Impacts of COVID‐19 on Venezuelan migrants in the Andean corridor

Kieslinger, Julia Article — Published Version Impacts of COVID‐19 on Venezuelan migrants in the Andean corridor International Migration Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Kieslinger, Julia (2025) : Impacts of COVID‐19 on Venezuelan migrants in the Andean corridor, International Migration, ISSN 1468-2435, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 63, Iss. 3, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.70028 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319310 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ International Migration. 2025;63:e70028. | 1 of 18 https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.70028 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/imig Received: 9 February 2024 | Revised: 17 January 2025 | Accepted: 18 March 2025 DOI: 10.1111/imig.70028 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Impacts of COVID19 on Venezuelan migrants in the Andean corridor Julia Kieslinger Institute of Geography, FriedrichAlexander University ErlangenNuremberg, Erlangen, Germany Correspondence Julia Kieslinger, Institute of Geography, FriedrichAlexander University ErlangenNuremberg, Wetterkreuz 15, Erlangen 91058, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract Since 2015, about 7.9 million Venezuelans left their country due to political turmoil, socioeconomic instability, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The Andean Corridor is the most frequented land route in South America. This article explores Venezuelan migrants' experiences with the COVID19 pandemic on their journeys. Migrants undertake spatial movements and phases of staying, here conceived of as (im)mobilities. The study draws on crises and lifeworld perspectives, and uses participatory qualitative interviews to address individuals' decisionmaking under changing life conditions. The findings show that the governments' measures during the pandemic had severe impacts on the migrants, leading to forced (im) mobilization, changing mobility patterns, and means of transport. The informalization of (im)mobilities increased the risk of infection, endangered livelihoods, and resulted in greater exposure to insecurity and violence. The study highlights the need for inclusive, nuanced approaches to crises that acknowledge the voices and experiences of marginalized populations like Venezuelan migrants. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). International Migration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Organization for Migration. 2 of 18 | KIESLINGER INTRODUCTION Since 2015, many Venezuelans left the country due to political turmoil, socioeconomic instability, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis (Freier & DoñaReveco, 2022; Freitez et al., 2020; IOM, 2022a); even though real numbers of Venezuelan emigrants are difficult to measure, in November 2024 official estimates reached 7.9 million (R4V, 2024). The available figures of migrants in receiving countries indicate that the majority (6.7 million) are located in Latin America and the Caribbean, with Colombia (2,808,968; 9/2024), Peru (1,662,889; 12/2023), Brazil1 (626,885; 9/2024), Ecuador (444,778; 3/2024) and Chile (532,715; 12/2022) being the main destinations (ibid.). Due to informal border crossings and lack of residence status, actual numbers are likely to be much higher (ACAPS, 2021). As indicated by the aforementioned numbers but also highlighted in literature, the Andean Corridor is the most used and dynamic land route in South America, and Venezuelan migration is considered one of the largest crossborder mobility processes worldwide (OIM, 2019; PalmaGutiérrez, 2023; R4V, 2023). On their transnational trajectories along the Andean corridor, Venezuelan migrants experience spatial movements and phases of staying, here conceived of as (im)mobilities. Supported by economic and political crises, in South America mobility processes have become more complex and multidirectional, while intraregional crossborder mobility increased and formerly principally migrantemitting countries became receiving countries (Herrera & Gómez, 2022). Together with changing migration patterns, migration policies shifted from progressive regulatory frameworks for South American citizens towards increasingly restrictive policies (ibid.). Since 2017, the unprecedented Venezuelan migration gave rise to temporary ad hoc responses and a return to the national management of migration with the reestablishment of visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens since 2019 (Acosta et al., 2019; OIM, 2019). Consequently, informal border crossings increased substantially. In March 2020, the borders were closed in the course of COVID19 measures, which made legal border crossings impossible. By the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022, the borders between Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile were reopened again (El Comercio, 2021; El Tiempo, 2021; MRE Bolivia, 2022); the border between Venezuela and Colombia was opened in January 2023 (Deutsche Welle, 2022). The impact of global crises on (im)mobilities of people in migration systems and on the migrants themselves has gained increased academic and public attention in recent years (e.g. BergmanRosamond et al., 2022; IOM, 2022a; KNOMAD, 2020; Sakdapolrak et al., 2022). Migrants' perspectives play an important role here, but they are still underrepresented. While we have a first impression of the numerical size of Venezuela's migrating population and contextual factors with regard to migration policies in South America, less is known about how their migration processes and phases of staying are shaped in detail, and how migrants experience their (im)mobilities in the context of crises. In this study, I examine the (im)mobility experiences of Venezuelan migrants along the Andean corridor during the COVID19 pandemic. Conceptually, I draw on the New Mobilities Paradigm (e.g. Sheller & Urry, 2006), lifeworld perspectives (Kraus, 2015) and framings of crises on societal and individual levels (e.g. BergmanRosamond et al., 2022; Brinks & Ibert, 2020; Filipp & Aymanns, 2010). Empirical findings were gathered by means of a participatory study design to capture lived experiences of Venezuelan migrants and centre their perspectives in academic and public debates. This study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the implications of crises on (im)mobile lifeworlds and the relevance of spatial (im)mobilities for coping with them. FRAMING VENEZUELANS' (IM)MOBILITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF CRISES When putting mobile and immobile persons as agents of their own lives centre stage, it is necessary to focus on the meaningful living contexts in which they are situated when negotiating and enacting (im)mobilities (Kieslinger, 2021). Therefore, at a superordinate level, I draw on the New Mobilities Paradigm (e.g. Sheller & Urry, 2006) to equally address spatial movements and phases of staying, and on the distinction of life conditions and lifeworlds2 as conceived by Björn Kraus (2015), to consider both agency and contextual factors in crisis | 3 of 18 IMPACTS OF COVID19 ON VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS settings. However, crises are complex, multifaceted phenomena that defy simple definition; they are often referred to as conditions or experiences and encompass various societal levels (BergmanRosamond et al., 2022). To investigate (im)mobile lifeworlds in crisis settings, I draw on conceptual considerations of crises at societal and individual levels. In the Venezuelan migration context, crossborder (im)mobilities and their political dimensions deserve special attention. It is crucial to acknowledge the critiques of the dominance of government perspectives in migration research (e.g. De Haas, 2021), and the tendency to adopt state categories on migration issues (see methodological nationalism, Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002). For instance, the UNHCR categorization of forced displacements only considers people fleeing disasters within countries, and not those who cross borders (Blanc, 2021). In line with the New Mobilities Paradigm (e.g. Sheller & Urry, 2006), this investigation addresses the diversity of people's movements without predefined spatial and temporal categories and it takes into account the phenomenon of staying; being mobile and staying at places are considered mutually interrelated and both entail ascribed social meanings. In (im)mobility studies, it is a challenge to conceptualize how individuals and groups exert agency within broader structural constraints (see also aspirationcapability framework De Haas, 2014; Schewel, 2019; De Haas, 2021). Today, it is commonly recognized that there is a voluntary – forced continuum in (im)mobilization processes, for instance, in the context of conflicts and disasters (Blanc, 2021). In this study, I use a conceptual lens in which material and immaterial circumstances (life conditions) determine the opportunities and constraints of (im) mobilities, and their subjective evaluations (lifeworlds) are the basis for decisionmaking (Kieslinger, 2021, p. 94). From individuals' perspectives, decisionmaking on (im)mobilities can be conceived as a process of negotiations, which is based on relational meanings of place(s), (life)time(s) and social interaction(s) (ibid., p. 93–94; Kieslinger et al., 2020). People compare experienced and imagined places with one another in determining whether to stay or where to go to. Decisionmaking additionally incorporates multiple timeframes, including historical context and life course perspectives, while the present situation is assessed in relation to past experiences and future options. Finally, individuals' decisions are influenced by the circumstances of others and involve negotiations between personal and collective interests (ibid.). To grasp crises on an overall societal level, I refer to contributions from crises management and organization studies as compiled by Brinks and Ibert (2020). Accordingly, constitutive for a crisis is the shared experience of threat, uncertainty and urgency around a problem (ibid., p. 277). Threats to highly valued societal assets affect different areas, for instance, health, economic interests and political order. Under conditions of uncertainty, inactivity or nondecision would exacerbate the serious situation (ibid.) and routines are no longer available, resulting in highly improvisational or experimental action (Milstein, 2014). At the same time, crises unfold performative qualities as diagnoses and responses contribute to the enactment of crises (Brinks & Ibert, 2020). Further, they can be used strategically by politicians, policymakers and others to mobilize support and advance their agendas (BergmanRosamond et al., 2022). In the Context of COVID19, Nicholas De Genova (2022, p. 139) shows how the state's efforts to govern the public health emergency went along with border production and enforcement, resulting in temporarily decelerated crossborder mobilities and the immobilization of migrants. There is empirical evidence in different regional contexts that the global COVID19 crisis affected border regimes and (im)mobilities for instance, on Europe's frontiers (Tazzioli & Stierl, 2021) and at the US–Mexico border (Blue et al., 2021). Casaglia (2021) argues that the COVID19 pandemic exacerbated spatial and social inequalities across diverse populations, highlighting the role of bordering processes3 in creating these disparities. Cairns and Clemente (2023) recently discussed an immobility turn in connection with COVID19. Crises are exceptional and stressful experiences, so it is necessary to consider them as a particular context for action and a possibility for intervention (Brinks & Ibert, 2020). According to Kornberger et al. (2018), crises are associated with the idea of an open future, which can be created through agency. With regard to individuals' decisionmaking and action in crises, I draw on selected insights from development studies and life events research in developmental psychology. According to Rosamond et al. (2022, p. 467), crises can be experienced