Argentina’s Contribution to Community Sponsorship Programmes in Situations of Mass Displacement: Lessons from the Syrian Programme

Argentina has played a pioneering role in the field of community sponsorship for forcibly displaced persons, particularly through the Syrian Programme. Launched in 2014, this initiative marked the first community-based sponsorship model in Latin America and one of the earliest globally to emerge outside the traditional North–South resettlement axis. Officially designated as the Special Humanitarian Visa Programme for Foreigners Affected by the Conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, the programme sought to address the protracted Syrian conflict by facilitating access to protection through humanitarian visas while engaging civil society actors in responsibility-sharing arrangements. The initiative remained operative until July 2024 and provides a salient case study of how South–South humanitarian cooperation and private sponsorship can intersect in response to mass displacement crises.
The “Syrian Programme” has been described in many ways: as “private sponsorship“, as resettlement, as a “ complementary pathway to refugee admission“. The definition that appears most appropriate seems to be that of community sponsorship, which UNHCR defines as a structured framework in which private actors provide financial, practical, and psychosocial support to refugees or other protected persons upon arrival. While models differ across jurisdictions, a common feature is the partial transfer of responsibility from the State to civil society actors, particularly in reception and integration phases. From a legal and policy perspective, a key distinction exists between sponsorship as a form of resettlement operating within established State-led frameworks, and sponsorship as a complementary pathway creating additional admission routes. These distinctions are essential to understanding the Argentine experience, as they illuminate both the legal status of beneficiaries and the institutional design of the programme.
The Argentine Syrian Programme was established through Ministerial Resolution 1043/2014 as a special humanitarian visa scheme for Syrian nationals and their families affected by conflict. The legal instrument –  a ministerial resolution rather than a legislative enactment – reflected both the urgency of the crisis and the provisional nature of the initiative. The programme relied on a dual model of State authorisation and private sponsorship, wherein the State granted temporary humanitarian visas while local sponsors, or llamantes, undertook obligations relating to accommodation, financial support, and integration assistance.
The programme developed over three distinct phases. In its initial phase, from 2014 to 2015, admission was highly centralised and largely dependent on informal coordination between the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and UNHCR. Eligibility criteria were narrowly defined, primarily encompassing relatives of Argentine citizens up to the fourth degree of kinship. Sponsors assumed comprehensive responsibilities for the maintenance and integration of beneficiaries, effectively operationalising the programme on a community level. The second phase, spanning 2016 to 2018, saw both expansion and formalisation. Resolution 612/2016 opened sponsorship opportunities to religious organisations, non-governmental organisations, and municipalities, significantly increasing civil society participation. Technical and operational support from UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) facilitated beneficiary selection, pre-departure orientation, and relocation procedures. Local governments, notably the Province of San Luis, also assumed active roles in reception and integration, demonstrating the potential of community-based approaches. The third phase, between 2018 and 2020, was marked by a contraction of State involvement and the gradual dismantling of central coordination structures. Although the normative framework formally persisted, programme implementation slowed considerably due to political transitions, administrative fatigue, and declining institutional prioritisation. Throughout all phases, civil society engagement was not merely supplementary; it was operationally indispensable, encompassing housing, financial support, travel logistics, and medical arrangements, whereas the State’s legal centrality was functionally residual.
Despite its innovative character, the Syrian Programme raises important legal and structural concerns. Firstly, the absence of additionality distinguished the programme from comparable sponsorship schemes in the Global North. Rather than complementing an existing State-run resettlement programme, the Syrian Programme effectively constituted the sole avenue for entry, raising concerns regarding the potential privatisation of refugee protection and the substitution of State obligations with civil society responsibilities (A. I. Rovetta Cortés, ‘The Principle of Substitution: The Argentine Contribution to Private Sponsorship Schemes?’ in Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 39: 1-17, 2023). Secondly, the programme represents a notable departure from refugee-status-based eligibility. Beneficiaries were admitted on humanitarian grounds, reflecting a response to mass displacement rather than individual persecution, in line with the broader regional protection framework established by the Cartagena Declaration. Nevertheless, the absence of systematic information regarding formal asylum procedures generated legal uncertainty, underscoring the necessity for rights-compliant frameworks in community sponsorship models. Individuals were granted protection in a legal grey zone, dependent on discretionary visa renewal and lacking access to binding rights or durable status pathways (M. Alfaro, M. Lettieri, ‘In search of sustainable refugee resettlement solutions for Latin America’, in Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires, 42: 229-244, 2017). Thirdly, the programme’s reliance on civil society revealed limitations regarding scalability, coordination, and institutional monitoring. Sponsorship arrangements were fragmented, contingent on the initiative of specific organisations or municipalities, and lacked a centralised data system, undermining the capacity for systematic evaluation. Notwithstanding these limitations, family-based sponsorship facilitated rapid labour market integration and socio-economic stability, highlighting the capacity of community networks to support durable settlement outcomes (N. Figari Costa, A. P. Penchaszadeh, ‘Protección internacional e integración local en Argentina hoy. Contrastes entre los programas de visados humanitarios y el sistema de asilo’, in Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires, 42: 293-323, 2017).
