More than a Wall: The Rise and Fall of US Asylum and Refugee Policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 231150242094884
Author(s):  
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Refugee Policy ◽  
Political Struggle ◽  
Historical Sources ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Flexible System

This article uses a multidisciplinary approach — analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data — to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylum system and those who oppose it. Today, the flexible system of protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylum policies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity of Donald Trump’s harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts.

scholarly journals More than a Wall: The Rise and Fall of US Asylum and Refugee Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-265
Author(s):  
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Refugee Policy ◽  
Political Struggle ◽  
Historical Sources ◽  
Executive Summary ◽  
Flexible System

Executive Summary This article uses a multidisciplinary approach — analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data — to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylum system and those who oppose it. Today, the flexible system of protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylum policies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity of Donald Trump’s harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts.

Public Opinion and Capital Punishment: A Close Examination of the Views of Abolitionists and Retentionists

1983 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe C. Ellsworth ◽  
Lee Ross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Self Image ◽  
Legal Implications

A survey designed to examine the attitudinal and informational bases of people's opinions about the death penalty was administered to 500 Northern California residents (response rate = 96 percent). Of these, 58.8 percent were proponents of capital punishment, 30.8 percent were opponents, and 10.4 percent were undecided. When asked whether they favored mandatory, discretionary, or no death penalty for various crimes, respondents tended to treat these options as points on a scale of strength of belief, with mandatory penalties favored for the most serious crimes, rather than considering the questions of objectivity and fairness that have influenced the United States Supreme Court's considerations of these options. For no crime did a majority favor execution of all those convicted, even when a mandatory penalty was endorsed. Respondents were generally ignorant on factual issues related to the death penalty, and indicated that if their factual beliefs (in deterrence) were incorrect, their attitude would not be influenced. When asked about their reasons for favoring or opposing the death penalty, respondents tended to endorse all reasons consistent with their attitudes, indicating that the attitude does not stem from a set of reasoned beliefs, but may be an undifferenti ated, emotional reflection of one's ideological self-image. Opponents favored due process guarantees more than did Proponents. A majority of respondents said they would need more evidence to convict if a case was capital. Theoretical and legal implications of the results are discussed.

The Impact of Economic Coercion on Public Opinion: The Case of US–China Currency Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (9) ◽  
pp. 1555-1583
Author(s):  
Dimitar Gueorguiev ◽  
Daniel McDowell ◽  
David A. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
External Threats ◽  
Economic Coercion ◽  
The Impact

In recent years, the United States has increasingly tried to change other governments’ economic policies by threatening to punish those countries if they do not change course. To better understand the political consequences of these tactics, this paper examines how external threats influence public support for policy change in targeted states. We consider three mechanisms through which economic coercion might alter public opinion: by changing individuals’ interests, by activating their national identities, and by providing them with new information about a policy’s distributive effects. To test these rival explanations, we focus on the case of China–US currency relations. Using data from a survey experiment of Chinese internet users, we find strong support for the informational updating theory. Our evidence suggests that economic coercion can reduce support for policy change because it leads individuals to update their beliefs about who wins and loses from economic policy changes.

scholarly journals Solidarities, Fairness, and Economic Governance in Advanced Capitalism: The Cases of COVID-19 Responses in Germany and the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Goerres ◽  
Mark I. Vail
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Economic Relationships ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Theoretical Question

This paper addresses the theoretical question of how competing models of social and economic solidarity shape patterns of economic governance in periods of economic crisis. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a signal case, we seek to understand how changes in public opinion in response to similar social and economic shocks are informed by deeper ideational structures among citizens relating to their capacity for empathy, mutual support, and willingness to support and trust public policy interventions. Drawing on scholarly literatures related to moral economies and the social embeddedness of economic relationships, we undertake an empirical study of how the COVID-19 pandemic has shaped patterns of support for social and economic policies. We focus on Germany and the United States, countries with widely divergent modes of integration of capitalist markets and, therefore, potentially different levels of support for particular kinds of policy responses. We trace American and German policy responses since March 2020 across a number of domains, complemented by a systematic analysis of public opinion in the two countries, drawing from fifteen different sources of public-opinion data, in order to assess the pandemic’s effects on public support for individualized and collectively-oriented policy responses.

scholarly journals The Gifted Judge: An Analysis of the Judicial Career of Robert H. Jackson

1969 ◽  
pp. 880
Author(s):  
Graeme A. Barry
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Nuremberg Trials

The author undertakes an historical analysis of the judicial achievements of Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1941 until his sudden death in 1954. Justice Jackson's approach to the nature of the judicial function, to judicial review and to the question of extrajudicial activities sheds light on contemporary debate in these areas. Despite being undoubtedly influenced by his place on the "Roosevelt Court," Jackson was a strong individualist, which the author believes accounts for his "maverick" status on the Court Justice Jackson's prominent judicial opinions relating to economic regulation, procedural due process, civil liberties and the separation of powers doctrine reveal how he addressed the inherent tension between judicial review and democracy in the American system of government. The effects of extrajudicial activities are explored with reference to his key role at the Nuremberg Trials, and the appointment of Madam Justice Louise Arbour to serve as Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals.

