A Nation of Laws?

Migrant lawbreaking has emerged as a key election issue, with politicians on the left and right both expressing clear preferences to deter unauthorized migration and root out 'lawbreakers'. This political strategy echoes the popular sentiment that immigrants are welcome -- as long as they come legally. But do natives really think this way about unauthorized migrants?

We develop a theory that is primarily rooted in literature on punitiveness and leniency, emphasizing migrants’ choices rather than their identities. We conduct original survey experiments among a national sample of Americans, where we test this choice framework on punitiveness and policy preferences. These experiments mitigate against acquiescence bias and demand effects, and they tease apart the causal mechanism between choices and attitudes. Our evidence suggests that Americans do not base their attitudes on migrants’ choices alone. Such claims are more rhetorical than they are causally meaningful.

Speaker biography

Cassilde Schwartz is Associate Professor in Quantitative Methods at Royal Holloway, University of London. She earned her PhD in Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh in 2016 and previously held a postdoctoral fellowship at University College London. Her research, published in leading journals such as the American Journal of Political Science and the British Journal of Political Science examines the intersection of political economy and political behaviour, with a focus on migration and taxation in developing economies. Funded by the NSF, Leverhulme Trust, and ESRC, among others, her work explores citizen decision-making in low-capacity states.