Peru’s Failed Migration Policy Endangers Security and Stability Amid Venezuelan Influx

Peru’s experiment in unchecked immigration has exposed a stark reality: even well-intentioned open-border policies can spiral into national security and social crises when government institutions lack the capacity to manage them. According to a recent study led by Matthew Bird of the University of the Pacific, Peru welcomed approximately 1.6 million Venezuelan migrants since 2018 under a policy of migratory flexibility that was not backed by adequate infrastructure or data management.

While former President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski’s gesture to admit Venezuelans fleeing humanitarian collapse was commendable in principle, the policy quickly revealed its flaws. The rapid change in migration documentation inadvertently increased irregular or illegal status among migrants, leaving Peruvian authorities unable to track who was legally residing in the country. Bird estimates that over half of these migrants hold foreign identification cards, yet the state itself lacks reliable data on their legal status, undermining enforcement of immigration laws and public safety.

Can Any Nation Afford Such Institutional Blindness?

This murky oversight opens doors wide for criminal enterprises—Peru has become a haven for international gangs like the notorious Tren de Aragua, exploiting migration chaos. It is no accident that Peru now leads South America as the most “politically liberal” nation on migration controls, sacrificing sovereignty for short-term humanitarian optics.

From an America First perspective, these are cautionary tales. How long will Washington continue down this path of poorly managed border policies that reward mass irregular migration? The resulting strain on social services, labor markets, and law enforcement mirrors perilous trends seen across Latin America.

The Human Cost Is Real—but So Are National Priorities

The report also highlights deep-rooted issues facing Venezuelan migrants: discrimination, labor exclusion, precarious legal statuses—and growing trauma with few support systems in place. While aid groups like Ayuda en Acción have pushed entrepreneurial initiatives and regularization efforts—helping some flourish—the scale of informal economic participation remains troubling.

Bird bluntly calls for shifting from mere humanitarian rhetoric toward true inclusion policies focused on formalizing work access and mental health supports for migrants without compromising native citizens’ rights and resources.

This balanced approach aligns squarely with protecting national sovereignty—a core tenet ignored when governments invite large migrant flows without clear capacity plans or enforceable rules.

Peru’s experience is a vivid warning: welcome gestures must be matched by capable governance; otherwise, they unravel the very social fabric they aim to protect. For Americans watching border debates rage at home, it raises urgent questions about how we control migration – through strength and order or chaotic permissiveness inviting risk.