Most Americans prefer non-violent border enforcement, study finds

Most Americans prefer non-violent border enforcement, study finds Sadie Harley Scientific Editor Andrew Zinin Chief Editor Most Americans favor nonviolent measures, such as temporary barricades, over violent measures, like the use of rubber bullets, by border enforcement officers toward undocumented migrants on the southern border, a UCL-led study published in the journal Migration Studies has found. The study found that public support for violent measures starts to rise when migrants are perceived to represent a threat to public order, demonstrated by carrying a weapon, crossing in a large group or traveling without children. The researchers conducted a large-scale experiment involving a representative group of 1,969 U.S. participants. They were shown scenarios describing people crossing the Rio Grande River on the U.S.-Mexico border and the subsequent actions taken by border enforcement officers. Border enforcement is managed by the United States Border Patrol (USBP), a federal law enforcement agency within U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The scenarios presented the personal characteristics of the migrant (race, motivation for migration, criminal record), as well as additional factors that could be perceived as threatening (possession of a weapon, no children, large groups). For each scenario, participants rated their approval of the U.S. Border Patrol's response, ranging from a nonviolent measure such as temporary barricades to a violent one such as firing rubber bullets, on a scale from strong disapproval to strong approval. Approval of firing rubber bullets did not depend on the migrant's personal characteristics. Instead, respondents' willingness to condone violence was influenced by whether they perceived the migrant to be a threat to border enforcement officers and public order. Participants were also asked the extent to which they thought Republican supporters would approve of the Border Patrol response, and the extent to which they thought Democratic supporters would approve. Lead author Dr. Burak Sonmez (UCL Social Research Institute) said, "We show that violent enforcement of U.S. border security does not have the strong support of U.S. citizens. However, when the public believes migrants pose a threat, support for, and therefore legitimization of, violent measures increases. "When migrants are framed as a threat to national security, whether in the media or in political rhetoric, public opinion hardens." Overall, the results show that although Republicans support nonviolent approaches to border enforcement more than violent ones, they condone violent measures at a considerably higher rate than Democrats. For example, Republicans' average approval of firing rubber bullets was 0.61 on a 0-to-1 scale, above the neutral midpoint of 0.5, indicating approval, compared with just 0.28 among Democrats, who on average disapproved. The results also identified false polarization among the participants, whereby Democrats overestimated support for violent measures among Republicans, while Republicans underestimated approval among Democrats. Sonmez said, "This study took place during the Biden administration, and we expect the mismatch in perception between Democrats and Republicans to have widened since President Trump's second term began. "Ultimately, these groups' opinions are closer than they believe they are, but this false polarization only exacerbates misperceptions and limits the potential for bipartisan action toward effective and humane immigration policies." Militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border has increased significantly since the 1990s, and serious allegations of migrant abuse have been made against Border Patrol agents in relation to conduct along the Rio Grande River, the location that this study focused on. In January 2025, 10,000 U.S. troops were deployed to the southern border, a substantial increase in the federal military presence. More information Burak Sonmez et al, Perceived threat drives support for coercive border enforcement against unauthorized crossings, Migration Studies (2026). DOI: 10.1093/migration/mnag039 Provided by University College London