Argentina is heading towards a decision that, if realized, would mark a profound shift in its immigration policy and international positioning. The government of Javier Milei is negotiating with the United States to sign an agreement that would allow Washington to deport migrants from third countries to Argentine territory, as part of the migratory offensive promoted by the administration of Donald Trump.
The talks are advancing discreetly, but their content is politically explosive. The scheme under discussion would allow people detained shortly after irregularly entering the United States to be transferred to Argentina, from where flights would then be offered to their countries of origin. In effect, Buenos Aires would assume the role of a temporary receiving country in a migratory policy designed in Washington.
The context is not neutral. Trump reactivated an aggressive strategy of mass deportations, with deployments of the immigration apparatus in American cities and increasing pressure on allied countries to cooperate as alternative destinations. Argentina now appears on that radar, not only for ideological affinity but also for the explicit willingness of Milei's government to align unconditionally with the White House.
This alignment, however, has evident internal costs. While negotiating to receive deportees from other countries, the Argentine government is tightening its own immigration policy. The official discourse has adopted a rhetoric of security, with police operations, reinforced controls, and an increasing emphasis on expulsions. Officials and allies of the ruling party have begun to speak of immigration as an "invasion" and to question foreigners' access to basic services like health and education.
The contradiction is difficult to disguise. On one hand, a narrative of closure, order, and expulsion is promoted. On the other, there is consideration to accept migrants deported by a foreign power in a country undergoing severe fiscal adjustment and lacking adequate infrastructure to accommodate, transport, and assist these individuals. Even within the government itself, there are concerns about the economic, social, and political impact of the agreement.
It's no minor detail that Argentina has historically built its national identity on immigration. For decades, the arrival of foreigners was conceived as an asset, not a threat. This tradition, which prevented immigration from becoming a central political cleavage, is now beginning to fracture under an imported logic, closer to the cultural and security debates of global right-wing movements.
The possible agreement also raises questions of sovereignty. Accepting deportees from third countries is neither a humanitarian gesture nor an autonomous immigration policy. It is a piece within a strategy designed by the United States to bypass diplomatic and legal obstacles in its expulsion processes. Argentina would not define who it receives or under what initial conditions, but would adapt to the operational needs of another state.
The financial aid provided by Washington in recent months adds an additional layer of complexity. The economic backing has been key to supporting the Argentine government at a moment of internal fragility. In this context, the immigration negotiation appears less as a sovereign decision and more as part of a package of implicit concessions, where political alignment translates into concrete commitments.
Regional experiences do not invite optimism. Other countries that signed similar agreements faced judicial questions, social protests, and institutional costs that are difficult to reverse. Becoming a link in a chain of deportations often does not strengthen receiving states but exposes them to tensions they cannot control.
If the agreement is realized, Argentina will not only modify its immigration policy. It will also recontextualize its place on the regional and global political map, moving from being a historically receiving country to a territory functional to the migratory priorities of the United States. The question is no longer merely technical or diplomatic. It is profoundly political and ethical.
In times of accelerated redefinitions, the risk is that, in the name of international alignment and the discourse of order, Argentina ends up importing external conflicts and eroding its own principles. Migration, treated for decades as a constitutive part of national identity, threatens to become a geopolitical bargaining chip. And that is a price that is unlikely to go unnoticed.
Comments