The experience gained under the Syrian Programme informed subsequent Argentine initiatives. Notably, the Residence for Humanitarian Reasons for Ukrainian Citizens scheme granted temporary protection and residency to 158 Ukrainian nationals and their families between February 2022 and June 2023, based on extended family reunification principles. Similarly, the Special Programme for Humanitarian Visas for Nationals and Residents from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean  extended temporary humanitarian visas to persons displaced by socio-natural disasters, with civil society organisations providing integration support for one year. While both programmes demonstrated innovative, preventive, and regionally oriented approaches, they reproduced structural limitations observed in the Syrian Programme, particularly the absence of additionality and the minimal economic or operational role of the State in supporting integration.
In 2023, the Argentine State adopted the Resettlement and Complementary Pathways Plan, representing a more robust and legally structured framework. This programme permits only qualified civil society organisations to sponsor beneficiaries, whose selection is either coordinated through UNHCR referrals or initiated by sponsors with pre-existing family or community ties. Beneficiaries include refugees as defined under Argentine Law No. 26,165, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, as well as stateless persons and individuals in need of international protection. While this model demonstrates significant institutional learning in terms of clearly defined sponsor and beneficiary criteria, structural deficiencies remain, particularly concerning scalability, replicability, and the absence of a genuine public-private partnership in which the State assumes responsibility for long-term integration.
Argentina’s experience illustrates the adaptive potential of community sponsorship beyond the Global North, demonstrating that such models can be implemented in contexts lacking robust asylum infrastructure or historical resettlement traditions. Yet, adaptation without institutionalisation risks selective protection, legal uncertainty, and administrative fragility. The Argentine case further underscores the limitations of community-based sponsorship in the absence of sustained State leadership: civil society can mobilise resources, provide integration support, and foster social cohesion, but it cannot substitute for the structural role of the State in determining eligibility, coordinating programme implementation, and guaranteeing rights. From a normative perspective, the Argentine experience highlights the pluralism and ambiguity inherent in contemporary protection architectures under the Global Compacts, where terms such as “temporary protection” or “humanitarian stay” often diverge from legally binding domestic or regional categories.
In conclusion, Argentina’s contribution to community sponsorship in situations of mass displacement embodies both promise and paradox. The Syrian Programme constitutes an early, contextually adapted model of community-based protection in the Global South and aligns conceptually with the objectives of the Global Compacts. However, its limitations – including legal uncertainty, absence of additionality, reliance on discretionary ministerial instruments, and minimal State engagement – demonstrate the challenges of building sustainable protection frameworks without formal legal anchoring and durable political commitment. For community sponsorship to be both viable and equitable, future initiatives must ensure legal security, additionality, coordination, and inclusiveness, thereby enhancing rather than substituting State responsibility (N. Hashimoto, ‘Are new pathways of admitting refugees truly “humanitarian” and “complementary”?’, in Journal of Human Security Studies, 10: 15-31, 2021). Sponsorship should be conceived as a mechanism to engage communities, strengthen social cohesion, and expand access to protection in contexts where formal systems are insufficient, rather than as a standalone alternative to State-led protection (J. van Selm, ‘Whose Pathways are They? The Top-Down/Bottom-Up Conundrum of Complementary Pathways for Refugees’, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 25(2): 137-163, 2020).

This blogpost is one of the scientific outcomes of the CoSME Project (www.cosmeproject.eu)