Inequality and U.S. Public Opinion on Foreign Aid

World Affairs ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 182 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-295
Author(s):  
Hak-Seon Lee
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Foreign Aid ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Welfare Programs ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Society ◽  
Social Safety Nets

I investigate how the level of inequality affects American public opinion on foreign aid. As the level of inequality increases across the United States, the majority of the public will be more likely to demand the government implement policies that should ameliorate severe inequality in society. Assuming that government resources are limited, a greater level of inequality in American society may weaken public support for foreign aid because the public may prioritize providing social safety nets and welfare programs in domestic milieu over granting foreign aid to developing countries. In addition, as inequality widens, the public may perceive economic globalization as one of the main causes of inequality; thus, their overall support for globalization will decline. As a result, American support for global engagement will be negatively affected, and public support for foreign aid may decrease. An empirical test using public opinion data in 50 U.S. states since the 1980s confirms my theory: widening inequality both across states and within a given state does weaken public support for U.S. foreign aid.

Audience Beliefs and International Organization Legitimacy

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrence L. Chapman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Presidential Approval ◽  
Strategic Information ◽  
Un Security Council

AbstractRecent work suggests that multilateral security institutions, such as the UN Security Council, can influence foreign policy through public opinion. According to this view, authorization can increase public support for foreign policy, freeing domestic constraints. Governments that feel constrained by public opinion may thus alter their foreign policies to garner external authorization. These claims challenge traditional realist views about the role of international organizations in security affairs, which tend to focus on direct enforcement mechanisms and neglect indirect channels of influence. To examine these claims, this article investigates the first link in this causal chain—the effect of institutional statements on public opinion. Strategic information arguments, as opposed to arguments about the symbolic legitimacy of specific organizations or the procedural importance of consultation, posit that the effect of institutional statements on public opinion is conditional on public perceptions of member states' interests. This article tests this conditional relationship in the context of changes in presidential approval surrounding military disputes, using a measure of preference distance between the United States and veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Findings indicate that short-term changes in presidential approval surrounding the onset of military disputes in the United States between 1946 and 2001 have been significantly larger when accompanied by a positive resolution for a Security Council that is more distant in terms of foreign policy preferences. The article also discusses polling data during the 1990s and 2000s that support the strategic information perspective.

scholarly journals The January 6 Insurrection and America's Standing Abroad: Natural Experimental Evidence from Five Unexpectedly Interrupted Public Opinion Surveys

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam van Noort
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Experimental Test ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Random Digit Dialing ◽  
Random Digit ◽  
Public Opinion Surveys ◽  
The Us ◽  
Nationally Representative

American geopolitical power partly relies on foreign public support for its leadership. Pundits worry that this support is evaporating now that the United States—which claims to be the world’s beacon of democracy—has itself experienced democratic back- sliding. I provide the first natural experimental test of this hypothesis by exploiting that the January 6 insurrection of the US Capitol unexpectedly occurred while Gallup was conducting nationally-representative surveys in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Romania, and Vietnam. Because Gallup uses random digit dialing I can identify the effect by comparing US leadership approval among respondents that were interviewed just before, and just after, January 6, 2021. I find that the insurrection had no effect on US approval. If even a violent attempt to overturn a free and fair election does not affect US approval abroad it is unlikely that any other domestic anti-democratic event will.

The E-Government Surveillance in the United States

Biometrics ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 1359-1381
Author(s):  
Ramona Sue McNeal ◽  
Mary Schmeida ◽  
Justin Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Government Surveillance

Since the 2001 U.S. Patriot Act passed in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., government wiretapping powers have evolved in scope and practice. Although overall public opinion favors government protection from terrorism, public support for government surveillance has ebbed and flowed. Recently, public opinion polls suggest that there has been a shift from supporting government wiretapping activities toward protecting individual civil liberty. A number of competing explanations have developed from sources ranging from the literature on Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) to evolving beliefs about personal information privacy. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze factors predicting changing public support for government surveillance. Multivariate regression analysis and individual level data from the 2012 American National Election Time Series Study are used to test rival explanations.

scholarly journals Flood Sensitivity, Risk Perception, and Support for Climate Action in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jamieson
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
The Us ◽  
Climate Action

Despite increasing evidence of the effects of climate change and scientific consensus about its threat, significant political barriers to climate action remain in the US. American public opinion about climate change is generally perceived as stable and sharply divided along partisan lines. However, less is known about the relationship between flood sensitivity and public opinion about climate change. Combining the ND-GAIN Urban Adaptation Assessment data of American cities with public opinion data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, this paper demonstrates the positive association between flood sensitivity and beliefs about climate change, risk perceptions, and support for climate action. These results have important implications for the understanding of public opinion about climate change, suggesting that flood sensitivity shapes perceptions of climate change. The results also have important implications for advocates of political action, suggesting that making flood sensitivity salient could help mobilize public support for climate action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document