In recent years, Colombia, has witnessed a transformation in terms of human mobility. In a contradictory scenario where economic wealth, growth and opulence overlap with hunger, unemployment, conflict and poverty, Colombia experienced two main forms of human mobilization: internal displacement from rural areas to cities as a result of the armed conflict, and emigration looking for new opportunities abroad. However, recently Colombia has become a key point for human mobility—due primarily to the

more »

... international human mobility from Venezuela. As a result, it is today an immigration, emigration and transit hot spot. The Covid-19 pandemic and an increase of human mobility in Colombia have emphasized the contrast between two groups: those who arrive by foot and those who can afford aerial transport. We will argue that during the Covid-19 pandemic, national authorities in the main cities have adopted differing treatments towards low- income migrants, as opposed to foreign tourists/investors. To do this, we will focus our analysis on the restrictions imposed to enter the country, as a policy has been structured to exclude migrants crossing by foot trying to reach a main city, while appealing to foreign tourists/investors. This paper aims to show how the authorities' narratives separate the terms "migrants" and "foreigners" as starkly different, giving them a distinctive treatment when entering the country. "Migration" usually refers to the poorer individuals from Latin America (predominantly Venezuelan), while the concept of "foreigner" typically refers to the wealthy people from the global north. In this sense, the way in which a person enters the country determines how they will be treated by authorities and communities. This is a consequence of a normalized aporophobia, as Cortina defined, that undervalues migrants and favors foreigners.