as ‘framing of life due to (…) [social] inequalities and unequal power relations at both the 4 of 18 | KIESLINGER system and lifeworld levels’. Negative outcomes of social inequalities, such as increased vulnerabilities of certain populations, must be taken into account in crisis settings. According to Chambers (1989, p. 1), vulnerabilities result from the interplay between the ‘exposure to contingencies and stress, and the difficulties in coping with them’. They depend not only on the socioeconomic position according to individuals' characteristics (Downing, 2002, p. 375), but also on the functioning of society as such (Wisner et al., 2004, p. 12). Here, the relation between structures and agency conceptually remains a challenge (Etzold & Sakdapolrak, 2016, p. 236). Zapata and Prieto Rosas (2020) highlight the disproportionate impact of the COVID19 crisis on migrants and refugees in South America due to their marginalized position in labour markets and limited access to essential services. Furthermore, during the pandemic social inequalities among migrants were reported for instance, with regard to gender disparities (IOM, 2022b) or precarious housing conditions, exemplified by the situation in Tijuana's shelters in Mexico (BojorquezChapela et al., 2022). In this study, I adopted a subjectcentred approach of crises to do justice to the concerns of the participants. Critical life events provoke strong emotions and fall well beyond people's daily routines, expectations and experiences (Filipp & Aymanns, 2010, pp. 12–18). They imply a turning point in personal development with an uncertain outcome and contain dangers and possibilities of change. Furthermore, they affect the fit between people and their social, spatial and material environment and put them in a state of imbalance. Each event is given its specific meaning with a view to the person's lifeworld, taking vulnerabilities and resources into account. Coping with critical life events encompasses all attempts to overcome the lack of fit in the person–environment structure. Either the environment must be brought closer to the individual's options for action and competencies, or the person must adapt to the changed environment by modifying his or her thinking and actions (ibid.). From this perspective, changing living places or staying at places could be, beside many others, one option for that attempt. Important contributions with regard to the Venezuelan migration are provided by Álvarez Velasco (2022) who details migrants' experiences of hostility and strategies of solidarity along the Andean Corridor, and by PalmaGutiérrez (2023) who presents Venezuelans' autonomy and struggles in times of Viral Borders. Finally, the following premises guided my analysis: mobilities and immobilities are considered together with a focus on (im)mobility decisionmaking; crises can be seen as context for action where (im)mobilities take place, and they have performative qualities that must be taken into account; migrants as agents of their own lives take decisions based on their experiences and evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS To capture Venezuelan migrants' experiences of (im)mobilities during the COVID19 pandemic, I conducted a participatory case study in Huaquillas, Ecuador. According to local informants, this border town witnessed a significant confluence of Venezuelans due to the border closure with Peru. Moreover, I expected that the migrants in Huaquillas had passed through Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador, and that some had perhaps returned from southern countries, so that they were able to talk about their (im)mobility experiences in retrospect. Together with local field assistants, hereinafter referred to as coresearchers, we conducted qualitative and participatory interviews during a 3 week stay in September 2021, which included the tools of mobility mapping (Weidinger et al., 2019) and (im)mobility biographies (Kieslinger et al., 2020). We combined both tools in one interview situation to grasp lifeworld perspectives on (im)mobilities and to reduce power imbalances during data collection. Together with the participants, we elaborated mobility maps to visualize their trajectories including routes and places of stay. The process of visualization stimulated narrations about experiences on their journeys. The tool of (im)mobility biographies was used to elicit participants' narrations on (im)mobility decisions and experiences of being mobile and staying put. To obtain perspectives from a wide range of people, we conducted nonprobability sampling (Bernard, 2006). | 5 of 18 IMPACTS OF COVID19 ON VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS We selected various points of access to participants and drew on cold acquisition at different places, using gatekeepers and snowball sampling (Kieslinger et al., 2020). As most of the Venezuelan migrants were living in the open, we accessed our interviewees in public places and a few of them close to shelters of humanitarian aid organizations. Further, we undertook recruitment at different times of the day and week. In this study setting, special emphasis was given to ethical criteria (c.f. ClarkKazak, 2017; MacKenzie et al., 2007), such as voluntary participation and informed consent, confidentiality, privacy and data protection, as well as avoiding exposure and harm. For the interviews, we rented a hotel room and provided masks, alcohol for disinfection, as well as financial compensation. Before starting the conversation, the topics and tools were explained carefully; we encouraged our participants to let us know at any time if they felt uncomfortable with the interview situation or if they wanted to quit the interview. Further, we provided our contact details if they wanted to delete the information at a later date. The personal data of our interview partners were limited to the first name, age, gender, level of education or profession and the persons they travelled with. In total, we undertook 13 interviews with 18 participants; Table 1 presents the composition of the sample according to age and gender. Most of the