Introduction
Located in the southern cone of Latin America, Chile has undergone significant changes in its migration over the past three decades. According to the 1992 census, foreigners made up only 0.8% of the total national population. This period marked the early years of the return to democracy following the bloody dictatorship led by General Augusto Pinochet which lasted from 1973 to 1990. During that time, the predominant movement of people was the exile of Chileans who faced political persecution at the hands of the civil-military regime. The most recent census, conducted in 2024, revealed that 8.8% of the population, or 1,608,650 individuals, were migrants (INE 2024). This substantial growth was accompanied by a diversification of countries of origin, a concentration of the working-age migrant population, and a greater presence across the country, whether in large cities, medium-sized cities, or smaller towns.
Over the past decades, the state’s response has focused more on border and immigration control than on integration policies for the migrant population. This has had a consistent impact on how they are received in the country. The main regulatory framework on the matter that governed most of this period—Decree Law 1094 of 1975—was exclusively an immigration law; in other words, it was limited to regulating the entry and exit of individuals. Administrative measures were taken to remove some obstacles that hindered access to certain rights during its validity, which ended in 2021 with the passage of Law 21,325 on Migration and Foreign National Status (Stefoni Reference Stefoni2011). In addition, sectoral measures addressed aspects of inclusion, mainly in education with a focus on migrant children and adolescents (Joiko Reference Joiko2023; Stang and Riedemann Reference Stang, Riedemann, Canales and y Stang2024), as well as in health (Cabieses et al. Reference Cabieses, Bernales and McIntyre2017).
However, in the last decade, the discourse criminalizing migration has intensified alongside its illegalization (De Genova Reference De and Nicholas2002). Additionally, security has become a key issue in public debate, with both the media and the state adopting a hegemonic narrative that has spread throughout society. For example, the CEP (Center for Public Studies) National Public Opinion Survey conducted between June and July 2024 revealed that 60% of respondents believed that “irregular migration” was one of the three leading causes of crime in Chile. Furthermore, the same survey from March and April 2025 showed that 87% of participants believed there were strong or very strong conflicts between the Chilean and migrant populations, while 44% expressed significant concerns about the presence of migrants in their neighborhoods. Research indicates that the illegalization and criminalization of migrants are closely linked to processes of racialization (Echagüe Reference Echagüe2019; Liberona Reference Liberona2015; Stang and Stefoni Reference Stang and Stefoni2016; Stefoni and Brito Reference Stefoni and Brito2019; Tijoux Reference Tijoux2016).
Meanwhile, some local governments that began receiving larger numbers of migrants started developing systematic, institutionalized responses to their needs. However, there were challenges, partly due to their dependence on management changes among other things. Thayer et al. (Reference Thayer, Stang and Dilla2020) characterized the approach to migration issues by local governments in the province of Santiago—home to the capital city and the largest concentration of international migrants—as a “depends on the mood” policy toward migration issues. This term reflects the lack of institutionalization, where access to rights relied heavily on the sensitivity or “mood” of the public service official interacting with the migrant. However, one policy, which has been highlighted in the literature on sanctuary cities at an international level (Bauder and González Reference Bauder and Gonzalez2018; Godoy and Bauder Reference Godoy and Bauder2021), took place in Quilicura, in the Metropolitan Region. There, a “Plan for the reception and recognition of migrants and refugees” was implemented with the guidance of the United Nations Refugee Agency and the technical support of researchers on migration issues (Thayer Reference Thayer2014). This plan had a positive impact (Stefoni and Mella Reference Mella2018; Stang Reference Stang2016) and developed initiatives in the key areas that contribute to creating a supportive city (Bauder and Gonzalez Reference Bauder and Gonzalez2018).
At the institutional level, the Migrant Seal (Sello Migrante) program was launched in 2015 in direct collaboration with local governments. Originally developed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Migration (DEM), the program continues to operate, albeit with some modifications, under the National Migration Service (SERMIG), a new institution which was established by the new law in 2021. This program aims to “strengthen the institutional framework of local governments in terms of inclusion, interculturality, and access to rights for migrants and refugees, through the management and execution of activities, actions, and projects with a regional perspective, in collaboration and networking with other internal areas of the National Migration Service (SERMIG) and related external institutions.”Footnote 1 However, according to Passi (Reference Passi2023, 19), “the institutional foundations of the program do not establish ways to complement developing institutional integration with integration into Chilean society.” The reality observed in cities in the north of the country, such as Antofagasta and Iquique, which have been the scene of anti-immigration demonstrations and are part of the Migrant Seal (Sello Migrante) program raises doubts on the program’s effectiveness in providing a welcoming environment for the migrant population.
In a tense scenario marked by policies that criminalize the migrant population and increasing rejection from the local population, some initiatives for inclusion have emerged. These initiatives have been developed by local communities and authorities. We examine the potential of these initiatives to foster a discourse of welcome, hospitality, and solidarity toward the migrant population. In addition, these initiatives could encourage practices of citizenship and thereby promote processes of inclusion and belonging within local territories.
The welcoming practices we have identified are significant because they raise and highlight narratives that counter those emanating from the hegemonic discourse of criminalization and othering of migration, which is primarily produced in ethnic, racial, national, and class terms. In response to deportation policies, calls to close borders, and efforts to expel undocumented migrants, some territories are fostering situations that promote the opposite. These situations open up opportunities to create bonds, a sense of belonging, recognition, and solidarity.
In this study, we reflect on these practices based on the notion of solidarity, which we understand as a relational and situated concept (Schwiertz et al. Reference Schwiertz, Pajnik, della Porta, Bernhardt, Ribać, Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta, Bernhardt and Ribać2025). This concept brings together different actors, among which we highlight social organizations, organized civil society, and institutions, whose shared practices can shape new identities and foster a sense of belonging (Pajnik et al. Reference Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta and Ribać2025).
