Gizane Campos 0:03

Hello and welcome to Be Global, the podcast by Global Citizen Solutions, where we explore how mobility, migration, and citizenship are reshaping our interconnected world. I am your host, Gisanne Campos, and today we have a truly special guest, Professor Diego Acosta, one of the leading voices in citizenship and migration law. Diego Acosta is a professor of European and migration law at the University of Bristol and director of Nebriche Global Chair in Migration and Human Rights. His groundbreaking work has eliminated how ideas of belonging, nationality, and free movement evolve across regions, particularly in Latin America. Diego, it's such a pleasure to have you here with us today.

SPEAKER_02 1:01

Thank you so much. The pleasure is all mine.

Gizane Campos 1:04

Great, good. So, Diego, before we dive into the real serious stuff, I'd love to start with a little warm-up. So I'm gonna ask you, and please tell me wholeheartedly, if you could instantly gain citizenship in any country in the world purely for curiosity or research or even lifestyle reasons, which one would it be?

SPEAKER_02 1:34

Well, oh that's uh that's an interesting question. Um well I'll I'll I don't know, uh maybe maybe Japan could be an interesting country um to get citizenship from. Well, I I I I find Japan to be very interesting culturally, but also in terms of uh its migration policies. Um and Japan is a country that is obviously uh struggling uh with and facing some of the same challenges that other uh advanced economies are facing in terms of aging populations and um very um low uh birth rates, and so so it's I I always find Japan to be a very interesting country. I've been a couple of times uh I I think you know it will be very interesting. Obviously, I will have to learn Japanese before I could get Japanese citizenship, but that would be a pleasure in itself.

Gizane Campos 2:32

That is a very good answer, and I must say, if you ask me the same question, I would probably answer that as well. I've um I think it's purely culturally speaking. I've in my entire life, I've been I've always been fascinated with Japan.

SPEAKER_03 2:47

Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, I have to say I've been a couple of times and it really blew my mind.

Gizane Campos 2:52

Yeah, yeah. Good. Okay, thank you very much. So now we know, and um, hopefully we'll be able to test your Japanese in a few years. So now let's move on. Um, I'd love to start with your own intellectual journey. And um, I know you've extensively studied the evolution of citizenship and migration law in South America, yeah, over the past two centuries. Um what initially drew you to focus on the um the intersection between nationality law and regional integration in Latin America?

SPEAKER_02 3:33

Well, um, thanks for the question. It was it was pure serendipity, to be honest. And I'm from Spain, uh, but I had lived in Colombia and in Brazil. I speak Portuguese and obviously Spanish as well. Um, and I was working in the UK. Um, I was doing a PhD in the UK. Um, and in 2009 I did a series of presentations in Santiago de Chile, in Rio, and in Bogotá, and these presentations were about a particular piece of EU legislation uh that affected Latin American migrants in Europe, uh, as well as other migrants in Europe, but but also obviously Latin American migrants. And this particular piece of legislation which explained the procedure to expel migrants in an irregular situation from the European Union had been heavily criticized by Latin American countries. And um therefore I posed myself the question whether if Latin American countries were criticizing this particular piece of legislation, that possibly meant that their laws, their migration laws, were much more um you know open and less restrictive. And that's how I started looking at uh immigration law in Latin America, and in particular in South America, also in Latin America at large, but more precisely in South America, around 2010. And what I found was that obviously the picture was mixed. There were some countries with some really interesting developments in terms of immigration law, also in terms of nationality law, uh, but there were others with uh very restrictive practices, which in some cases were coming from the military dictatorships that had uh occurred in in South America, in particular in the 70s, 1970s, and 80s. And many of the migration laws and also part of the nationality laws that were still in place in many countries in South America derive from laws that had been adopted during those military regimes. And so I found a very interesting picture. At the same time, I found that free movement of people was not only a unique European phenomenon as we sometimes tend to erroneously think, uh, but actually Latin America or South America in particular had already free movement of people as well through Mercosur and to a much lesser extent at the time through the Andean community. And so that's how I started, you know, I my interest grew in Latin America, and that is how I started doing more serious research in South America, and that is, you know, why in 2018 I published a book on analyzing, you know, more than 200 years of development of nationality and immigration law in South America.

