Most Americans prefer nonviolent methods of border enforcement over violent ones, according to a new study published in the journal Migration Studies and led by researchers at University College London.
The study found that while nonviolent approaches held broader public support, approval for violent measures increased when participants believed a migrant posed a threat to officers or public order. Specific factors that raised that perception included carrying a weapon, crossing as part of a large group, or traveling without children.
The researchers conducted a large-scale experiment with 1,969 U.S. participants drawn from a representative sample. Each participant was shown scenarios describing people crossing the Rio Grande River on the U.S.-Mexico border and the responses taken by border enforcement officers. The United States Border Patrol, a federal law enforcement agency within U.S. Customs and Border Protection, manages that enforcement.
Each scenario included details about the migrant's personal characteristics, such as race, motivation for crossing, and criminal record, along with situational factors that could be read as threatening. Participants then rated their approval of the Border Patrol's response on a scale from strong disapproval to strong approval. The responses ranged from nonviolent measures like temporary barricades to violent ones like firing rubber bullets.
One finding stood out clearly: approval of firing rubber bullets did not depend on the migrant's personal characteristics. Race, stated motivation, and criminal record had no measurable effect. What shifted approval was whether the migrant appeared to threaten officers or public order.
Lead author Dr. Burak Sonmez of the 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."
Sonmez added, "When migrants are framed as a threat to national security, whether in the media or in political rhetoric, public opinion hardens."
The study also documented a significant partisan divide. Republicans showed higher overall approval of violent measures than Democrats, though both groups favored nonviolent approaches over violent ones on average. Republicans averaged 0.61 out of 1.0 on approval of firing rubber bullets, placing them above the neutral midpoint of 0.5. Democrats averaged 0.28, placing them well below that midpoint and indicating disapproval.
The research also found what the authors call false polarization. Democratic participants overestimated how much Republican supporters would approve of violent measures. That overestimation points to a gap between actual opinion and perceived opinion across party lines, suggesting the political divide on this issue may be wider in perception than in reality.
Participants were asked not only for their own views but also to estimate how members of both parties would respond to the same scenarios. That additional layer allowed the researchers to measure the distance between what people actually believed and what they assumed others believed.
The study's design, using realistic scenarios with varied characteristics rather than asking general opinion questions, allowed researchers to isolate which specific factors drove changes in approval. The size of the sample and its representative composition add weight to the findings.
The journal Migration Studies published the results. The research was led by UCL's Social Research Institute.