Through a case study in Antofagasta, a city in northern Chile, we seek to identify and analyze practices at the local level that manage to articulate different social actors and give rise to specific forms of solidarity. These practices emerge within the context of a specific form of social organization that enables the housing problem to be addressed. The informal settlements (campamentos) analyzed in the city of Antofagasta are part of settlement processes (Arriagada and Contreras Reference Arriagada and Contreras2023) that challenge the traditional framework of public policies aimed at “eliminating the camps.” Informal settlement housing policies have sought to remove the people living there and provide them with their own homes through state subsidies (Pérez Reference Perez2022). The campamentos analyzed here managed to develop a resettlement plan thanks to the work of their leadership in collaboration with various social actors, such as public institutions, local governments, national and international social organizations (Stang, Delgado and García Reference Stang, Delgado and García del Río2026). It is, therefore, a territory with a significant social fabric built around the struggle for housing, where practices of solidarity transcend that specific demand, and thus constitutes a case of interest. These experiences of solidarity, which unfold in daily life, constitute an expression of what we have called “territories of solidarity” (anonymized), which coexists with those discourses of hate, creating tension with them, resisting them, mitigating them, and also enduring them.
To understand the development of this argument, it is important to clarify the concept of territory that underpins it. This concept is closely linked to developments in Latin America, particularly—though not exclusively—through Brazilian critical geography (Pérez and Ferreiro Reference Pérez, Ferreiro, Jiménez and Trpin2023). In Anglo-Saxon literature, the term “territory” is often associated mainly with the Westphalian framework. It is understood as “the space over which national sovereignty is exercised, where laws prevail, and where a specific system of rights is in force” (Beuf Reference Beuf, Beuf and Rincón Avellaneda2017, 11). In short, it refers to the territory of a nation–state. However, in our analysis, we adopt a different understanding based on the notion of “territories of solidarity.” This perspective arises from critical revisions of the traditional view of territory. Specifically, as Haesbaerth (2020) points out, the Latin American perspective enhances this concept by emphasizing empirical dimensions rooted in the practices, struggles, and territorial resistance of subaltern groups engaged in complex processes of territorialization.
From this perspective, we understand territory as a space appropriated by specific social relationships that produce and maintain it through power (Fernandes Reference Fernandes2005). The processes involved in the appropriation of space, along with the power struggles inherent in it, are central to this definition of territory (Pérez Reference Pérez, Ferreiro, Jiménez and Trpin2023). Consequently, territory is described as “a socio-spatial construction with histories and meanings in circulation and dispute” (Fernández Reference Fernández2023, 2). It is shaped and crossed by tense social relations, in an interplay of strategies and interests among various actors—both individual and collective—who appropriate and ascribe meaning to this space, effectively “asserting themselves through it” (Fernández Reference Fernández2020, 226).
In Anglo-Saxon literature, the term commonly used to describe the sociocultural aspects of inhabiting space is “place.” While we do not intend to engage in an etymological discussion between these two concepts, we follow Benedetti (Reference Benedetti and Souto2011) in viewing territory as a social and political construct that incorporates a multiscale dimension. This perspective allows us to identify the different agents involved in the appropriation of territory.
To articulate our main argument, we propose the following approach: first, we will examine the various meanings of the idea of solidarity in relation to migration and how it has been understood in Chile. Next, we will describe the framework of hostile policies that have been implemented toward the migrant population in Chile in recent years. After outlining the central elements of our methodological design, we present our field observations regarding the building of this territory of solidarity. Finally, we will present our conclusions, contributing to the ongoing development and discussion of this topic.
The Concept of Solidarity and Its Relationship to Migration
Despite its widespread use, the concept of solidarity has received limited attention in the social sciences and humanities, with a preponderance of research endeavors prioritizing its objectification and measurement over its conceptualization (Giraldo and Ruiz Reference Giraldo and Yicel y Ruiz Silva2019, 36). In general, scholars agree that solidarity is a diffuse and polysemic concept, or a “floating signifier,” subject to ongoing debate (Agustín and Jørgensen Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019). In their extensive review of literature on migration and refuge, Bauder and Juffs (Reference Bauder and Juffs2020) conclude that there is no single, homogeneous use of the concept of solidarity. Instead, the concept is understood as complex, multidimensional, and normative, with interpretations that vary depending on the philosophical traditions from which it is examined.
The authors propose a typology of the meanings of solidarity sustained by two large categories depending on whether or not they are grounded in Western philosophical traditions of freedom and reason. They identify four subtypes within the enlightenment tradition of solidarity. The first subtype is self-centered solidarity, which is based on Hobbesian philosophy and defines freedom as freedom from the interference of others. This form of solidarity assumes that individuals express solidarity with each other in pursuit of their own interests rather than adhering to ethical or moral norms. In other words, certain interests or freedoms can be sacrificed to help others, but only if there is a mutual benefit. Thus, solidarity in this case is driven by practical motivations and a calculated interest in improving or preserving one’s own situation.
Two other subtypes within this enlightened tradition are based on the concept of reflexive liberty, which encompasses free will and the ability to make one’s one decisions. On the one hand, there is emotional reflexive solidarity, rooted in Hume’s philosophy. Here, freedom is understood as the power to act or not to act according to one’s own will, offering a more individualistic perspective on solidarity. On the other hand, we have rational reflexive solidarity, based on Kant’s philosophy and his ideas about universal and rational moral norms. From this point of view, acts of solidarity must take into account society as a whole and be consistent with the moral law that could be applied universally.
