How are human rights violations against Nicaraguan migrants manifested in the context of anti‑immigration policies, and to what extent are these actions compatible with the standards established by the jurisprudence of the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights on human mobility?
The compatibility of anti‑immigration policies adopted by various Latin American states—particularly Nicaragua—with the standards of the Inter‑American Human Rights System (IAHRS) is examined through an analysis of the jurisprudence of the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), advisory opinions, thematic reports of the Inter‑American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and international treaties. This analysis evaluates whether such policies respect the principle of non‑refoulement, the right to asylum, and due process. The Nicaraguan case is considered a paradigm of structural human rights violations in contexts of political repression and forced displacement.
The situation of migrants is an urgent and complex reality that requires immediate attention from the international community. It represents one of the greatest human rights challenges for Latin America and the world. Anti‑immigration policies—such as Title 42 in the United States—have raised serious concerns. The IACHR has expressed alarm over summary expulsions, prolonged detentions, and the lack of access to international protection in several countries in the region, reiterating that these practices violate obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights. According to Human Rights Watch, the policy of expelling people from the United States to Mexico has exposed thousands of asylum seekers to serious risks, violating their fundamental rights. Border closures and prolonged detentions without due process in Mexico also contravene the Convention, particularly Articles 8, 22.8, and 25. Advisory Opinion OC‑25/18 recognizes asylum as an autonomous human right, binding on States and subject to conventionality control. In this context, the Inter‑American Court has developed robust jurisprudence recognizing specific rights of migrants, such as the principle of non‑refoulement, family unity, and due process.
The Court’s jurisprudence explores the tensions between restrictive state policies and international obligations, emphasizing the role of conventionality control as an essential tool for harmonizing national legislation with the Inter‑American System. According to Advisory Opinion OC‑21/14, States must guarantee an individualized assessment before any removal, even in national security contexts. In Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, the Court condemned expulsions carried out without risk assessment, establishing that such actions violate the right to asylum, due process, and the principle of non‑refoulement. Similarly, in Vélez Loor v. Panama, the Court condemned arbitrary detention of migrants and the lack of effective judicial remedies. Advisory Opinion OC‑18/03 reinforces that every migrant—regardless of documentation status—has the right to equality before the law and to dignity. This obliges States to harmonize their legislation through conventionality control, eliminating practices that generate statelessness or structural violence.
The social impact of these practices is devastating: family separation, statelessness, and structural violence. According to UNHCR, more than 60,000 Nicaraguans were forced into exile within a year of the sociopolitical crisis, facing multiple obstacles to accessing international protection. The IACHR has identified a pattern of systematic violations that exacerbate the regional crisis. Advisory Opinion OC‑18/03 reiterates that human dignity and equality before the law are non‑negotiable principles, even for those without regular migratory status.
States must fulfill positive obligations: provide effective judicial remedies, translators, and free legal assistance. They must also avoid arbitrary detention and promote good practices, such as the Costa Rican Supreme Court rulings that struck down laws contrary to the Convention, and Colombia’s efforts to regularize Venezuelan migrants. The contrast with UN standards—such as those of the Human Rights Committee and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—reinforces that policies must guarantee a comprehensive human rights approach. This framework is supported by the Inter‑American Human Rights System and IACHR jurisprudence, which in reports such as Human Mobility (2023) affirms the obligation of States to adopt legislative, administrative, and judicial measures to guarantee non‑refoulement, due process, and effective judicial protection (see IACHR Report 2023, paras. 66–70). Regressive reforms and summary expulsions constitute a serious normative conflict that must be reviewed under conventionality control.
A critical evaluation of anti‑immigration policies is essential, as many have been structured around national security, territorial control, and deterrence, resulting in collective expulsions, arbitrary detentions, and the criminalization of migration. Although presented as legitimate responses to mass migratory flows, these measures cannot be detached from the binding normative framework established by the Inter‑American Human Rights System, particularly regarding non‑refoulement, the right to asylum, and access to effective judicial remedies.
The Inter‑American Court has been clear: States must harmonize their migration policies with their international commitments, ensuring individualized assessments, procedural guarantees, and reinforced protection for vulnerable groups. Therefore, any anti‑immigration policy must undergo conventionality control to verify its compatibility with the American Convention and prevent systematic violations that deepen exclusion, statelessness, or violence.
The OAS and States must act now, leading a transformative process that inspires reflection and decisive action, generating common regional standards, promoting coherent regulatory frameworks, and establishing binding monitoring mechanisms. This call must be embraced with responsibility so that international protection ceases to be a rhetorical ideal and becomes an effective guarantee of dignity and justice for migrants.