interviewees ‘travelled’ with family members (n = 15) and minors (n = 12). Participatory tools allow for simultaneous data collection and analysis (Kieslinger et al., 2020, paragraph 33). We used maps to visualize (im)mobilities, fostering collaborative analysis and interpretation with participants. Interviews and discussions were documented through audio recordings and photos. The audios were transcribed literally (Dresing & Pehl, 2013, pp. 20–25), each text was organized according to the two tools applied, and text passages with participants' narratives were inductively coded (Bernard, 2006). Images were edited graphically, and specific elements were catalogued (e.g. places of stay, duration of stay, motivations). Employing thematic and visual analysis (Kohler Riessman, 2005, 2008), we looked first at the content of narratives only and afterwards at narratives and images of the maps together. We examined common themes in participants' narratives and visual representations, and explored the rationale behind map content and omissions. All materials were stored carefully and analysed anonymously. Finally, we combined our empirical work with desk research on the related topics to contextualize our participants' affirmations by including secondary data and literature provided by academia but also by NGOs, government institutions and newspapers. RESULTS In the following, I first present the spatial mobilities and immobilities of the participants by considering their routes, modes of transport, border crossings as well as places of staying put. Subsequently, the impacts of the COVID19 pandemic on Venezuelan migrants' (im)mobilities are detailed. As participants highlighted on the one hand government measures taken to combat the pandemic and on the other hand their personal evaluation of circumstances, in the following, I refer to these distinct issues in two separate sections. TABLE 1 Age characteristics of the interviewees (n = 18). Age categories Women (n = 7) Men (n = 11) <18 years n = 2 n = 1 18–30 years n = 3 n = 9 >30 years n = 2 n = 1 Range 16–33 years 14–47 years Average 26 years 25 years 6 of 18 | KIESLINGER Spatial (im)mobilities on the Andean route and the impacts of government responses to COVID19 With regard to the migration routes (see Figure 1), 15 of the respondents were on the journey for the first time; three of them for the second time. At the time of the interviews, 12 of the participants were on the route heading south; motivations being job offers by friends and acquaintances, favourable commercial conditions at the border areas, or climate considerations. Six of the participants were on the route heading north; the southernmost place of return mentioned was Santiago de Chile. Reasons for return were: not having succeeded entry in countries on the journey or at the intended destination, suffering mistreatment or abuse, experiences of violence, xenophobic attitudes against Venezuelan migrants, and unfavourable climate conditions. The answers regarding routes showed manifold processes of onward and backward mobilities. The modes of transport of the participants in both directions were public transport (bus), trucks, hitchhiking, and walking by foot. All respondents used the Andean Corridor partially or completely for their routes. The Pacific route in Colombia was used in very few cases (n = 2) when migrants had crossed the border with Venezuela in the North via Guarero – Paraguachón, and due to the conflict of armed groups in parts of the La Guajira Department of Colombia, they were forced to take a longer route via the pacific coast. The Amazon route was only mentioned when crossing the border between Colombia and Ecuador via La Hormiga – San Miguél – Nueva Loja (n = 1). All the participants in our study (n = 18) reported that they had crossed borders via informal trails, socalled trochas. These were mainly located in the closer surroundings of the official border crossings: Táchira – Cúcuta, El Amparo de Apure – La Unión, Guarero – Paraguachón (VE/CO); Ipiales – Tulcán, La Hormiga/San Miguél – Nueva Loja (CO/EC); Huaquillas – Tumbes (EC/PE); Santa Rosa – Chacalluta (PE/CL); Desaguadero – Desaguadero (PE/BO); Pisiga – Colchane (BO/ CL). In most cases, the participants crossed rivers or border bridges. Depending on the season (water levels) and trochas, they crossed some rivers on foot or by rafts with the help of ropes, by swimming or by boat. Cañons were crossed on tree trunks or ancient suspension bridges – in some cases, they took detours and paths high in the mountains. Those who had moved to Peru and further south also took desert tracks. Locations where the respondents remained for at least 1 month, I defined as places of staying because data analysis showed that shorter stays were usually undertaken at randomly chosen places, for instance at nightfall. Reasons for these short stays were predominantly ‘spending the night’, ‘resting’, ‘treatment of FIGURE 1 Migration routes and places of staying along the Andean Corridor. Data basis: 13 interviews with 18 Venezuelan migrants, multiple responses possible (09/2021); Design: Kieslinger; Cartography: Adler. | 7 of 18 IMPACTS OF COVID19 ON VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS injuries or illnesses’, ‘receiving humanitarian help from organizations’, ‘visit or help of friends or acquaintance’, and in single cases ‘organizing the journey’, ‘birth of a daughter’, ‘getting to know the place’. For stays longer than 1 month, decisions of staying were based on certain motivations and/or opportunities. In nearly all cases, ‘work’ in the formal and/or informal sector was the principal motivation for staying. Other reasons were receiving ‘humanitarian help from organizations’, and the organization of ‘family reunification’. While the organization of everyday needs, journeys and help during emergencies, especially in the area of health care, played a major role in making short stays, economic factors to secure livelihoods and family ties were the main reasons for longer stays. Apart from individual motivations whether to leave or stay, government actions on the COVID19 pandemic in