The authors call the fourth subtype recognitive solidarity. It is based on social liberty and draws on the Hegelian conception of the social insertion of the individual. Emphasis is placed on interaction and social relations, and on the fact that the self is constituted through society as a whole. Recognitive solidarity is understood in terms of reciprocity, often related to struggles for liberation from different forms of domination. The authors note that these categories are not mutually exclusive; instead, they recognize the overlap of these orientations when analyzing solidarity practices.
However, decolonial perspectives highlight the need for exploring other approaches to solidarity that are grounded in experiences and traditions beyond the Enlightenment. In response to this critique, Bauder and Juffs (Reference Bauder and Juffs2020) propose two distinct forms of solidarity. The first refers to solidarity as loyalty, based on shared historical, social, or political experiences or memories. This solidarity is built around an idea of origin and belonging, influenced by factors such as nationality, ethnicity, political preferences, family relationships, and religious affiliation, among others. This type of solidarity privileges relationships within a specific social group, justifying the exclusion of others. This can be summarized by the phrase “helping your own people.” The second form is indigenous solidarity, which is characterized by a spiritual connection between people, their ancestors, and the land. This form of solidarity is tied to shared experiences of colonization, which were facilitated by the Enlightenment through science, philosophy, and imperialism. Therefore, indigenous solidarity represents counter-hegemonic meanings of solidarity that warrant further study and analysis. In more recent work, Bauder et al. (Reference Bauder, Dreher, Lujan and Asolo2025) specifically recommend incorporating concepts such as buen vivir, of Latin American (Bolivian) origin, or African ubuntu, to bring them into dialogue with Eurocentric categories of solidarity, hospitality, and sanctuary in the literature on migrant inclusion and refugee protection.
In this paper, we position ourselves within the tradition that emphasizes the social aspect of solidarity, which is based on reciprocity and the ability to build common good through interaction with a variety of others. A methodological approach will be adopted that involves the use of a territorial scale. The rationale for this choice is twofold: first, to understand how practices of solidarity are embedded in a specific territory characterized by informality, precarious conditions, and a lack of urbanization, while still being situated within the confines of the city; and second, to explore how these practices are influenced by the specific characteristics of the territory. The objective is to emphasize the territorial aspect, prioritizing it over the local category, with the aim of strengthening the material conditions that give rise to the emergence of practices of solidarity as forms of both resistance and survival. We align ourselves with Agustín and Jørgensen’s (Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019) approach. They emphasize the relational and contentious nature of solidarity, which creates political subjectivities and collective identities that enable the development of alliances among diverse actors. These forms of solidarity are situated in spaces and organized through relationships that span multiple scales.
Agustín and Jørgensen (Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019) identify three types of solidarity that we will use to analyze our case study. The first type is autonomous solidarity, which involves relationships and practices formed within self-organized spaces, especially urban spaces. This type of solidarity privileges horizontal forms of citizen participation and is largely independent from cooperation with the state. According to the authors, this type of solidarity creates an infrastructure of dissent through which solidarity is materialized (Agustín and Jørgensen Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019, 40).
Civic solidarity refers to forms of organization that emerge as civil society initiatives to include specific groups, such as refugees. It combines the formation of rights with the development of identities across multiple spaces. Finally, institutional solidarity formalizes different levels or degrees of solidarity and links the civil sphere to the development of public policies (Agustín and Jørgensen Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019, 41). While it tends to be associated with the welfare state, the authors emphasize the need for institutionalization to ensure that institutional norms align with social relations. In this typology, the territorial aspect becomes relevant because it facilitates the unification of political subjectivities and creates spaces for recognition and identification (Agustín and Jørgensen Reference Agustín and Jørgensen2019).
Schillinger (Reference Schilliger2020) explores in depth the importance of understanding solidarity not only as a contingent and temporary phenomenon but also as something situated in specific social contexts and spaces, capable of relating political structures and power relations. The author argues that this process-based concept of solidarity prompts us to investigate the elements that promote and produce it, which she refers to as “infrastructures of solidarity.” This concept of infrastructures of solidarity allows us to explore the sedimentation of such practices over time and space, as well as how broader links are formed between groups of actors located in different social positions and capable of deploying diverse forms of knowledge and political registers “from being involved in direct actions within urban citizenship struggles to artistic interventions and activist research to highly professional strategic litigation; and from solidarity as intimate, friendship-based care relationships to more strategic political relationships” (Schillinger Reference Schilliger2020, 532).
The author highlights four key components for the development of these infrastructures: fostering solidarity work and building alliances; creating (counter)spaces at different scales; producing and sharing (counter)knowledge; and establishing social relationships based on solidarity and mutual care. We will apply these elements to describe the practices of solidarity observed in our case of interest. From this analysis, we will construct the concept of “territories of solidarity” as spaces where different actors weave networks of collaboration and recognition that enable diverse territorial, pan-ethnic, and pan-national forms of identity.
Solidarity in the Chilean Context
Reviewing the national literature on the recent historical construction of the concept of solidarity and understanding its specific meanings is essential for framing our central argument. Román et al. (Reference Román-Brugnoli, Energici-Sprovera and Ibarra-González2014), who have researched this subject for several years, point out that, in Chilean society, the notion of solidarity has “a historical cultural prominence as a moral value and as a reference point for national identity” (90).
Dockendorff et al. (Reference Dockendorff, Brugnoli, Antonio, Sprovera and Alejandra2010) identify three recent historical moments in the social construction of the meanings of solidarity in Chile, noting that the military dictatorship serves as a milestone in this process:
-
(1) Before the dictatorship, the concept of solidarity was linked to the tradition of Christian charity and, by the 1960s, it had also encompassed the idea of social justice inspired by the labor movement and Social Doctrine of the Church.