Gizane Campos 6:22

Oh, that's great. I'm really glad you mentioned it because I want to talk about your book now. So um the name of your book is The National versus the Foreigner in South America. So um also explaining here to our listeners that they should read it. Um, in your book, you explore how ideas of belonging and exclusion have shaped um South America's legal systems. So, how do you see the tension between national identity and uh supranational frameworks evolving in Latin America today?

SPEAKER_02 7:02

Well, thank you, thank you very much. That's that's a very interesting question. So, you know, basically from the very beginning, from the moment of independence of what initially were 10 new countries in South America, Suriname and Guyana have a very uh different uh colonial history and they only became independent in the in the 20th century. But basically, uh out of what had been uh a Portuguese and a Spanish possession in South America, 10 countries emerged in the early 19th century, and all of them had the same challenges. Uh first of all, they had to create a functioning states, and therefore they enter into a process of statehood. And in order to create a state, the three components in international law are territory, population, and a functioning government, and which is controlling precisely that relationship between territory and population. And these countries enter into this process of you know creating states uh in the early 19th century, but at the same time they realized that they also needed to construct, to invent, to create nations, uh, because in these territories, in what used to be Spanish and Portuguese possessions in South America, populations were divided by class, but they were also divided by race. There were descendants of Europeans, also known as crioles or criollos, they were um uh Afro-descendants and there were indigenous uh populations. Um one um device that uh elites uh found useful in the early 19th century to create nations was to um create this idea that anybody who was born in the territory of the new countries will become a national. So there is a very famous sentence by San Martin, who was himself born in what is now Argentina, but also liberated Peru. And at one point in a decree in 1821, he declares that anybody, anyways anyone who is born in Peru, regardless of whether they are Afrodescendant, indigenous, or descendants of Europeans, is going to be from now on a Peruvian. So this is a national building process. It doesn't mean that all nationals were going to be citizens. That was a different story, because obviously to have political rights was a completely different thing from being a national. So from the very beginning, large um groups or or the majority of the populations of the new countries were excluded from citizenship. Uh citizenship understood as the enjoyment of political rights. And of course, you know, first and foremost, women were excluded from citizenship because citizenship was only uh available for men, but also uh those, for example, who didn't have certain um a certain level of uh rent or properties, or those who were um uh who were um uh who were not capable of uh reading and writing, uh, or you know the the elites use different techniques, different legal techniques to exclude large parts of the population from having political rights. So it's a very interesting process because on the one hand they are creating nations by defining everybody as a national, by the mere fact of being born in those territories, and indeed still today, if you're born in Brazil, if you're born in Ecuador, if you're born in Argentina, you become a national. But at the same time, they are they are they are uh limiting access to citizenship and to political rights. And you know, to to conclude this answer to your question, what happens also at the same time is that among the elites, there is a very strong feeling of regionalism, so they feel more connected with elites in other territories of um, you know, territories that used to be part of, in this case, the the Spanish crown, they feel more connection with those elites in other territories than with their own populations. So there are these two processes happening. On the one hand, there are many attempts at regional integration, which are by far uh unsuccessful in the 19th century, and also concomitantly, there is this process of uh nation building happening in in the region.

Gizane Campos 11:25

Absolutely. Um Diego, thank you very much for this history class. It's um fantastic, and um I don't I don't say that in uh in a negative way, it's been really um eye-opening. Um, and I'd like also to uh move forward the clocks a bit, uh a couple of centuries, and ask you um uh about something more present in this day and age. Do you think um regional integration in South America, like in the European Union, you know, the likes of Mercosur, for instance, could serve as a model? Or does Latin America need its own unique path forward?

