Search

Powerful countries often sign agreements with countries in the Global South to avoid hosting asylum seekers. For example, the UK has recently struck a controversial deal that would see Rwanda taking on some UK asylum seekers. Similarly, the Trump administration signed ‘safe third country agreements’ (or Asylum Cooperative Agreements, ACAs) with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador Mexico has repeatedly been asked to enter a hosting agreement with the US, but has not agreed to do so. It is unclear whether Mexican citizens would have been in favor of this arrangement. For one, 55% of Mexicans support deporting transiting migrants (Sieff & Clement 2019). According to polls conducted by El Financiero, 63% of Mexicans supported sending the national guard to stop transiting migrants (reported in Wilson Center 2021). On the other hand, hosting agreements are usually associated with some form of foreign aid to reward hosts for their hospitality. This kind of aid aims to reduce feelings of unfairness among host country citizens and increase their willingness to host refugees. This, in turn, mitigates certain obstacles in the way of long-term hosting – for example, by reducing political pressure on democratic governments who have admitted many migrants for prolonged periods of time. In this project, we examine the role of aid as direct payments to reward hosting households, and examine whether these payments can increase citizens’ willingness to host asylum-seekers locally

In this project we deal with the discrepancy between moral actions and moral principles. We look at the case of migrant deportation in Mexico. Mexico is a highly religious country. About 80% of Mexicans identify as Roman Catholic. Catholic morality predicates helping refugees. The idea of helping “strangers” appears in multiple references in holy texts. Indeed, Jesus is thought to be a stranger in disguise (Schmaltz 2017).

The study assigns respondents to simple philosophical arguments which state that undertaking risks for the benefit of others is virtuous and should be rewarded, and then elicits whether respondents express gratitude towards immigrants who undertook such risks and whether such gratitude may manifest in greater rights afforded.

Using data collected from a larger survey on attitudes towards immigrants, we assess whether US citizens support granting citizenship and/or permanent residency to “frontline workers”, those working to protect the public’s health and safety during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study will additionally examine whether support for other policies pertaining to Covid-19 correlate with support for granting citizenship and/or permanent residency to frontline workers.

Immigration is one of the most complex challenges of an increasingly globalized world. It is the issue that many scholars argue is at the heart of the populist backlash that has recently characterized the Western political landscape. There is a deep and diverse literature that has explored the sources of resistance to immigration among native citizens. However, these explorations are often very narrow in scope, with people being polled about their general support for immigration, which specific groups should be allowed to immigrate, and which services they should have access to. A great deal less is known about how people consider and potentially support different methods of exclusion or removal, such as visa processes, detention, and the use of violent force. The characterization is similarly limited among political philosophers, with theorists either supporting broad immigration controls or not, or supporting the admitting of some groups or not. There is little work on whether certain means of immigration control are justified. The present work first identifies a key principle – the principle of proportionality – that is present in other areas of political philosophy concerning the use of coercive force. It considers how this principle might be applied to immigration control, concluding the following ethical philosophical principle: the more force that is necessary for preventing a migrant from remaining in a country, the less justified such prevention is. We then establish whether this general philosophical principle is supported by citizens. We do so by presenting subjects with experimental vignettes of migrants who failed to obtain a visa to live in the UK, with the level of force necessary to deport the migrant varying. Subjects are asked to decide if and to what extent excluding this migrant is reasonable, helping us evaluate the extent that citizens view force as lowering the justification for excluding a migrant.

Despite its complexity, there is almost no public opinion research on root causes aid. We ask (1) what drives support for root causes aid?; and (2) what are its knock-on effects on immigration policy preferences? We use a factorial vignette experiment in the United States to examine support for different types and levels of aid effectiveness, different root causes, and the presence of coercive and non-coercive components. Behind the apparent cross-ideological consensus, we expect sharp differences in support. By design, root causes aid discharges humanitarian duties to the poor which may otherwise be addressed by allowing more immigration. As such, we expect significant knock-on effects on immigration policy preferences.

The study asks how much harm is justified in reaching a given immigration goal and squares those identified levels of harm with what specific enforcement of immigration regulations U.S. citizens would support. Attitudes of the public towards immigration regulations is elicited in a survey and survey experiment conducted on a U.S. national sample with quotas proportional with respect to gender, age, and education.

Immigration is one of the most complex challenges of an increasingly globalized world. It is the issue that many scholars argue is at the heart of the populist backlash that has recently characterized the Western political landscape. There is a deep and diverse literature that has explored the sources of resistance to immigration among native citizens. However, these explorations are often very narrow in scope, with people being polled about their general support for immigration, which specific groups should be allowed to immigrate, and which services they should have access to. A great deal less is known about how people consider and potentially support different methods of exclusion or removal, such as visa processes, detention, and the use of violent force. The characterization is similarly limited among political philosophers, with theorists either supporting broad immigration controls or not, or supporting the admitting of some groups or not. There is little work on whether certain means of immigration control are justified. The present work first identifies a key principle – the principle of proportionality – that is present in other areas of political philosophy concerning the use of coercive force. It considers how this principle might be applied to immigration control, concluding the following ethical philosophical principle: the more force that is necessary for preventing a migrant from entering a country, the less justified such prevention is. We then establish whether this general philosophical principle is supported by citizens. We do so by presenting subjects with experimental vignettes of migrants who failed to obtain a visa to live in the US, with the level of force necessary to deport the migrant varying. Subjects are asked to decide if and to what extent excluding this migrant is reasonable, helping us evaluate the extent that citizens view force as lowering the justification for excluding a migrant.

The study implements an endorsement experiment to understand individuals’ attitudes toward resettling Afghan refugees. This is a particularly interesting case because clear US intervention raises questions about culpability and duties to refugees. Additionally, the war has spanned 4 presidencies: 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. In this vein, we are particularly interested in whether the party perceived to be culpable for the situation in Afghanistan changes whether individuals are willing to resettle refugees into the United States. We examine respondent adherence to the US (national level) and party level. We are also examining whether a loyalty frame can expand the categories of refugees that are accepted for resettlement, in addition to increasing support for resettlement.

This paper examines the ethical responsibilities of those NGOs that assist in repatriating migrants from countries that do not want them -- in particular, the case of the South Sudanese in Israel. Did NGOs exploit these migrants by using repatriation to appeal to donors? Were NGOs complicit in a government policy that may have been unjust?