-
(2) During the dictatorship, these earlier meanings expanded to include an idea of solidarity linked to the defense of human rights in the face of the atrocities committed by the civil-military dictatorship. Various political parties, the Catholic Church, non-governmental organizations, international bodies, and collective movements led this effort. In fact, an emblematic entity from that era reflected this commitment in its name: Vicaría de la Solidaridad (Vicarage of Solidarity). Additionally, another definition of solidarity emerged during this time, promoted by television and associated with consumerism, advertising, and entertainment.
-
(3) After the dictatorship, the concept of solidarity shifted from being linked to the victims of repression and began to be associated, especially by the state and the third sector, with poverty, social protection, and equal opportunities.
According to Román et al. (Reference Román-Brugnoli, Energici-Sprovera and Ibarra-González2014), solidarity practices in Chilean society over recent decades have been characterized by what they refer to as “solidarity that is easy to achieve in everyday consumer activities,” an “a la carte solidarity” which is resolved within the market, in a depersonalized manner, without interaction with others and lacking political reflection. It is a solidarity, as the authors assert, toward another who are “deprived of their ability to challenge us in their otherness” (Román et al. Reference Román-Brugnoli, Energici-Sprovera and Ibarra-González2014, 115). This type of solidarity is linked to the first type of solidarity identified by Bauder and Juffs (Reference Bauder and Juffs2020), namely self-centered solidarity.
Another important aspect of this recent period is the shift from a focus on the defense of rights to another linked to emotions. This change reflects a broader context of social transformations that have led to an “emotionalization of moral discourse,” a “moralization of political discourse,” and the psychologization of various social spheres and practices. Consequently, there has been a depoliticization of social debate (Román et al. Reference Román-Brugnoli, Energici-Sprovera and Ibarra-González2014, 98).
Román and Ibarra (Reference Román and Ibarra2025) further describe a society in which social ties between individuals have weakened and relationships with social institutions have deteriorated, making it difficult for solidarity practices to develop. In terms of the institutionalization of solidarity through the state, these authors note that since the dictatorship, a specific type of solidarity has emerged and predominated. This solidarity channels targeted assistance to vulnerable populations, “to the extent possible” within the state budget, within a framework of subsidiary public policies.
The loss of social, inclusive, and recognition-based references in solidarity practices is a legacy of the neoliberal reforms implemented from the dictatorship onwards. This trend contrasts with the experiences and practices of solidarity that emerge during times of political and social crisis.
In recent years, two significant milestones have influenced research that approaches solidarity from a different angle: the “social uprising” in the last quarter of 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to the first event, several authors noted the emergence of solidarity practices during those events, such as communal kitchens and first aid groups that treated individuals injured in the demonstrations (Faúndez et al. Reference Faúndez, Sagredo and Hatibovich2024). In the case of the pandemic, some authors have referred to pandemic solidarity (Román and Ibarra Reference Román and Ibarra2025) or a fragmentary solidarity, in reference to the social distance required during COVID (Basaure et al. Reference Basaure, Joignant and Mascareño2021). According to the former authors, socioeconomic inequality and the crisis of legitimacy of public institutions were “obstacles to the institutionalization of solidarity in the management of the pandemic and negatively conditioned health care practices” (Román and Ibarra Reference Román and Ibarra2025, 372).
Based on research focused on organizational practices and politicization processes of migrants in Santiago and Antofagasta, Stang (Reference Stang2021) describes what she calls “reticular experiences of solidarity.” These experiences were “characterized by the collaboration of actors both national and migrant. They form a network focused on providing accompaniment and support, and offering, according to their possibilities, different material and symbolic resources to overcome situations of precariousness, whether these are contingent and/or structural” (55).
Using this work as a foundation, we seek to explore certain experiences that shape what Schillinger (Reference Schilliger2020) refers to as infrastructures of solidarity, the elements that allow us to call this territory a territory of solidarity. In this territory, organized inhabitants and some social organizations work together to rise up and resist the multiple forms of hostility that emerge from state and institutional regulatory frameworks. These actors create spaces of care, weave networks with new actors, and construct identity narratives that address the particularities of the territory.
In the next section, we will review this context of hostility, specifically focusing on the intensification of migration control policies, as part of the crisis migrants are facing currently.
The Recent Migration Policy in Chile: A Hostile Environment
In order to comprehend the solidaristic relationships and practices that have evolved among the national population and migrants within this particular territory, it is imperative to examine the critical migratory environment that has come to the fore in Chile in recent years.
International migration has become a central issue of policy and politics in Chile over the last decade, characterized by an increasingly criminalizing offensive against this population. Historically, Chilean migration regulations and policies have had a security-oriented profile, with nuances and specificities that have varied at different times. This trend was particularly pronounced during Pinochet’s civil-military dictatorship (Stang Reference Stang2016; Stefoni Reference Stefoni2011). However, in recent years, this orientation has intensified, framing migrants as a criminal threat, especially linked to transnational organized crime.Footnote 2 As a milestone in this intensification, 2018 saw a significant shift toward imposing stricter restrictions on the entry of migrants (Stefoni et al. Reference Stefoni, Jaramillo, Bravo and Macaya2023), which continues to this day. This shift takes place within the framework of what has been called a “punitive turn” with regard to migration in South America (Domenech Reference Domenech2017).
The period marked by this shift, which led to the critical migration scenario we refer to, is fundamentally characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of three key processes:
-
• Restrictions on entry into the country, implemented through both regulations and the externalization and militarization of the border.
-
• Centralization and streamlining of expulsion and return processes.
-
• Humanitarianization that relies on exceptional categories of protection and the weakening of the concept of refuge.
