Political discourse and crimmigration in South America: a comparative study

Abstract

This article analyzes the dynamics of crimmigration in South America, examining how contemporary political discourses in Argentina, Ecuador, and Chile (2023–2025) instrumentalize penal populism as a propaganda tool that subsequently translates into regulatory changes restricting the rights of the migrants. The research argues that the approach to migration management has turned from a human rights paradigm toward a securitization logic that identifies migrants as a “useful enemy” to legitimize promises of order and punitive control. Using a qualitative and descriptive methodology grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis, this study examines the government platforms of Javier Milei, Daniel Noboa, and José Antonio Kast. From a legal-dogmatic perspective, we analyze each political proposal with its own constitutional frameworks and immigration legislation. This literature review makes it possible to delve deeper into the categories of penal populism, the useful enemy, and control. The analysis reveals a symbiosis between criminal and administrative law that results in the materialization of the concept of “crimmigration” proposed by J. Stumpf, which translates into an “administrativization” of punishment. Thereby, this approach undermines fundamental principles of criminal law such as proportionality, legality, and the presumption of innocence. The findings suggest that using the concept of “useful enemy” and measures that restrict migrants’ rights do not seek efficiency in managing mobility or rights protection, but rather political profitability.