SPEAKER_02 12:14

Um well, I think I think um that's again a very interesting question. I think um each region has uh globally has its own um uh idiosyncrasy and uh peculiarities and characteristics, right? So I have never been an advocate of using the EU as a model elsewhere. The European Union um emerged out of very particular European circumstances and mostly related to the Second World War and the aftermath of the Second World War, and the need to have not only respect for fundamental rights, but also um, you know, as the the EU the EU's project was born on the idea of peace and prosperity in the European Union, in the in what used to be in what is now the European Union, right? Um and that idea is not necessarily something that we can export to other regions, other regions will have their own processes, and that is very clear in the case of Latin America at large and South America in particular. There have been many, many attempts, uh unsuccessful attempts at regional integration in Latin America also in the 20th century. And I would say that now we have two long-standing and successful in many respects regional organizations, which are the Andean community and Mercosur in South America. And I think they have to, as they do, for example, when it comes to free movement of people, they have to find their own um uh ideas, their own um they have to find their own way to to legislate or to adopt policies on these particular issues, considering the characteristics of the region, in this case of South America. What I do argue, however, when I go to other places around the world, so I have worked quite a bit on Africa, for example, I go in, I am going to the headquarters of the African Union in a couple of weeks in in Ethiopia and Eddis Abeba. Um, when I am talking about free movement of people in Africa, for example, I tend to argue that the South American model or even the Caribbean model could be much more interesting for African countries than the European model, because there are some aspects which are shared in terms of, for example, um uh the rates of informality in the labor market. Um but again, Africa also has its own history, its own um peculiarities, and has to find its own ways to develop not only regional integration, but what matters to me or what is more of interest for me, which is um free movement of people at regional level.

Gizane Campos 15:01

Definitely. That's a very good point, the modeling on uh the CARICOM um and how it serves the Caribbean communities. Very good. So I'd like to move forward now, um, Professor Diego, and let's talk about the your free move project. Since you mentioned that, that's what it is of your interest. Um, it has mapped dozens of free movement regimes around the world. It's um it's fascinating because it shows that these regimes aren't open borders, they are uh um legal tools that regulate and facilitate mobility. Could you elaborate on how these regimes have impacted the evolution of global migration governance?

SPEAKER_02 15:51

Free movement regimes are simply tools, legal tools that facilitate the entry, the residence, the access to the labor market, and in some cases, access to other rights for nationals of the participating states. But states continue to have a certain degree of control regarding who can enter and who can reside and who can continue to reside in their territories. So these are not open borders. The only instances that we find of open borders globally is when someone has two or more nationalities. So myself, I am British and I am Spanish as well, so I can move freely uh with open borders between the UK and Spain, because uh I am a national of both countries. That is not what happens with free movement beans. There are still some clauses, some provisions that states can use to deny, for example, entry if uh a national of a participating state is a threat, for example, to public policy. Uh, but nonetheless, they are very important facilitators of mobility and they are a very pragmatic approach that states globally use to regulate migration.

Gizane Campos 17:06

I see. Okay, and then um again on the concept of free movement, do you see it becoming more central to how we think about migration or are we moving in the opposite direction globally?

SPEAKER_02 17:22

So I think there are two trends happening at the same time. On the one hand, if we only look at the news um and we look at some part of the political discourse, we might get the impression um that states are simply trying to close borders, to erect barriers, to deny entry, to expel foreigners. And that is part of the picture. Uh obviously, that is a part of the picture that is very prominent in the news now because of the leading role of the US in these matters, not only now, but historically, as the country that receives more migrants in the war every single year. But at the same time, what we see is that states around the world are very well aware of the fact that they need foreigners, they need migrants in different um skills, in different uh sectors for different reasons. And what they do is to adopt tools, not only free movement regimes, but they also adopt other legal tools to facilitate the entry of migrants. For example, there's a global competition for students. Uh, states want to receive more and more foreign students because that is an asset for their universities and they bring resources. There is a global competition for highly skilled workers. There is a global competition as well for, in some respects, for low skilled workers, which are needed in many sectors for many countries. So the two things are happening at the same time. On the one hand, we see a closure or a restriction in certain aspects, whereas at the same time we see also opening uh more pathways for mobility happening in in other sectors, including uh through free movement regimes.