particular had an impact on the mobilities and immobilities of Venezuelan migrants. With regard to the impacts on their (im)mobilities, the participants reported restrictive government measures in all countries, such as border closures, restriction of transportation, road closures and checkpoints, curfews as well as the increase of control by police and military (see Table 2). Maria,4 a 33yearold woman who is on the journey with her husband and five children, one of whom is disabled, explained: The curfews (…) affected us (…) because I worked on the street; I was a trader (…). We reached a point where we had nothing to eat. In Venezuela, the economy is already very bad, and with the pandemic, it got much worse. That's what made us decide to leave the country (…). The border closures forced people to cross borders via ‘trochas’ (…). This is something that the most cunning people do, (…) to make money on the side. It's a business. The borders have always been TABLE 2 Impacts of COVID19 measures on (im)mobilities. Border closures • Suspension of entry/exit procedures by authorities; suspension of the activities of humanitarian aid organizations on site • Concentrations of people in border areas (villages) • Increase of informal border crossings • Control of the border region by military and police • Establishment of new informal routes (trochas) controlled by criminal groups Restriction of transportation (public, private, commercial) • Initially complete suspension, then gradual opening by sector • Longer distances to walk, more frequent trips on trucks, use of informal transportation • Disadvantage for people with children, women travelling alone, elderly and sick people Road closures and checkpoints • Control of vehicles and persons by police and military • Refusal of transit, forced return to other places • Search for alternative routes, repeated routes • Longer distances, longer involuntary stays in places Curfews • Regulation of hours of stay in public spaces and opening hours; enforcement with the help of the police and the military • Difficulties in securing survival, especially for informal street vendors • Difficulties to organize a shelter during hours of curfew and overnight • Reduced supply of support (population, institutions/ organizations) • Longer stay and travel times after curfews Source: 13 interviews with 18 Venezuelan migrants (09/2021). 8 of 18 | KIESLINGER closed due to the pandemic. I tried to cross the bridge [official border crossing] in Colombia, but they [the policemen] themselves told me to go through there, by the ‘trochas’. The pandemic has affected border crossings because there are deals or payments to let you pass through the ‘trochas’ at the borders. Ana, another 33yearold woman who is on the journey with three children indicated: I stayed in Cúcuta, in Colombia, for a year and a half because I was going to Medellin, but they sent me back from Berlin because of the pandemic (…). The police sent me back, almost at the top of Berlin [village at more than 3,000 m.a.s.l.]. They were sending all the Venezuelans back, ‘that we couldn't go forward, that we should go back again’ and I was waiting to see if the people would pass, but I had to go back down walking again (…). I said ‘No, I'm not going to Venezuela because it's really hard go from there, I'm staying in Cúcuta’ (…). I had to sleep by the river in Cúcuta, on the shore, for almost two months with my three children. I made a little hut like this. What I have been through is heavy (…). The first few days I had to beg, when I arrived at the little hut I found everything in disarray, well they left me with nothing. They stole everything, my children's clothes and my clothes and everything, and here I arrived just the same, without clothes without anything (…). In sum, the measures reported can be designated as (im)mobility governance, which impacted not only the actions of state agencies, particularly at borders, but also those of other actors. Humanitarian aid organizations, for instance, struggled to reach migrants because they had to suspend their operations at the borders, while criminal networks exploited the situation by continually establishing new informal routes. These changing circumstances affected migrants' (im)mobilities and resulted in increased uncertainties (e.g. to secure livelihoods), risks (e.g. to take more dangerous routes) and vulnerabilities (especially for women, elderlies, sick people, children). It is important to mention here that locality also had a big influence on the impacts of government responses on Venezuelan migrants' (im)mobilities. The statements of the respondents show that people were affected differently if they had been at their place of origin, at border crossings, or at other places of staying. Further, after the initial phase, the national strategies of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile varied (see also Hale et al., 2021, pp. 530–532) as well as the measures at regional or local levels, which were taken according to the numbers of incidents in administrative subregions. As we undertook our case study in Huaquillas, we could grasp more detailed perspectives on the government responses in Ecuador as depicted in Figure 2. This illustration doesn't represent an exact timeline of actions but a scheme of interventions on a temporal scale, starting from March 2020 when the most restrictive measures were established until the time of data collection in September 2021. The example of Ecuador shows that the impact of government responses on the (im)mobilities of the participants of this study depended on the number and degree of measures that had changed over time. Consequently, temporality and timing played a major role on how the respondents were affected by the measures: for instance, whether they undertook their journey at the beginning of government measures in March 2020 or later on after the initiation of the vaccinations in April 2021, and whether government actions came into force when they started, proceeded, or finalized their mobilities – whether they were on the move or staying at places. In sum, the participants