What explains variation in U.S. asylum approval rates across countries of origin? Previous research has found that humanitarian factors and diplomatic relations play an important role in shaping asylum decisions. This article examines the impact of domestic politics. The authors find that media and congressional attention play an important role in influencing how the executive branch makes enforcement decisions. Popular attention to asylum increases the importance of humanitarian concerns relative to instrumental factors. The effect of congressional attention depends on whether asylum is seen as an enforcement or humanitarian issue. The importance of these factors has also changed over time.
Anker, Deborah E., and Michael H. Posner .1981. The forty year crisis: A legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980. San Diego Law Review19 (9): 1-89.
2.
Cornelius, Wayne A., and Marc R. Rosenblum .2005. Immigration and politics . Annual Review of Political Science8:99-119.
3.
Cornelius, Wayne A., Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin, and James Frank Hollifield .2004. Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
Cortell, Andrew P., and James Davis.1996. How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies Quarterly40 (4): 451-78.
5.
Earnest, David C.2006. Neither citizen nor stranger: Why states enfranchise resident aliens. World Politics58 (1): 242-75.
6.
Fetzer, Joel S.2000. Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink.1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization52 (4): 887-917.
8.
Fitzgerald, Keith.1996. The face of the nation: Immigration, the state, and the national identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
Freeman, Gary P.1995. Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states . International Migration Review29 (4): 881-902.
10.
Friedrich, Robert J.1982. In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science26 (4): 797-833.
11.
Gibney, Mark.2000. In search of a U.S. refugee policy. In The United States and human rights, ed. David P. Forsythe, 52-74. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
12.
———. 2005. Political Terror Scales index. http://www.unca.edu/politicalscience/faculty-staff/gibney.html (accessed March 25, 2005).
13.
Gimpel, James G., and James R. Edwards .1999. The congressional politics of immigration reform. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Givens, Terri.2005. Voting radical right in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Hildreth, Anne.1994. The importance of purposes in “purposive” groups: Incentives and participation in the sanctuary movement. American Journal of Political Science38 (2): 447-63.
16.
Hoskin, Marilyn.1991. New immigrants and democratic society: Minority integration in Western democracies. New York: Praeger.
17.
Howell, William G., and Jon C. Pevehouse .2005. Presidents, Congress and the use of force. International Organization59 (1): 209-32.
18.
Jaccard, James, and Robert Turrisi.2003. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Jacobson, David.1996. Rights across borders: Immigration and the decline of citizenship. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
Joppke, Christian.1999. Immigration and the nation-state: The United States, Germany, and Great Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
Kam, Cindy D., and Robert J. Franzese Jr.2007. Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
22.
Katzenstein, Peter J., Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner .1999. Exploration and contestation in the study of world politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Keely, Charles, and Sharon Stanton Russell.1994. Responses of industrial countries to asylum seekers. Journal of International Affairs47:461-77.
24.
Keohane, Robert O., and Helen Milner, eds. 1996. Inter-nationalization and domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins .1991. The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg.2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 347-61.
27.
Lindsay, James M.1994. Congress and the politics of U.S. foreign policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Loescher, Gil.1993. Beyond charity: International cooperation and the global refugee crisis. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Loescher, Gil, and John A. Scanlan .1986. Calculated kindness: Refugees and America's half-open door, 1945 to the present. New York: Free Press.
30.
Lohmann, Susanne, and Sharyn O'Halloran .1994. Divided government and US trade policy: Theory and evidence. International Organization48 (4): 595-632.
31.
Marshall, Monty G., and Keith Jaggers.2005. Polity IV dataset. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/ (accessed March 25, 2005).
32.
Moe, Terry.1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science28 (November): 739-77.
33.
Moe, Terry, and Scott Wilson.1994. Presidents and the politics of structure. Law and Contemporary Problems57 (2): 1-44.
34.
Money, Jeannette.1999. Fences and neighbors: The political geography of immigration control in advanced market economy countries. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.
Neumayer, Eric.2005. Bogus refugees? The determinants of asylum migration to Western Europe. International Studies Quarterly49 (4): 389-410.
37.
Putnam, Robert.1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization42 (3): 427-60.
38.
Reimers, David.1999. Unwelcome strangers: American identity and the turn against immigration. New York: Columbia University Press.
39.
Rosenblum, Marc R.2004. The transnational politics of U.S. immigration policy . Monograph no. 3. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.
40.
Rosenblum, Marc R., and Idean Salehyan.2004. Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement. Journal of Peace Research41 (6): 677-97.
41.
Schoultz, Lars.1992. Central America and the politicization of US immigration policy. In Western hemisphere immigration and United States foreign policy, ed. ChristopherMitchell. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
42.
Shanks, Cheryl.2001. Immigration and the politics of American sovereignty, 1890-1990. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Soysal, Yasemin.1994. Limits of citizenship: Migrants and post-national membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Stepick, Alex.1992. Unintended consequences: Rejecting Haitian boat people and destabilizing Duvalier. In Western hemisphere immigration and United States foreign policy, ed. ChristopherMitchell. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
45.
Teitelbaum, Michael.1984. Immigration, refugees, and foreign policy. International Organization38 (3): 429-50.
46.
Teitelbaum, Michael, and Myron Weiner, eds. 1995. Threatened peoples, threatened borders: World migration and U.S. policy. New York: Norton.
47.
Tichenor, Daniel J.2002. Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
Tolley, Howard.1990. Interest group litigation to enforce human rights. Political Science Quarterly105 (4): 617-38.
49.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King.2003. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University , University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu/ (accessed March 25, 2005).
50.
Weingast, Barry, Kenneth Shepsle, and Christopher Johnsen.1981. The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy89 (4): 642-64.