Gizane Campos 19:02

Okay, that's very good. And then I'd like to move forward to talk about the Caribbean uh free movement agreement. Um it's something that happened very recently and it's quite groundbreaking. Um on October 1st, 2025, uh Barbados believed Dominique uh Saint Vincent and Grenadines launched a full free movement agreement um granting the nationals to leave uh the right to live, work, and remain indefinitely across those four countries without the need for permits. Um this marks obviously a big leap towards a deeper regional integration, and um and it's particularly interesting when we think about Dominica, which runs one of the world's oldest citizenship by investment programs. So um, Diego, I'd like to ask you under this new pact, will newly naturalized citizens via Dominica's CBI program automatically receive the same rights of uh mobility, work, residence, um, of course, the odd indefinite stay in the other member states?

SPEAKER_02 20:20

That's a very good question. I think in the case of the Caribbean, we need to first distinguish between two different regional organizations. There is the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, which already has full free movement of people since 2011. And Dominica is one of the six countries which is part of that regional organization. And on the other hand, we have the CARICOM, which is a larger regional organization with a larger membership, which has been debating free movement for many decades and which already had free movement of people for selected categories of workers. In 2023, the heads of state and government of CARICOM decided unanimously that by 2024 they would start having complete free movement of people in the region. That has been delayed, that process has been uh delayed. And what we see now is that some countries are taking the initiative, as you mentioned, Barbados, Belice, Dominica, and San Vincent and the Granadis, uh, to move that process forward, and which is again part of a larger global trend that we have been already discussing uh before, right? And certainly, if one obtains the nationality of Dominica, one should be able to move to reside in any other of the uh member states of the organization of eastern Caribbean states, or in this case, also in Belice or Barbados, which are not part of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, but which are nonetheless part of CADICO and which have already also implemented this completely. Free movement of people.

Gizane Campos 22:01

That's excellent. It's quite a um quite groundbreaking move. And um and yes, I'm glad to have your thoughts on that. Now I'd like to um I mean, given your deep expertise in citizenship and migration law, it would be a waste not to ask you for um your thoughts on the investment migration programs. So basically, my question is how do you think these programs fit within an idea of uh global governance of uh migration? Can they coexist with more traditional frameworks of citizenship and mobility?

SPEAKER_02 22:44

Well, that's a very good question. I think um we have to distinguish, on the one hand, obviously, residence by investment from citizenship by investment. There is um much more criticism of citizenship by investment, uh, even though, of course, we see that more and more countries globally are adopting citizenship by investment schemes. We are all aware, or more many of our listeners will be aware, of course, of the recent case before the European Court of Justice Commission versus Malta, and how that has affected the Maltese citizenship by investment scheme. One thing, however, that is important when it comes to, in particular, citizenship by investment schemes, is that the numbers, the number of beneficiaries is usually very, very low. And therefore, even though they are a very controversial, if you like, um aspect of migration regulation and migration governance, especially in the last few years, or at least uh controversial for part of the debate or for a number of uh stakeholders in in the debate, and the number of people who benefit from these uh possibilities is is usually very low. Um and in that regard, I think they can certainly coexist with um normal uh pathways for mobility. Uh, I think countries have always had some sort of residence by investment schemes. They were not called as such before. Perhaps they were more open towards pensioneers who had access to a certain uh income per month, who could obtain a residence in a different country, etc. That has now transformed into more and more residence by investment schemes. Certainly, in some countries, they have created challenges, uh, and we have seen how, for example, Spain uh has uh stepped down from the residence by investment scheme that it used to run. Um and these are challenges that uh or or or um elements that need to be debated in each single country, depending again on the characteristics of of the country. Um, but I think uh to answer your question, I think they are perfectly um, I mean they they they can coexist in parallel with uh other um migration um regulation. I think the important the important element for each country is to adopt enough legal pathways for mobility um so that migration to follow the motto of the Global Compact for Migration, the UN Global Compact for Migration, is actually safe, regular, and orderly. And it is only when you have mobility pathways that that migration can happen in that safe, orderly, and regular manner.

