Abstract
Abstract Over the last decade, Turkey and Colombia have emerged as major hosts of displaced populations, responding to the Syrian and Venezuelan displacement crises through the adoption of Temporary Protection (TP) regimes. This article offers an exploratory comparative analysis of the political and policy rationales underpinning their adoption. Analysing both cases in parallel reveals three key insights. First, TP serves state interests by supporting internal and external legitimacy, enabling governments to balance border control, public opinion, and policymaking while managing pressures from the Global North and projecting a positive international image. Second, the study highlights the role of policy diffusion: Colombia’s adoption of TP was indirectly shaped by Turkey’s model, reflecting a broader trend in which the circulation of displacement policies has normalized less protective approaches and has eroded refugee protection standards. Third, both states framed their engagement with displaced populations as rooted in “special” relationships, illustrating how borders intersect with social, cultural, and economic ties. Collectively, these findings challenge conventional understandings of migration policy by foregrounding the political centrality of interconnectedness and by showing how TP functions primarily as tool of state interest for entangled migration states, rather than as a mechanism designed around the needs of displaced communities.