governments of President Guillermo Lasso (2021–2023) and his successor have navigated a precarious dual discourse. Publicly, they reaffirm commitment to human rights and regional solidarity, as evidenced by continued participation in the Quito Process. Operationally, however, there has been a marked shift towards securitization measures. This includes increased militarized patrols on the northern border with Colombia, aimed at combating smuggling rings and irregular crossings, and discussions around biometric registration for all entrants. This creates a tangible conflict: stringent border security measures often block or criminalize the very vulnerable populations that humanitarian policies seek to protect, pushing migrants towards more dangerous routes and into the hands of smugglers.
• The Quito Process: Institutional Consolidation and Persistent Limitations. By 2025, the Quito Process is widely recognized as an indispensable diplomatic forum. However, it faces significant headwinds. Donor fatigue and competing global crises have led to chronic underfunding of its ambitious plans. Political will among member states is inconsistent, with domestic priorities sometimes overriding regional commitments, as seen in Peru’s and Chile’s own restrictive measures. Furthermore, the Process remains predominantly focused on the Venezuelan situation, struggling to adapt its framework comprehensively to address mixed migration flows that include extra-continental migrants, internally displaced persons, and those fleeing new crises in Haiti and Nicaragua. This lack of a holistic mandate limits its effectiveness in dealing with the full spectrum of mobility through hubs like Ecuador.

Conclusion

Ecuador’s trajectory as a transmigration hub offers a compelling narrative of the complex, often contradictory, realities of governing migration in an interconnected yet unequal world. Its bold experiment with radical visa liberalization demonstrated both the powerful normative appeal and the profound practical perils of attempting to implement a truly open, rights-based mobility model from a position within the Global South. While the initial policy was significantly scaled back, it irrevocably altered Ecuador’s geographic and logistical destiny, cementing its role as a key node in intricate networks of both South-South and South-North migration.

The country’s experience reflects a broader regional and global tension. Progressive normative frameworks like the Ecuador Process and the domestically pioneering 2017 Human Mobility Law represent significant advancements in recognizing the personhood and rights of migrants. Yet, these frameworks are continuously stress-tested and often undermined by the sheer scale of human flows, chronic limitations in state capacity and resources, the persistent imperative of border security, and fluctuating domestic socio-economic and political pressures.

For Ecuador, the path towards more sustainable and humane migration governance is fraught but clear. It necessitates moving beyond cyclical reactions towards a coherent, long-term strategy. This strategy must be built on three pillars: first, strengthened and truly equitable regional cooperation through mechanisms like the Ecuador Process, including predictable funding and binding burden-sharing agreements; second, integrated national policies that intelligently combine efficient, humane border management with robust, locally-funded integration programs that benefit both migrants and host communities; and third, sustained and targeted international support that addresses the root causes of displacement in countries of origin and provides adequate resources for reception and integration in transit and destination countries.

Ultimately, Ecuador’s case study powerfully illustrates that for a nation serving as a transmigration hub, navigating the volatile intersection of human mobility, human rights, and national sovereignty requires not just political will but also strategic foresight, institutional resilience, and an unwavering commitment to a balanced approach that neither sacrifices dignity for security nor ignores reality for idealism. The lessons from Ecuador are critical for other emerging transit countries across the Global South.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank colleagues from the Secretariat of Higher Education, Science, Technology, and Innovation (in Spanish SENESCYT) and National Information System of Higher Education of Ecuador (in Spanish SNIESE).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.