With regard to the first process, the imposition of consular visas for certain nationalities (such as Haitian and Venezuelan) became part of the new regulatory framework for migration (Law 21,325). As is well known, this mechanism externalizes border control to the country of origin. The high rejection rates for these visas corroborate their functionality as a means of controlling and limiting the entry of certain types of migrants. Consular visas serve as a normative and institutional reflection of the processes of ethno-national and racial othering, particularly regarding the nationalities they encompass, such as Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans, and Dominicans, among others. These visas act as filters that define which migrants are considered undesirable by the state, as demonstrated by various studies (Dufraix et al. Reference Dufraix, Ramos and Quinteros2020; Liberona et al. Reference Liberona, Piñones and Dilla2021; Stang et al. Reference Stang, Lara and Andrade2020).
The new law and its regulations have established various types of visas for entering the country, which have created significant barriers for most migrants arriving in Chile. As noted by Stefoni and Contreras (Reference Stefoni and Contreras2022), a large majority of these migrants (96% according to the 2024 census) come from Latin America, seeking work and better living conditions. Many are fleeing economic and sociopolitical crises in their home countries. In contrast, the new visa system adopts a selective approach that prioritizes skilled and “profitable” migration, aligning with the specific needs of certain labor market niches (Stang et al. Reference Stang, Galaz and Lara2023).
Due to the increased challenges in obtaining regular immigration status, the number of irregular entries has increased significantly. As several studies show, during this period, the Chilean state has contributed to the rise of irregular migration (Dufraix Reference Dufraix, Ramos and Quinteros2020; Díaz and Cociña Reference Diaz and Cociña2025). Notably, 88% of the recorded entries through unauthorized border crossings (IPNH) between 2012 and 2021 occurred after 2018 (SJM 2024). In 2021, irregular entries peaked at 56,586 personas, representing a 236% increase compared to the previous year (SERMIG 2025).
In response to the rising number of irregular entries, the government reinforced the presence of Armed Forces along the northern border. According to Ramos and Tapia (Reference Ramos and Tapia2024), there has been a “reorganization of border control” in recent years, characterized by a dual focus on humanitarian and security concerns. This militarization has been legitimized by the passage of Law 21,542 (2023), which authorizes the Armed Forces to take charge of protecting the country’s critical infrastructure “when there is a serious or imminent danger to it”. This category of critical infrastructure includes border infrastructure, leading to the ongoing military presence on the northern border. This presence has been maintained to this day through successive extensions, transforming what was once the exception into the norm.
The second process refers to the prominence of deportations as a key component of the country’s migration policy. Under Sebastián Piñera’s second administration (2018–2022), collective deportations were carried out with “limelight-grabbing” display, typical of the hostile policies toward the migrant population that have emerged in the Southern Cone in recent years (Domenech Reference Domenech2020)Footnote 3 . The figures reflect this increase: in 2018 and 2019, deportations increased by 47% and 60%, respectively, compared to 2017 (Cociña Reference Cociña2022).
During the presidency of Gabriel Boric (2022–present), this policy persisted with less drama but more consistency. The National Immigration Service regularly reports deportations associating administrative expulsions (due to irregular entry) with criminal activity.
On the other hand, the rejection of entry at the borders, “hot return” or “pushback” has become increasingly relevant. This applies to individuals who enter while subject to a prior expulsion order, have abandoned the process, or have an order prohibiting entry, as well as those who are caught trying to enter or who have entered the national territory by evading migration control.
The third relevant process in this characterization of the country’s recent migration policy is the humanitarianization of certain exceptional categories of protection and the weakening of the traditional concept of refuge. By humanitarianization, we mean the active and ambiguous construction of vulnerable subjects who are “eligible” for special protection—such as children and adolescents; pregnant women; and victims of human trafficking, migrant smuggling, or domestic or gender-based violence. This approach allows for the use of humanitarian rhetoric that can legitimize policy actions. However, in reality, the actual granting of these protections is minimal, and in some cases, rejection of claims still prevails.
In February 2024, a bill (21,655) was passed to amend asylum laws, establishing an admissibility analysis for asylum applications. In other words, in addition to the already lengthy process of determining whether to grant asylum to an applicant, one that often involves re-victimization, a preliminary filter will now be applied to decide whether or not to admit the application at all. This change comes in the context of a dramatic decline in the number of applicants granted asylum: while in 2012, 30% of formal asylum applications were approved, by 2022 that figure had plummeted to just 1.1%, having fallen to a low of 0.4% in 2020 (SERMIG 2024). This decline has occurred alongside a very significant increase in applications.
This brief overview reveals the hostility toward migrants that has characterized Chile’s recent political approach and the adverse context in which the relationships and practices of solidarity we present in the following sections have developed.
Methodology
The findings presented in this article are based on empirical evidence gathered from the [anonymized] research project. The overall objective of this project is to identify and analyze policies, practices, and actions related to reception, protection, and solidarity in four Latin American countries: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Costa Rica.
The analysis in this text focuses on the Chilean case, specifically on the district of Antofagasta where information was collected through semi-structured interviews. Ten interviews were conducted: six with state officials—one from the Presidential Delegation, two from the Regional Government, and three from the Local Authority—one representative from an international organization, one a member of a pro-migrant organization, and two from territorial organizations (migrant and national). These interviews were conducted between May and July 2024.
The interviews were supplemented with additional material from biographical interviews carried out with migrant residents in this territory, also a part of the [anonymized] project: three women and four men were interviewed. In addition, we interviewed two key informants who were Chilean residents in this territory (one man and one woman). This fieldwork took place between November 2019 and June 2021. The aim of this project was to identify survival tactics and collective struggle strategies among precarious migrants. We observed practices of solidarity among and toward migrants that were conceived and developed in this location.
The analysis of the collected information was carried out through categorical discourse analysis (Conde Reference Conde Gutiérrez del Álamo2010) using the software, Atlas.ti. The coding strategy combined a matrix of predefined categories derived from the objectives of the main study, with the generation of other emerging categories.
