Perceived threat drives support for coercive border enforcement against unauthorized crossings

The securitization of the borders has intensified through harsh enforcement and deterrence strategies, yet little is known about what factors drive public approval of such measures. Using a large-scale survey experiment, we examine the extent to which the US public condones Border Patrol’s violent response to unauthorized border crossings. We find that the approval of violence is driven by perceived threats: respondents are more likely to support state violence when migrants attempt to cross borders in large groups, lack children in groups, or carry weapons. Contrary to expectations, race, criminal record, and migration motives do not affect preferences. Additionally, we find evidence of false polarization. Democrats strongly overestimate Republicans’ support for border violence, while Republicans slightly underestimate Democrats’ support. Our results suggest that public support for the use of violence to deter unauthorized border crossings is shaped less by group characteristics of migrants, but more by contextual factors that heighten perceived threat.