On October 2, 2024, Dominican President Luis Abinader launched a large-scale deportation operation through the National Security and Defense Council. Framed as an “emergency” security measure to “protect national sovereignty and address migration challenges,” the operation aimed to deport 10,000 Haitian migrants every week.

The result? In only three months, over 94,000 Haitians were expelled, contributing to a total of over 276,000 deportations in 2024 alone. This escalation reflects broader global trends in migration governance in which security-based approaches dominate and leave little room for humanitarian considerations.

As more people around the world flee violent conflicts, economic hardship, and environmental disasters, global migration patterns are shifting—and governments’ restrictive responses to this trend raise increasingly pressing questions. Whether in Global South (or Global North) contexts, migration is widely framed as a security issue that leads to militarized borders, increased surveillance, and threats of mass deportation. But when migration is viewed strictly as a security problem, it limits any ability to address critical issues, including human security and humanitarian needs.

If negative framing of this question evokes disproportionate fears and narrows policymaking, how can we rethink migration as more than just a security issue? In a recent article, I explored how non-state actors—including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)—can work to challenge security-based migration policies and push states to adopt more humane approaches through incremental approaches rather than direct challenges.

My examination of these patterns in the Dominican Republic reveals that while these actors advocate for migrant rights, their efforts also can provoke a “security backlash” in which governments reinforce restrictive measures. Once it is entrenched, this security perspective mobilizes agencies and institutions that become deeply invested in maintaining it and becomes difficult to reverse. The recent mass deportations to Haiti reflect this backlash despite—or perhaps because of—NGO and IGO activism.

How Non-State Actors Challenge Security-Based Policies

As a country of both emigration and immigration the Dominican Republic has long satisfied its labor demands through migration from neighboring Haiti that is driven by economic hardship, political instability, and violence. Yet the state has consistently framed Haitian migration as a security threat to its own national identity and stability, echoing narratives and practices found in developed countries. Indeed, the state systematically denies nationality to Dominicans of Haitian descent, retroactively strips thousands of their citizenship, and then enacts mass deportations.

Non-state actors like NGOs and IGOs have countered these restrictive measures, and advocated both for migrants’ rights and a humanitarian approach to the issue. For instance, the NGOs working in the Dominican Republic argue that restrictive measures heighten migrants’ vulnerability. They also have challenged citizenship denial through domestic and regional courts, particularly through use of the Inter-American Human Rights system.  

However, my research shows that these efforts often face a strong counter-response from state actors. Security narratives are remarkably resilient, and attempts to undo them can trigger a “backlash” eliciting even harsher responses. Indeed, when NGOs and IGOs push successfully for more humane policies, they often prompt governments to respond by tightening controls.  

Advocacy and Backlash in the Dominican Republic

In the Dominican Republic, NGO-led advocacy has, at times, led to reinforced restrictive measures. In one notable case, successful pressure from NGOs for a review of nationality-stripping policies through bringing cases such as Yean and Bosico to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights resulted in the state refusing to yield.  

Rather, local courts in the country increasingly upheld nationality-stripping practices. Sustained NGO pressure led the Dominican Constitutional Court to respond with its 2013 Sentencia 168-13 ruling, which retroactively stripped thousands of citizens of their nationality. This rejoinder from the court not only countered NGO-led legal challenges, but also legitimized the state’s broader security policies aimed at excluding Haitian migrants. Thus, in this case and others, NGO activism and external pressure often resulted in harsher measures, not human rights gains.

The state also has discredited NGOs and IGOs by portraying them as part of an international conspiracy to undermine Dominican sovereignty. By both casting these groups’ rights-focused advocacy as a threat to national security, as well as undermining their overall credibility, the state weakened their ability to effectively challenge government policies. This framing of contested legitimacy mobilized public support for restrictive policies—and against advocacy organizations—by appealing to nationalist sentiments and fears of external interference.

Thus, public opinion, which was once increasingly sympathetic toward Haitian migrants, shifted after the 2013 ruling. Some even viewed NGO advocacy and IGO pressure as “evidence that the international community is trying to force the Dominican Republic to accept Haitian citizens.”

Implications for NGOs, IGOs, and Policymakers

What does the security backlash elicited by NGOs and IGOs working in the Dominican Republic mean for these organizations—and the overall case of migrant rights? Can advocacy bring about lasting change, or does it risk creating and reinforcing restrictive policies?

Despite the evidence I discovered in my research, a purely pessimistic outlook would be misplaced. While sweeping changes that directly challenge security frameworks and threaten to delegitimize governments can provoke backlash, the pursuit of incremental policy shifts can prove more effective and offer a more meaningful way forward.

In the case of the Dominican Republic, the harsh nationality-stripping ruling of 2013 did not prevent NGOs from persuading the government to make concessions to mitigate some of that decision’s most extreme effects. Though these concessions were inadequate, they did demonstrate the potential for incremental progress even in challenging contexts.

Broader lessons can be drawn from the particular case of the Dominican Republic. First, non-state actors hold significant power to influence policy, for better or worse. Targeted strategies (such as public awareness campaigns) can foster incremental change. If the goal of advocacy is to move a nation toward more humane migration governance, NGOs and IGOs offer an essential avenue to pursue these aims. These groups can advocate for a comprehensive understanding of migration and respond to the need to challenge security-based policies that erode fundamental protections for migrants. They can play a vital role in progressively pushing toward a balanced, humane approach to migration.

The ongoing mass deportation of Haitians from the Dominican Republic offers other lessons for global migration governance. The “security backlash” phenomenon is not unique to the Dominican Republic, and it transcends the North-South divide. My research invites a broader conversation on how NGOs and IGOs can apply consistent pressure without reinforcing the security measures they seek to dismantle.

These lessons are equally relevant to discussions of whether and how both domestic and international advocacy can persuade states to uphold human rights. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such advocacy can hinge on securing buy-in from the broader public, fostering a rights-focused approach to migration that resonates with societal values.