Building a Territory Based on Contentious Solidarity
The region of Antofagasta is one of the country’s primary mining centers. According to the 2024 census, the municipality of Antofagasta, the region’s capital, has 401,096 inhabitants, with 19.1% (or 7,793 individuals) being international migrants.
The historical roots of migration, both international and internal, are deeply embedded in the city. This is largely due to the city’s central role in mining activities and historical events such as the War of the Pacific (1879–1884), which pitted Chile against an alliance of Peru and Bolivia in a territorial disputeFootnote 4 linked to saltpeter production. Antofagasta had been Bolivian territory prior to that conflict, consequently individuals of Bolivian origin have historically constituted the largest group of migrants in the city. In recent decades, this migratory reality has intensified. Between 2005 and 2014, the migrant population grew by 327% (DEM 2016), and between 2017 and 2024 it doubled, according to census data. In addition, this population has diversified. According to the 2024 census, the Colombian population is now the majority (38.1%), followed by the Bolivian (26%), the Venezuelan (15%), and the Peruvian (13.3%).
The territory of solidarity established in this district is the result of a recent social construction that has redrawn spatial and symbolic boundaries around a group of informal settlements (campamentos) in the city (Stang et al. Reference Stang, Fouillioux and Laraforthcoming). The location of this territory is not accidental; it is directly related to a significant issue in the community, which, in turn, is linked to the growth of the district’s migrant population: severe difficulties in accessing housing have led to self-construction in campamentos (Méndez Reference Méndez2021; Stang et al. Reference Stang, Riedemann, Soto and Abarca2022; Vergara Perucich et al. Reference Vergara-Perucich, Arias-Loyola and Boano2023). In 2005, there were 24 informal settlements in the region; a decade later, there were 44 (CIS 2015). Between 2020 and 2021, the region had the highest proportion of immigrant families among the total number of families in campamentos, at 72.9% (TECHO-Chile 2023).
Another important factor is the role of the local authority, particularly the mayor, in recent administrationsFootnote 5 . During our fieldwork, the actors we interviewed explicitly highlighted an anti-immigrant attitude on the part of the local authority:
This mayor is very active on social media, doing “live” [broadcasts] of the police removing homeless people from local beaches. He begins with a highly xenophobic discourse, claiming they won’t allow migrants to ruin Antofagasta and that here [in his broadcast] is an example of how the municipality works with the police to clean up the beaches to give them back to the people, and obviously that benefits [him] (member of a pro-migrant organization).
[Referring to the local government] They campaign against migrants, they campaign against campamentos, they insult and mistreat [the campamentos’] leaders (Julia, migrant leader of a territorial organization in a campamento).
In addition, the municipal institutions that address migration issues have been weakened. Since 2105, these issues were handled by the House of Diversity, which merged in 2021 with a program aimed at women, resulting in the creation of the House of Women and Diversity.
Representatives from regional and national governments, including regional government, the presidential delegation, and regional ministerial secretariatsFootnote 6 , have taken actions with regard to the migrant population that lack coordination. This trend has intensified with the legal reform that made the position of regional governor an elected office (Law 20,990, 2017). Moreover, let us not forget the security policy that is increasingly hostile toward the migrant population at the national level, as discussed in a previous section.
In this context, and largely despite it, an organizational network has developed, significantly shaping a territory of urban solidarity toward the migrant and refugee populations, fostering connections between the national and migrant communities. This network is centered on resistance: first, against the threat of being removed from that space, under the assumption that it was a risk zoneFootnote 7 , and second, in the struggle to settle in that place, raising the demand for the right to housing and the city in the face of structural inequality. This shift from eradication to settlement has been decisive in building an infrastructure of solidarity. The shared struggle around a common problem has led to a contentious practice that articulates relationships of mutual support in response to external political antagonism (where the state has been absent in certain areas, and weak or uncoordinated in others, unable to guarantee these rights) (Schwiertz et al. Reference Schwiertz, Pajnik, della Porta, Bernhardt, Ribać, Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta, Bernhardt and Ribać2025). This has facilitated the creation of urban infrastructures of solidarity, and, beyond that, has contributed to the configuration of a political imaginary of solidarity forming the core of a collective political subjectivation (Schilliger Reference Schilliger, Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta, Bernhardt and Ribać2025), as we will describe in this section.
This reconfiguration took place over just a few years, as settlement of this territory began in 2015 on the hillsides surrounding the city, whose geography creates an amphitheater-like shape facing the sea. In the early days of this settlement, sources indicate (Órdenes Reference Órdenes, Vergara-Perucich, Arias-Loyola and y Boano2023; Stefoni and Stang Reference Stefoni, Stang and Stefoni2017), that there was a notable dichotomy between them and us. Here, us represented the nationals who lived in adjacent neighborhoods, while them represented the migrants who had arrived at the campamento. These migrants not only bore the stigma that weighs on those living in informal settlements (Elorza Reference Elorza2019; Wacquant Reference Wacquant2006), but they were also subjected to an exoticizing foreignness (Méndez Reference Méndez2021; Pavez Reference Pavez and En Tijoux2016; Stang and Stefoni Reference Stang and Stefoni2016; Tijoux Reference Tijoux2016), which cast them as more violent, more boisterous, more disorderly, among other negative traits. It is also important to note that a significant proportion of the campamento’s residents were, in fact, nationals, meaning that this dichotomy of “othering” also cut across the interior of the territory.
Development of Social Relationships Based on Solidarity and Mutual Care
The local actors interviewed, both nationals and migrants, agree that coexistence has significantly reduced the separation that existed in previous years:
…so, you get to know different types of migrants… here you get to live together, I would say fully, and really get to know them, what they are like, their customs… many of them also tell you why they came, what their situation is, how we ended up in campamentos (Mauricio, Chilean community leader).
