REFRAMING CREDIBLE FEAR IN AN AGE OF RESTRICTIONISM: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURGE IN ASYLUM SEEKERS AT THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER

Abstract

Starting in 2013, the number of people requesting asylum via the credible fear program at the border between the United States and Mexico began to rapidly increase. Congress held a series of hearings during which politicians and other witnesses claimed that the surge was due to asylum seekers committing fraud en masse. This thesis reviews the literature and available data regarding asylum fraud to determine whether the claims of fraud in the credible fear program hold merit. This thesis also employs bivariate correlations and regression analyses to estimate the relationships between the number of credible fear receipts from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico and a selection of independent variables that measure conditions in those countries, U.S. and Mexican policy decisions, and other migration and benefit types. The review and statistical analyses suggest that the generalized claim of fraud does not satisfactorily explain the surge in credible fear receipts over the previous 10 years. Instead, the results suggest that the surge consisted of people genuinely seeking protection and that each country in this study has a unique set of variables that best explain credible fear receipts from that country alone. This thesis recommends that the U.S. government rely on statistical modeling to prepare for the fluctuations in the number of asylum seekers and to identify and help resolve the underlying factors that cause increases in people fleeing their countries.