Abstract: 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.

About the speaker: Dr Schwartz earned her PhD in Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh in 2016, and is currently an Associate Professor in Quantitative Methods at Royal Holloway University of London. Prior to that, she was a post-doctoral researcher at University College London.

Dr Schwartz has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Comparative Political Studies, the British Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, and International Interactions. Her research has been funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust/British Academy, the CAF Development Bank of Latin America, the U.K. Department for International Development, and the ESRC.

Dr Schwartz's work falls within the nexus between political economy and political behavior, with a focus on migration and taxation in developing economies. While she specialises in Latin America, her research addresses transnational issuues and examines cases in Africa and the Caribbean. Her broad research agenda explores citizen decision-making in low capacity states. In these contexts, governments often try, but fail to provide economic opportunities for their citizens, and this fundamentally changes citizens' expectations. Dr Schwartz contends that -- far from feeling protected by or fearful of the state -- everyday citizens view it as an impediment or a nuisance to be circumvented.

About the discussant: Dr Tolga Sinmazdemir is a Senior Lecturer in Political Methodology in the Department of Politics and International Studies at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

Before joining SOAS, he worked as an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Bogazici University, Istanbul, and spent a year as a fellow in the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economic and Political Science. He holds a Ph.D. in Politics from New York University. He is a member of Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP), which is a global research network of scholars doing experimental research.

Dr Sinmazdemir's research focuses on political conflict and violence, with a special focus on the Middle East. His goal is to identify causes and consequences of conflict through rigorous analysis of original data. Currently, he is studying Syrian refugee flows into neighboring countries and host society attitudes towards Syrian refugees.

A Nation of Laws? The Perception of Choice and Unauthorized Migration