Norms and Interests in US Asylum Enforcement
| Published date | 01 November 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343304047432 |
| Author | Idean Salehyan,Marc R. Rosenblum |
| Date | 01 November 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
677
Introduction
Are normative beliefs influential, or is state
behavior better explained by focusing on
material and strategic interests? In recent
years, this norms-versus-interests debate has
become central to the study of international
politics, sparking a good deal of theoretical
scholarship (Katzenstein, Keohane &
Krasner, 1999). In one camp, realists and
traditional liberals argue that states are
rational, utility-maximizing actors who seek
tangible benefits. In the other camp, con-
structivists argue that internalized norms and
values precede and influence instrumental
calculations. Normative arguments have
particularly focused on international human
rights regimes (Risse, Ropp & Sikkink,
1999; Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). These
approaches are often treated as competing,
perhaps mutually exclusive paradigms; but
little scholarship has subjected these views to
systematic, large-N empirical testing.
This article examines US asylum policy,
which is a critical case for the norms-versus-
interests debate. Political asylum is designed
© 2004 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 41, no. 6, 2004, pp. 677–697
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
DOI 10.1177/0022343304047432 ISSN 0022-3433
Norms and Interests in US Asylum Enforcement*
MARC R. ROSENBLUM
Department of Political Science, University of New Orleans
IDEAN SALEHYAN
Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego
What happens when the normative goal of granting asylum to applicants in need conflicts with US
strategic interests? Asylum represents a critical case for the norms-versus-interests debate, because the
protection of vulnerable individuals is a quintessential humanitarian project, but may entail strategic
costs. In this article, a general theoretical framework for weighing the importance of norms and inter-
ests is developed and tested in the case of US asylum enforcement with respect to 42 countries of origin
during and after the Cold War. Both norms and interests influence asylum decisions, and when they
prescribe similar actions in regard to asylum cases, state agents face no difficulty in making choices.
When human rights norms and state interests prescribe contradictory actions, however, analysts know
little about the relative importance of each factor. The findings in this article suggest that the ways in
which norms and interests affect asylum enforcement have changed over time. Normative admissions
were primarily a function of procedural democracy during the 1980s, and substantive human rights
have been increasingly influential since then. Second, enforcement reflected security and diplomatic
considerations during the 1980s, but these concerns gave way during the 1990s to goals of maintain-
ing good relations with trade partners and preventing undocumented migration. Finally, there is no
evidence that the importance of norms relative to interests has increased over time, contrary to the pre-
dictions of some constructivists.
* We thank Alisa Garni, Kristian Gleditsch, Michael
Huelshoff, Willem Maas, Heather Smith, and the editors
and reviewers of this journal for their comments on earlier
versions of this article. Remaining errors are our own. The
data used in this article can be found at http://
www.uno.edu/~mrosenbl/index.htm. Correspondence:
marc.rosenblum@uno.edu or idean@ucsd.edu.
02 rosenblum (ds) 24/9/04 10:56 am Page 677
to protect migrants escaping persecution in
their countries of origin and was among the
first internationally recognized human rights
following World War II. But granting asylum
taxes national resources and can strain diplo-
matic relations with countries of origin.
Thus, there is a tension between the humani-
tarian aim of protecting refugees and state
interests, broadly defined. Moreover, in
contrast to refugee policy, in which states
selectively choose migrants, asylum-seekers
themselves choose to enter destination states
and may thus force states to confront these
tensions.1
In this article, we ask to what extent do
human rights norms influence asylum
enforcement in the United States, and to
what extent do non-ideational interests
temper or even override humanitarian
asylum laws? Second, is there evidence, as
some constructivists expect, that human
rights norms are becoming increasingly
important over time? By measuring the
relative importance of norms and strategic
interests in a policy arena in which human
rights should be paramount, we get to the
heart of the norms-versus-interests debate.
We argue that states can be legitimately
concerned with protecting human rights
while also seeking to advance instrumental
goals. In many circumstances, norms and
interests prescribe similar courses of action,
and enforcement decisions are uncompli-
cated. In other cases, normative and instru-
mental objectives prescribe contradictory
courses of action – it is these cases that are
most theoretically interesting and highlight
the tension between norms and interests.
Beyond these theoretical issues, asylum
policy is substantively important as the
combination of political conflict and
economic hardship in source states and entry
restrictions in industrialized countries has
made applying for asylum an increasingly
attractive migration strategy. Indeed, the
number of US asylum applications increased
from 56,300 in 1991 to a peak of 154,500
in 1995, and Germany received 438,200
asylum requests in 1992 alone (Keely &
Russell, 1994; US Committee for Refugees,
2001). By examining the previously under-
studied issue of US asylum enforcement, this
article contributes to the literature on migra-
tion and US foreign policy generally.
After reviewing the literature on norms
and interests, we provide a theoretical frame-
work for examining the relationship between
them. The fourth section provides historical
background on US asylum and refugee
policy. We then describe our quantitative
research design and present the results of our
analysis of US asylum enforcement,
1983–98. We find that both norms and
interests influence asylum enforcement and
that the substantive importance of normative
and instrumental variables is roughly similar.
Second, the specific determinants of asylum
enforcement changed during the period
under analysis, with human rights abuses
becoming an increasingly important norma-
tive determinant of asylum enforcement, and
with instrumental determinants initially
defined in terms of security and diplomatic
concerns, but increasingly a function of trade
relations and the prevention of undocu-
mented migration. Finally, we compare the
relative importance of normative and instru-
mental variables and find no evidence that
this ratio is changing over time.
Literature Review
Many scholars argue that human rights are
an important normative force in modern
international relations (Finnemore, 1996;
Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998; Risse, Ropp &
journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume 41 / number 6 / november 2004
678
1Refugee policy (particularly under US law) refers to the
selection of refugees from overseas. Under asylum policy,
migrants enter destination states and only then claim to
have been persecuted in their country of origin. The former
is proactive – the state makes an admission determination
prior to the entry of the migrant – while the latter is
reactive, taking place after entry to the state.
02 rosenblum (ds) 24/9/04 10:56 am Page 678
To continue reading
Request your trial