Gizane Campos 25:41

Absolutely. Yeah, I'm in total agreement. Um, it's all about um creating the legal grounds and ensuring they all aligned uh within all the different um migration pathways of the same. Yes, so unfortunately we are reaching the end of our podcast, but um uh really before you go, I have to ask this question. Um, you've advised international organizations and parliaments around the world on migration governance. And I'd like to draw from that from that experience. What do you see as the biggest gap between academic research on migration and the realities of policy making?

SPEAKER_02 26:27

I think obviously we are all part of the same ecosystem. Um, there are many academics who are willing, eager, and uh engage a lot, not only with international organizations or governments, but also with lawyers, with judges. Uh, for example, last week um I'm right now in Madrid, and last week uh at Nebrija University, where I direct this chair on migration and human rights that you mentioned earlier, uh we had an event where we invited not only the Minister for Migration from Spain, but also um numerous migration lawyers. And we had this interaction between academia and migration lawyers, and that is very important because that can lead to collaborations, for example, in cases before tribunals, and that can lead, for example, to a strategic litigation. So it's not only about academics necessarily trying to influence, or in this case, legal scholars such as myself trying to influence necessarily big policies on migration, uh, but also smaller elements, a case in front of a court, uh, the correct interpretation of a particular article, of a norm, uh, etc. And I think there is more and more interaction. Um, in the 20 years that I have been working in academia, I have seen that uh trend of uh international organizations and governments uh being more willing to engage uh with academics. And again, ideas flow and ideas uh travel in different directions. It's very difficult to uh anticipate when an idea by a scholar is going to have some degree of influence or not in the future. But I think what is important is to continue having that conversation among different stakeholders in an open but also in an informed manner. I think that is very, very important, particularly obviously when it comes to any issue, but particularly when it comes to migration, which is an area which is full of myths, misconceptions, misunderstandings in the public debate.

Gizane Campos 28:40

Definitely. And um, sorry, now I have another last question, but I think it's a very important one uh given uh this moments that we are living right now. How do you think we can make migration policies more uh humane and evidence-based while still addressing some uh countries' uh political and social concerns?

SPEAKER_02 29:05

Well, that's a very good question. I think many of the policies that we have on migration are actually open and humane, and most of the mobility that happens around the world happens in a regular fashion, um in a safe fashion. And you know, a lot of people, millions of uh uh uh individuals migrate yearly without having any particular challenge or problem, other than the challenge uh and the braveness of moving to a different place uh from the one where they used to live before. And obviously at the same time, we have a lot of or a number of restrictive policies that are causing a lot of harm, a lot of suffering, a lot of damage, and which are many times related to uh political discourse that tries to find in migrants the scapegoats for different challenges that society is facing. Um so I think again we need to continue um having uh a calm, open, informed conversation about migration, about the benefits of migration, also about the challenges that um migration uh brings. And that is the best way forward uh to have policies of migration which do not create more harm and which facilitate mobility as a normal occurrence of humanity.

Gizane Campos 30:36

Professor, thank you very much. This has been a very enlightening conversation. Your uh work reminds us that migration is not just a legal matter, it's about identity, it's about belonging and uh the evolving meaning of citizenship in our global era. So thank you so much for joining us on Be Global.

SPEAKER_02 30:57

Thank you so much, Yisani. It has been a pleasure to be with you today and with your listeners.

Gizane Campos 31:02

Great. And our listeners, thank you for tuning in. Don't forget to subscribe to Be Global wherever you get your podcasts, and visit global citizensolutions.com for insights into global mobility, citizenship, and residency programs worldwide. And until next time, stay curious, stay global. Bye now.