A [Chilean] neighbor said she was very used to Bolivians and Peruvians, but not Colombians, and even less so with black Colombians, right? It’s a full-time job having to say: “No, neighbor, look, let’s take an example, I always use this example, soups: in Chile it’s cazuela, in Colombia it’s sancocho, in Bolivia it’s sopa, and in Peru it’s caldo de gallina, but in the end they’re the same dishes, with the same vegetables and the same noodles, give it a rest! (Julia, migrant leader of a territorial organization in a campamento).
However, this is not simply a matter of coexistence as mere co-presence; it reflects the coexistence of reciprocal relationships of care which gradually develop into affection, alongside reticular practices of organized solidarity (Stang Reference Stang2021) that have been fundamental to this outcome. According to Schilliger (Reference Schilliger2020, 534), who cites Tazzioli and Walters (Reference Tazzioli and Walters2019), solidarity is defined as “the laborious and continuous production of temporary common ground.” This production occurs amid ongoing relationships of tension and confrontation that this close and extensive coexistence can lessen or, in some circumstances, dispel: “Only more prolonged and intense social interaction disrupts the easy categorization of the stranger as an enemy and initiates new bonds… offering individuals the opportunity to break with fixed relationships and notions” (Schilliger Reference Schilliger2020, 534). Other studies conducted in this territory have also observed “the revitalization of communal practices and forms of solidarity in living, as well as local economies and other forms of organization and ‘habit-habilidad Footnote 8 ’” (Méndez Reference Méndez2021, 111).
Creation of (counter)spaces on Different Scales
These specific practices of solidarity that emerged in this space intensified during a polycrisis scenario, such as those produced with the first social uprising (2019) and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021). This space is marked by constant precariousness, which has contributed to its politicization. These practices have established infrastructures of solidarity (Schilliger Reference Schilliger2020; 2025) that make it possible to address the intersectional inequalities (Schwiertz et al. Reference Schwiertz, Pajnik, della Porta, Bernhardt, Ribać, Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta, Bernhardt and Ribać2025) experienced by those who inhabit this space. These individuals experience precariousness due to their sex-gender identities, as well as through processes of ethnicization, racialization, and foreignization to which they are subjected.
These local solidarity practices build collective spaces for care, mutual support, and mobilization to tackle the precarious conditions in which they live in the city and the uncertainty caused by the crisis. They include networks of relationships that sustain and reproduce life in this context, especially given the state’s failure to provide goods and services that guarantee rights. These initiatives, which bring together actors, practices, and spaces, do not necessarily ignore state welfare institutions, even though their presence in the territory is weak or lacks coordination. Nor do they disregard the role of third sector welfare institutions or international organizations. Rather, they recreate the necessary goods and services associated with them through direct mobilization in the contentious actions arising from the demand for rights that have been totally or partially denied.
As an example, we observed the creation of (counter)spaces, such as a community playgroup, where women could leave their children in the care of other female neighbors. This arrangement allowed them to “go down” to the center to work, thereby collectivizing caregiving tasks among the women in the territory. Although this initiative did not succeed in subverting the gender inequality in this matter, it did enable many women to enter the workforce, albeit in precarious jobsFootnote 9 . In addition, a multicultural work cooperative was also created, initially focusing on bread production and later expanding to catering services. The goal was to create self-managed work opportunities from a cooperative perspective. Furthermore, a “little school” run by the residents themselves provides academic support to children and adolescents. It operates out of one of the offices belonging to the committees that form this group of campamentos.
In response to the state’s failure to address certain issues, a circle of women was formed to tackle the problem of gender-based violence. This initiative emerges in response to the fact that the police were slow to respond, or did not respond at all, to calls regarding “domestic violence”Footnote 10 in the territory. The women’s circle also operates as a brigade that intervenes collectively, going to the home of affected women to halt any acts of aggression. There was also collaborative work to establish social centers for each of the campamentos that make up this group. Their initiatives include creating playgrounds for children and organizing public space cleanup operations (Vergara-Perucih et al. Reference Vergara-Perucich, Arias-Loyola and Boano2023), addressing the issue of illegal dumping in this territory.
Through these actions, we observe the development of a series of (counter)spaces that establish infrastructures of solidarity, where collaboration, mutual support, and collective work offer alternative, yet possible, forms of integration in the face of systematic exclusion by the state. Some of these structures and spaces were funded by projects submitted to a subsidiary state, in this case Chile, which allocates resources through competition mechanisms to direct its interventions. In one of the community centers, an example of an early initiative in these contentious solidarity practices—which we will discuss later—some leaders answer questions about immigration procedures aimed at regularization. They also provide support in completing these procedures based on a partnership with a migrant and pro-migrant organization from another region, highlighting the trans-local nature of some of these solidarity practices (Bauder Reference Bauder2022).
Solidarity Work and Creating Alliances
During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents mobilized intensely to address the devastating effects on this territory. One example was the establishment of communal kitchens, which became essential for subsistence during the months of lockdown. Other fundamental actions included sanitation efforts and providing emotional support for those who lost family members, whether within the campamento itself or in their countries of origin. A notable event occurred during this period that is a clear example of the practices that have shaped this territory of solidarity. On trying to return to their countries of origin, a group of migrants was stranded in northern Chile due to the closure of borders because of the pandemic:
The thing is that most of them, the vast majority of foreigners, I mean Peruvians, Colombians, Bolivians, were day laborers working three-month terms. They had to return to their country, they were stranded… they were sent back to Antofagasta. They were sleeping in the [bus] station in the middle of the pandemic. So… we turned up with a communal kitchen, the neighbors brought them food, and because of the scandal [our intervention] caused, [the government authorities] arranged [accommodation at a] school, but they were mistreated by the governor at the time… “Go to [Julia]’s” [the governor told them], and well, she [Julia] took them in… I spread the word through all the networks, radio, television. They had better lunches, better breakfasts, better food here with us, because all the restaurants came and brought food, and also because of the solidarity shown by other sporting communities, others who supported us. So, the self-managed work went hand in hand with the institutional conversations because we started talking to the embassy, the consulate, and everything (Julia, community leader).
