Webinar “Close to the Edge: When Do People Condone Violence to Stop Undocumented Border Crossings?”, with Burak Sonmez (Centre for Quantitative Social Science at UCL)

This session explores public attitudes toward border enforcement and the conditions under which violence is justified. Drawing on a large-scale U.S. survey experiment, Prof. Sonmez reveals how perceived threat, rather than migrant characteristics, drives support for violence at the border — with surprising findings on polarization and perception.

Take a look into the abstract:
The securitization of the borders has intensified through harsh enforcement and deterrence strategies, yet little is known about what factors drive public approval of such measures. Using a large-scale survey experiment, we examine the extent to which the U.S. public condones border patrol’s violent response to unauthorized border crossings. We find that the approval of violence is driven by perceived threats: respondents are more likely to support state violence when migrants attempt to cross borders in large groups, lack children in groups, or carry weapons. Contrary to expectations, race, criminal record, and migration motives do not affect preferences. Additionally, we find evidence of false polarization. Democrats overestimate Republicans’ support for border violence, while Republicans underestimate Democrats’ support. Our results suggest that public support for the use of violence to deter unauthorized border crossings is shaped less by individual characteristics of migrants, but more by contextual factors that heighten perceived threat.

Feel free to share with colleagues and peers – the event is open to all!
Register now: https://upf-edu.zoom.us/meeting/register/b_MCuAEERc-_dh7OBEaSJg#/registration