When confronted with the challenge of managing travel during a pandemic, governments have introduced a range of policies. Among the very first of them have been border closures, or – at the very least – strict policing of cross-border movements, accompanied by health screening measures (see more in the interlinkage Border management and health during times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19).

Such restrictions and closures have had immediate flow-on consequences for processing, delivering and monitoring visas and residence permits. They have also required coordination between border control operations and health and sanitation dispositions. Longer-term impacts are not as easy to gauge, but some trends are already apparent. There are, for instance, clear indications that countries with traditionally large migration intakes will struggle to meet their programme targets or ceilings for some years to come. It is estimated that due to restrictions caused by the pandemic, Australia’s net overseas migration intake will plummet from 194,400 in 2019–20 to -96,600 in 2020–21 and -77,400 in 2021-2022 (Australian Government, Department of Home Affairs, 2021a; Australian Government, Treasury, 2021b). Only 184,000 new permanent residents entered Canada in 2020, just over 50 per cent of the 341,000 that was targeted at the beginning of the year (Agopsowicz, 2021). It is useful to note, however, that both countries have indicated their intention to build their numbers again quickly, once the COVID-19 crisis is over. The international education industry has been hit equally hard. Hundreds of thousands of students have had to put their studies on hold, while their host institutions grapple with unexpected financial shortfalls that, in turn, drag down national economies (Thatcher et al., 2020).

Governments have responded to these challenges in many different ways, but two broad and complementary approaches are discernible, both of which have implications for other sectors and, therefore, require joint efforts across government agencies (especially departments of the interior, migration, foreign affairs and health) and, where possible, between governments linked by international travel routes. The two approaches are:

  • Suspension and/or strict restriction of visa issue or privileges of entry. These commonly target persons originating from known “hotspot” countries or areas, or – less frequently – nationals of specific countries, although the justification for the targeting in the latter may not always be readily apparent. These restrictions do not apply to returning citizens, since citizens are entitled to return home under international law, although they are generally required to undergo COVID-19 testing and/or quarantine. For non-citizens, there has been no uniformity of approach, with arrangements largely set up ad hoc to address particular needs or particular situations. In the case of Australia, for example, visas may be granted to foreign nationals with critical skills, military personnel or students in their final years of study. On the other side of the world, truck drivers have been exempted from the COVID-19 ban on cross-border travel between Canada and the United States to enable a continuing flow of goods between the two countries (Government of Canada, 2021). Numerous countries with a historic reliance on seasonal labour (Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, to name a few) have also swiftly established temporary worker schemes to shore up agricultural activity during the pandemic (for more information, see the interlinkage Labour migration in times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19).
  • Managing impacts on resident migrant populations. As a general rule, migrants with permanent rights of residence are afforded protections that are equivalent or comparable to those enjoyed by citizens. Temporary residents (and undocumented migrants, in particular) are often “trapped”, in effect, by the closure of borders and the expiry of their visas or residence permits. Without targeted support, migrants are likely to suffer from multiple vulnerabilities: in times of economic crisis, they are often among the first workers to be laid off, and even if they do not lose their jobs they may face salary cuts or non-payment of their wages altogether; they may also have to struggle against discrimination and xenophobia. Doing nothing is not an option, and governments have experimented with a wide range of possibilities. (See the interlinkage Labour migration in times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19.)

It should be remembered that the COVID-19 pandemic has confronted migration policymakers with challenges never encountered before, against a constantly evolving public health background. The situation has evolved considerably since the appearance of the virus on the global scene. It continues to change, often in unpredictable ways. In many countries there have been several cycles of rapid onset, successful mitigation and resurgence of transmission. From a migration management point of view, governments have little choice but to closely monitor what is happening and to adapt their policy responses.

Policy Approaches
Examples of approaches to manage visa and residence permits in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

At the time of writing, there is limited information about the effectiveness of the approaches listed below. With that in mind, these approaches illustrate efforts related to the suspension and restriction of visas and residence permits.

Suspension/restriction of visa issue or privileges of entry

  • Identify categories of travellers who will be allowed to enter the territory for exceptional legal, economic, occupational or compassionate reasons.
  • Set up biosecurity measures for those receiving visas to ensure risk-free departure, travel and arrival (see details in the interlinkage Border management and health during times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19).
  • Rely, given the circumstances, on “contactless” visa processing and “foil-less” visa issue via electronic means. This practice was already well established by the time the pandemic hit, for reasons of costs, general efficiency and convenience; the need for social distancing has increased the trend.
  • Enhance consular support for persons in vulnerable situations or those with an urgent or compelling need to travel.

Managing impacts on resident migrant populations

  • Grant automatic extensions to residence and/or work permits.
  • Suspend action on applications for extensions to residence or work (to prevent anyone from falling into irregularity while COVID-19 restrictions are in place).
  • Defer or do not perform deportations for unauthorized or undocumented migrants.
  • Regularize specific groups of non-permanent residents – especially asylum seekers – for compassionate reasons or to meet labour market needs.
  • Provide health and social welfare services to migrants left “stranded” after border closures (see the interlinkage Migrant integration during times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19).

Looking to the future, in light of progress in COVID-19 management, some governments have been exploring and, to a lesser extent, cautiously experimenting with the notion of safe “mobility corridors” (see the case study below), as well as the use of “digital health passports” such as Common Pass, or the IATA Travel Pass, to enable travellers to substantiate their COVID-19 free status when crossing international borders.

Case Study
Corridors and bubbles - future spaces of mobility?

At the outset of the pandemic, a variety of transport operations – including air bridges and charter flights – were conducted to facilitate the return of migrants stranded away from home. The focus of interest in now on larger-scale, more sustainable mobility corridors.

At the time of writing (mid-2021), one pressing concern of governments is to re-create conditions for safe, COVID-19-free travel that would pave the way for a return to pre-pandemic levels of social and economic interaction within the international community. While it is reasonable to expect that global norms will eventually be established, given administrative and political complexities, the more realistic assumption must be that, initially at least, such arrangements will be negotiated at the bilateral or regional level.

At the outset of the pandemic a variety of transport operations – including air bridges and charter flights - were conducted to facilitate the return of migrants stranded away from home. The focus of interest in now on larger-scale, more sustainable mobility corridors

After prolonged discussion, the governments of Australia and New Zealand introduced a two-way air travel “bubble” between the two countries. They have long had an arrangement allowing the free movement of citizens and residents across their borders (the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement), but the pandemic brought that to a temporary halt. The term “bubble” indicates the countries’ present confidence in their ability to carve out a safe travel space in a pandemic affected world.

In broad terms, citizens and permanent residents of two countries are able to take advantage of a travel bubble if they:

  • Have been in either country for at least 14 days prior to travel;
  • Meet normal immigration criteria related to matters such as documentation, customs or biosecurity;
  • Provide information to ensure traceability post-arrival, in case of need;
  • Abide by whatever additional measures may be in force, such as wearing masks during travel.

It is too early to tell whether this model will be extended to other countries, but it is conceivable that some of its essential features will eventually provide a basis for travel facilitation on a larger scale in a COVID-19-affected world.

PreviousThe environment, climate change, migration and health NextBorder management and health during times of pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19