These people spent several weeks in these campamentos until they were able to return to their home countries, largely thanks to the efforts of the female community leaders.
The fabric of this organizational network extends beyond the territory for two main reasons. First, it has successfully escalated its demands to both national and international levels (for example, to the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, a central government institution, and to the then United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Leilani Farha). Second, external organizations that have worked in the territory or connected in some way with its residents and organizations have also contributed to this process. One key organization, which has played a fundamental role, is the NGO Prisma, whose team of professionals and volunteers began their involvement in the territory in 2015, when the campamento was just being formed. Community leaders have consistently identified Prisma as a vital player in their training and organization efforts. Prisma was awarded a multi-purpose project aimed at working in this territory in the following areas: to improve integration between nationals and migrants, which included the creation of a community center on the very border of the alteration we mentioned earlier (the separation between “the population” and the campamentos); to establish intersectoral working networks to help residents access state services related to their needs (such as legal support and psychosocial care), and to develop community strategies to address their problems (security, recreation, recovery of spaces, and conflict resolution, among others) (Órdenes Reference Órdenes, Vergara-Perucich, Arias-Loyola and y Boano2023).
Towards a Territory of Solidarity
The organization Prisma mentioned above also connected migrant leaders to a national network specifically focused on migration issues. Prisma was instrumental in establishing connections between the campamentos’ residents and organizations and institutions related to the struggle for housing, in particular, with the Movimiento de Pobladores Vivienda Digna (Movement for Decent Housing), one of the organizations that emerged from a new wave of mobilization within the historical and highly politicized residents’ movement in Chile (Angelcos Reference Angelcos2012; Angelcos and Pérez Reference Angelcos and Pérez2017). This link has been very significant in shaping the politicization of the residents’ contentious solidarity practices. In this context, the residents formed the organization Lucha sin Fronteras (Fight without Borders) in 2018 to unite the leadership of these campamentos around their demand for “settlement with urbanization”. In this way, a contingent and contentious “us” is being constructed, centered on the figure of the poblador, a class category that manages to transcend the us/them dichotomy, at least provisionally—as with any identity-building process. Moreover, that contingent “us,” that poblador, is shaped by the vision of building a Latin American city. Highlighting the importance of solidarity, Julia describes what has happened as historic, because
this has allowed us to proudly say that if the community organizes itself, it succeeds. If the community empathizes and shows solidarity, it wins. And that is what we are doing: winning day by day… continuing to confront and resist until we achieve our Latin American city (Julia, community leader).
Then this territory is inextricably linked to the configuration of a political imaginary rooted in solidarity and a collective political subjectivation that does not start with the imagined community of the nation–state (Schwiertz et al. Reference Schwiertz, Pajnik, della Porta, Bernhardt, Ribać, Pajnik, Schwiertz, della Porta, Bernhardt and Ribać2025). Rather, it focuses on a territorial community actively formed around the demand for equality (Rancière Reference Rancière2006). This is a territory of solidarity that emerges from place-based urban solidarity policiesFootnote 11 (Bauder Reference Bauder2022). In other words, it is a solidarity that extends beyond the “spatio-temporal register of the territorialized nation–state” (76), connecting local actors from different spaces (even countries) in a context of growing ethnic and cultural diversity. This network is capable of resisting, at least within the borders of that territory, the hostile attitudes and policies directed toward the migrant population.
Conclusions
The case we have presented and analyzed in this article allows us to propose, inductively, the category of a territory of solidarity to refer to the configuration of a sociospatial network that is woven from practices of solidarity that bring together different actors (social organizations, organized civil society, and social institutions) at different scales. These practices have the potential to construct new identities and foster a sense of belonging in the relationships, both everyday and contentious and contingent, between nationals and migrants.
In this territory, the configuration of this political imaginary of solidarity and collective political subjectivation begins not with the imagined community of the nation–state, but with a territorial community. This community transcends, to some extent, the ethno-national and racial othering categories, and is actively shaped by the demand for rights that address structural inequalities and, therefore, cut across nationals and migrants. These demands, and the associated practices, are lived and experienced in everyday coexistence and subsistence. Following the distinction made by Bauder and Juffs (Reference Bauder and Juffs2020), these practices of solidarity emphasize social interactions and relationships, in which the self is constructed intersubjectively, leading to the development of a collective and inclusive “us” in ethnic and national terms.
The concept of territory is key, as it is there that the intersubjectivity emerges. The territory of solidarity is built in a context of growing ethnic and cultural diversity, which is accompanied by a densification and intensification of hostile attitudes and policies toward the migrant population. This, in turn, occurs within the framework of a society in which the weakening of interpersonal relationships and ties with institutions hinders the development of solidarity practices. Practices of autonomous (self-organized and horizontal) and civic (civil society initiatives) solidarity emerge in this space of adversity. Even though these practices may fail in forging links with the local government, at least at this stage of the process, they gradually establish themselves over time and space and create infrastructures of solidarity.
In the case of Antofagasta, it is striking to note the absence or distance of the local government from the solidarity dynamics displayed by the campamento’s inhabitants. Initiatives such as Sello Migrante, one of the emblematic policies that seeks precisely to establish certain standards for municipal intervention in the care and inclusion of migrants, are not mentioned by our interviewees as part of their networks.
Open access
