Why President Gustavo Petro’s Approach to U.S. Deportations Was Misguided

President Gustavo Petro’s intentions to defend Colombians affected by U.S. deportation policies were admirable. However, his approach to addressing this critical issue was flawed, risking diplomatic friction, neglecting actionable solutions, and missing leadership opportunities. This analysis explores the key reasons Petro’s approach fell short and offers insights into what could have been done differently.

Diplomatic Tensions with the United States

President Petro’s public condemnation of U.S. deportation practices strained Colombia’s relationship with one of its most crucial allies. The United States plays a pivotal role in Colombia’s economic stability, anti-narcotics operations, and security. Recent trade figures show that the U.S. remains Colombia’s largest trading partner, with exports reaching $11.8 billion in 2023. Additionally, U.S. assistance in combatting drug trafficking—such as the $448 million allocated through the “Plan Colombia” programme—has been a cornerstone of bilateral cooperation.

Instead of public confrontation, Petro could have pursued private dialogue with U.S. officials to raise concerns. Public criticism risks alienating policymakers in Washington, reducing Colombia’s leverage in addressing deportation practices and other pressing matters such as trade and foreign aid.

Lack of Constructive Solutions

While Petro’s critique brought attention to the plight of deportees, it fell short of providing actionable solutions. For instance, a significant number of Colombian deportees struggle with reintegration, as many lack access to employment and housing. In 2023, over 15,000 Colombians were deported from the U.S., according to data from the Department of Homeland Security. This issue requires policies that help deportees reintegrate into Colombian society.

Rather than solely criticising U.S. policies, Petro could have proposed measures such as:

● Establishing reintegration programmes offering vocational training and mental health support for deportees.

● Strengthening bilateral agreements to ensure humane treatment of deportees.

● Collaborating with civil society groups to address deportee welfare.

Additionally, Petro missed an opportunity to spearhead regional dialogue on migration, leveraging partnerships within the Andean Community (CAN) or the Organisation of American States (OAS) to develop collective solutions.

Neglecting Colombia’s Internal Challenges

Colombia faces its challenges with migration, particularly in managing the influx of Venezuelan migrants and asylum seekers. According to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the country hosts over 2.8 million Venezuelans, straining public services such as healthcare, housing, and education. The Migration Policy Institute has highlighted the need for a more robust infrastructure to accommodate this population.

By focusing heavily on U.S. deportations, Petro appeared to overlook Colombia’s domestic responsibilities. A more balanced approach would have addressed both the country’s external and internal migration concerns, setting an example for regional leadership.

Alienating Key Domestic Constituencies

Petro’s rhetoric on U.S. deportations may have resonated with progressive and human rights groups, but it risked alienating other segments of Colombian society. Communities struggling with high unemployment or the impacts of internal displacement may view such an approach as disconnected from their immediate concerns. According to a 2024 Gallup poll, public confidence in Petro’s ability to handle domestic security and economic issues has been declining, with approval ratings dropping to 35%.

Petro’s strategy of blaming external forces like the U.S. could be interpreted by some Colombians as an evasion of domestic responsibilities. By failing to directly address challenges such as unemployment and internal displacement, Petro may have missed an opportunity to build broader public support.

Missed Opportunity for Regional Leadership

Colombia is uniquely positioned to lead on migration issues in Latin America, particularly given its experience hosting Venezuelan migrants and its strategic location in the hemisphere. However, instead of taking a leadership role, Petro focused narrowly on U.S. deportations, overlooking the potential for regional collaboration.

Latin America faces shared challenges, including poverty, violence, and political instability, which drive migration. A coordinated response involving countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, and Brazil could address these root causes more effectively. For example, creating a regional framework for migration management modelled after the European Union’s Dublin Regulation, could provide more structured solutions.

Political Posturing Over Effective Governance

Petro’s strong rhetoric against the U.S. may have been driven by political considerations, aiming to solidify his image as a defender of Colombian migrants. However, such posturing often prioritises short-term popularity over long-term solutions. Governing effectively requires pragmatic and strategic decision-making, particularly when engaging with a global superpower.

Instead of performative gestures, Petro could have demonstrated leadership by presenting a clear plan to address domestic migration challenges and the treatment of Colombians abroad. For example, increasing Colombia’s investment in reintegration programmes and advocating for international migration reform would have showcased his commitment to practical governance.

Conclusion

While President Gustavo Petro’s concerns about U.S. deportation policies were valid, his approach was ultimately counterproductive. Publicly condemning a key ally without presenting actionable alternatives undermined Colombia’s diplomatic standing and failed to address the root causes of migration. By neglecting domestic responsibilities and missing opportunities for regional leadership, Petro weakened his position at home and abroad.

A more balanced approach—focusing on strengthening Colombia’s internal migration policies, engaging in diplomatic dialogue with the U.S., and leading regional initiatives—would have been far more effective. True leadership lies in forging collaborative solutions that address complex issues, rather than resorting to polarising rhetoric.

Dr Brian Reuben is the Executive Chairman of the Sixteenth Council.