reported forced mobilization and immobilization on their journeys. Persons who had been staying indicated the initiation of new mobility processes due to the necessity of finding new income options and the delays in planned departures. The participants who were on the move predominantly reported processes of immobilization where they had to stay for prolonged periods at unplanned or undesired places, for example, transit locations, places in the border areas, at places they were deported to. Further, they had to change routes and subroutes to avoid controls, to find transportation services or ways for border crossing; some of them had to return to former places on their routes and to retrace certain sections. Nearly, all of the respondents had to | 15 of 18 IMPACTS OF COVID19 ON VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS participants in this study, who shared their experiences and life stories with us. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The author has no competing interests to declare. PEER REVIEW The peer review history for this article is available at https:// www. webof scien ce. com/ api/ gatew ay/ wos/ peerreview/ 10. 1111/ imig. 70028 . DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. ORCID Julia Kieslinger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-6902 Endnotes 1 The increasing rate of refugees and migrants from Venezuela arriving in Brazil was first reported in the third quarter of 2022 (R4V, 2023, pp.16–17). Prior to March 2023, the country was placed fifth behind Chile; since August 2023 Brazil has been in third place (R4V, 2024). 2 Björn Kraus (2015, p. 4) defines life conditions as “a person's material and immaterial circumstances of life” and lifeworlds as “a person's subjective construction of reality, which he or she forms under conditions of his or her circumstances”. 3 According to Nicholas De Genova (2022, p.139) borders are not fixed and objective realities, but the result of deliberate and purposeful activities which include tactics and technologies to (re- )produce and reinforce borders. 4 All names have been changed to protect anonymity. REFERENCES Abeldaño Zuñiga, R.A., Osorio Guzmán, E.U. & González Villoria, A.M. (2022) Gender impacts of COVID19 on people internally displaced due to disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: International Organization for Migration (Ed.) The impacts of COVID19 on migration and migrants from a gender perspective. Geneva: IOM. ACAPS. (2021) Venezuela/Colombia. The Caminantes: needs and vulnerabilities of Venezuelan refugees and migrants travelling on foot. Thematic Report. Available from: h t t p s : / / w w w . a c a p s . o r g / f i l e a d m i n / D a t a _ P r o d u c t / M a i n _ m e d i a / 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 _ acaps_ thema tic_ report_ camin antes_ in_ colom bia_ and_ venez uela. pdf [Accessed 5th January 2021]. ACNUR (Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas). (2023) LLAMAMIENTO DE EMERGENCIA. Situación de Venezuela. Available from: https:// www. acnur. org/ emerg encias/ situa ciondevenez uela [Accessed 3rd December 2023]. Acosta, D., Blouin, C. & Freier, L.F. (2019) La emigración venezolana: respuestas latinoamericanas. Documentos de trabajo 3/19. Madrid: Fundación Carolina. Available from: https:// www. funda cionc aroli na. es/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2019/ 04/ D T _ F C _ 0 3 . p d f [Accessed 25th January 2020]. Álvarez Velasco, S. (2022) Between hostility and solidarity: the production of the Andean regionsouthern cone transit migratory corridor. In: Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (Eds.) Migration in South America. IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer, pp. 51–76. BergmanRosamond, A., GammeltoftHansen, T., Hamza, M., Hearn, J., Ramasar, V. & Rydstrom, H. (2022) The case for interdisciplinary crisis studies. Global Discourse, 12(3–4), 465–486. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1332/ 20437 8920X 15802 96781 1683 Bernard, H.R. (2006) Research methods in anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford: ALTAMIRA. Blanc, R. (2021) Migration and forced displacement: two sides of the same coin? Helvetas. Available from: https:// relie fweb. int/ report/ world/ migra tionandforce ddispl aceme nttwosides - samecoin [Accessed 9th December 2021]. 16 of 18 | KIESLINGER Blouin, C. & Zamora Gómez, C. (2022) Institutional and social xenophobia towards Venezuelan migrants in the context of a racialized country: the case of Peru. In: Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (Eds.) Migration in South America. IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer, pp. 169–190. Blue, S.A., Devine, J.A., Ruiz, M.P., McDaniel, K., Hartsell, A.R., Pierce, C.J. et al. (2021) Im/mobility at the US–Mexico border during the COVID19 pandemic. Social Sciences, 10(2), 47. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ socsc i1002 0047 BojorquezChapela, I., Strathdee, S.A., Garfein, R.S., Benson, C.A., Chaillon, A., Ignacio, C. et al. (2022) The impact of the COVID19 pandemic among migants in shelters in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. BMJ Global Health, 7, e007202. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjgh - 2021007202 Bolívar, L. (2021) Caminantes de ida y vuelta. El flujo de caminantes venezolanos por el continente en tiempos de pandemia. Centro de Derechos Humanos Universidad Católica Andrés Bello Caracas. Available from: https:// 21475 655932b4f1693c9e 4289a 9616ac. files usr. com/ ugd/ 526227_ 39c23 b73cb be4f3 3bc19 af626 6c3c9 12. pdf [Accessed 1st March 2022]. Brinks, V. & Ibert, O. (2020) From Corona virus to Corona crisis: the value of an analytical and geographical understanding of crisis. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 111(3), 275–287. Brumat, L. (2019) Migration and the ‘rise of the right’ in South America: is there an increasing antiimmigration sentiment in the southern cone? EUI blog. Available from: https:// blogs. eui. eu/ migra tionp olicy centre/ migra tionriseright - south - ameri caincre asing - antiimmig ratio nsenti mentsouth erncone/ erncone/ [Accessed 1st February 2019]. Caggiano, S. (2022) Inequalities and the social process of categorizing: migrant work in Argentina's garment industry. In: Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (Eds.) Migration in South America. IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer, pp. 207–224. Cairns, D. & Clemente, M. (2023) The immobility turn. Mobility, migration and the COVID19 pandemic. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Carella, F., Frean, S. & Velasco, J.J. (2021) Panorama laboral en tiempos de COVID19: Migración laboral, movilidad en el mundo del trabajo ante la pandemia de la COVID19 en América Latina y el Caribe. Available from: https:// www. ilo. org / wcmsp5/ groups/ pu bli c/% 2D% 2Dameri c as/% 2D% 2Drolima/ docum ent s/ pu bli cation/ wcms_ 77860 6. p df [Accessed 23rd March 2021]. Casaglia, A. (2021) Borders and mobility injustice in the context of the COVID19 pandemic. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 36(4), 695–703. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08865 655. 2021. 1918571 Chambers, R. (1989) Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1–7. ClarkKazak, C. (2017) Ethical considerations: research with people in situations of forced migration. Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, 33(2), 11–17. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 7202/ 10430 59ar De Genova, N. (2022) Viral Borders: migration, deceleration, and the rebordering of mobility during the COVID19 pandemic. Communication, Culture and Critique, 15(2), 139–156. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ccc/ tcac009 De Haas, H.D. (2014) Migration theory: quo vadis? IMI Working Papers, no. 100. Available from: https:// www. migra tioni nstit ute. org/ publi catio ns/ wp10014 [Accessed 5th November 2019]. De Haas, H.D. (2021) A theory of migration: the aspirations capabilities framework. Comparative Migration Studies, 9(8), 1–35. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4087 802000210 - 4 Deutsche Welle. (2022) Colombia y Venezuela anuncian apertura total de frontera. Available from: https:// www. dw. com/ es/ colom biayvenez uelaanunc ianapert uratotal - defront era/ a64074976 [Accessed 13th December 2022]. Downing, T.E. (2002) Linking sustainable livelihoods and global change in vulnerable food systems. Die Erde, 133(4), 363–378. Dresing, T. & Pehl, T. (2013) Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende, 5th edition. Marburg: SelfPublisher. Available from: w w w . a u d i o t r a n s k r i p t i o n . d e / p r a x i s b u c h [Accessed 3rd March 2020]. ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean). (2021) Panorama social de América Latina, 2020 (LC/PUB.2021/2P/Rev.1). Available from: https:// www. cepal. org/ es/ publi cacio nes/ 46687 - panor amasocia lameri calatin a2020 [Accessed 5th February 2022]. El Comercio. (2021) Perú confirmó la reapertura de fronteras con Ecuador y Chile. Available from: https:// www. elcom ercio. com/ actua lidad/ mundo/ perureape rtura - front erasecuad orchile. html [Accessed 29th November 2021]. El Tiempo. (2021) Duque y Lasso confirman apertura de frontera entre Colombia y Ecuador. Available from: https:// www. eltie mpo. com/ polit ica/ gobie rno/ duque - ylasso - confi rmanapert uradefront eraentre - colom biayecuad or633786 [Accessed 21st November 2021]. Espinoza, V.M., Zapata, G.P. & Gandini, L. (2020) Mobility in immobility: Latin American migrants trapped amid COVID19. openDemocracy. Available from: https:// www. opend emocr acy. net/ en/ democ racia abier ta/ mobil ityimmob ility - latin - ameri canmigra ntstrapp edamidcovid - 19/ [Accessed 21st April 2021]. Etzold, B. & Sakdapolrak, P. (2016) Sociospatialities of vulnerability: towards a polymorphic perspective in vulnerability research. Die Erde, 147(4), 234–251. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 12854/ erde14721 | 17 of 18 IMPACTS OF COVID19 ON VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS Filipp, S.- H. & Aymanns, P. (2010) Kritische Lebensereignisse und Lebenskrisen. Vom Umgang mit den Schattenseiten des Lebens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Freier, L.F. & DoñaReveco, C. (2022) Introduction: Latin American political and policy responses to Venezuelan displacement. International Migration, 60(1), 9–17. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ imig. 12957 Freier, L.F., Berganza, I. & Blouin, C. (2022) The cartagena refugee definition and venezuelan displacement in latin America. International Migration, 60(1), 18–36. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ imig. 12791 Freitez, A., Lauriño, L. & Delgado, M. (2020) Sistematización de la investigación sobre la migración venezolana desde el contexto de origen. Caracás: Equilibrium. Centro Para el Desarrollo Económico. Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A., Phillips, T. et al. (2021) A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID19 government response tracker). Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 529–538. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4156 202101079 - 8 Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (2022) Introduction: emergent issues of south American migrations. In: Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (Eds.) Migration in South America. IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–23. IOM (International Organization for Migration). (2022a) Venezuelan refugee and migrant crisis. Available from: https:// www. iom. int/ venez uelan - refug eeandmigra ntcrisis [Accessed 3rd December 2022]. IOM (International Organization for Migration). (2022b) The impacts of COVID19 on migration and migrants from a gender perspective. Geneva: IOM. Kieslinger, J. (2021) The importance of spatial (im)mobilities in the context of changing life conditions and lifeworlds: the example of socioecological transformation in rural Ecuador. Dissertation, FriedrichAlexander Universität ErlangenNürnberg. Available from: h t t p s : / / o p u s 4 . k o b v . d e / o p u s 4 - f a u / f r o n t d o o r / i n d e x / i n d e x / d o c I d / 1 7 1 7 3 . Kieslinger, J., Kordel, S. & Weidinger, T. (2020) Capturing meanings of place, time and social interaction when analyzing human (im)mobilities: strengths and challenges of the application of (Im)mobility biography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 21(2), 7. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 17169/ fqs21.2. 3347 Kieslinger, J., Rengel Vega, P. & Hualpa Erazo, Á. (2021) Buenas prácticas con migrantes caminantes en la región andina. Ámbito regional: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Unpublished. KNOMAD (Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development). (2020) COVID19 crisis through a migration lens. Migration and Development Brief 32. April 2020. Available from: https:// www. knomad. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2 0 2 0 - 0 6 / R 8 _ M i g r a t i o n % 2 6 R e m i t t a n c e s _ b r i e f 3 2 . p d f [Accessed 15th April 2021]. Kohler Riessman, C. (2005) Narrative analysis. In: Kelly, N., Horrocks, C., Milnes, K., Roberts, B. & Robinson, D. (Eds.) Narrative, memory & everyday life. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield, pp. 1–7. Kohler Riessman, C. (2008) Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kornberger, M., Leixnering, S. & Meyer, R.E. (2018) The logic of tact. How decisions happen in situations of crisis. Organization Studies, 40(2), 239–266. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01708 40618 814573 Kraus, B. (2015) The life we live and the life we experience: introducing the epistemological difference between ‘lifeworld’ (Lebenswelt) and ‘life conditions’ (Lebenslage). Social Work and Society, 13(2), 1–9. MacKenzie, C., McDowell, C. & Pittaway, E. (2007) Beyond “do no harm”: the challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299–319. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jrs/ fem008 MataCodesal, D. (2015) Ways of staying put in Ecuador: social and embodied experiences of mobility–immobility interactions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(14), 2274–2290. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13691 83X. 2015. 1053850 Milstein, B. (2014) Thinking politically about crisis: a pragmatist perspective. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(2), 141–160. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14748 85114 546138 MRE (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Bolivia). (2022) COMUNICADO. Cancillería de Bolivia comunica la apertura de fronteras terrestres con Perú. Available from: https:// www. canci lleria. gob. bo/ webmre/ comun icado/ 4830 [Accessed 15th February 2022]. OIM (Organización Internacional para las Migraciones). (2019) Tendencias migratorias en las américas. Octubre 2019. Available from: h t t p s : // r o b u e n o s a i r e s . i o m . i n t / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / f i l e s / I n f o r m e s / T e n d e n c i a s - M i g r a t o r i a s - e n - A m e r i c a s - Octub re. pdf [Accessed 5th March 2020]. PalmaGutiérrez, M. (2023) Autonomy and struggle in times of viral borders: Venezuelans across the South American Andes during COVID19. Geopolitics, 29(3), 924–961. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14650 045. 2023. 2193693 R4V (InterAgency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela). (2023) Refugee and migrant needs analysis. Available from: https:// www. r4v. info/ en/ docum ent/ rmna2023needs - analysis [Accessed 12th March 2024]. R4V (InterAgency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela). (2024) Refugees and migrants from Venezuela. Available from: https:// www. r4v. info/ en/ refug eeand migrants [Accessed 12th March 2024]. 18 of 18 | KIESLINGER Sakdapolrak, P., Pagogna, R. & Diniega, R. (2022) COVID19, Migration und Translokalität. Geographische Rundschau, 5, 14–17. Schewel, K. (2019) Understanding immobility: moving beyond the mobility bias in migration studies. International Migration Review, 54(2), 328–355. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01979 18319 831952 Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006) The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207–226. Stefoni, C. (2018) Panorama de la migración internacional en América del Sur. Población y Desarrollo. No. 123. CEPAL/OIM. Santiago: Naciones Unidas. Available from: https:// www. cepal. org/ es/ publi cacio nes/ 43584 - panor amalamigra cioninter nacio nalameri casur [Accessed 14th April 2020]. Tazzioli, M. & Stierl, M. (2021) “We closed the ports to protect refugees.” Hygienic borders and deterrence humanitarianism during COVID19. International Political Sociology, 15(4), 539–558. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ips/ olab023 Tijoux Merino, M.E. & Zamora Gómez, C. (2022) When migrant pain does not deserve attention: institutional racism in Chile's public health system. In: Herrera, G. & Gómez, C. (Eds.) Migration in South America. IMISCOE Regional Reader. Cham: Springer, pp. 191–206. Weidinger, T., Kordel, S. & Kieslinger, J. (2019) Unravelling the meaning of place and spatial mobility: Analysing the everyday life worlds of refugees in host societies by means of mobility mapping. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 374–396. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jrs/ fez004 Wimmer, A. & Glick Schiller, N. (2002) Methodological nationalism and beyond: nationstate building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14710374. 00043 Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. (Eds.). (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Zapata, G.P. & Prieto Rosas, V. (2020) Structural and contingent inequalities: the impact of COVID19 on migrant and refugee populations in South America. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 39(S1), 16–22. Available from: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ blar. 13181 How to cite this article: Kieslinger, J. (2025) Impacts of COVID19 on Venezuelan migrants in the Andean corridor. International Migration, 63, e70028. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.70028