Back to results

University of San Diego

An Inferentially Robust Look at Two Competing Explanations for the Surge in Unauthorized Migration From Central America

Abstract

dc:description.abstract

<p>The last 8 years have seen a dramatic increase in the flow of Central American apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol. Explanations for this surge in apprehensions have been split between two leading hypotheses. Most academic scholars, immigrant advocates, progressive media outlets, and human rights organizations identify poverty and violence (the Poverty and Violence Hypothesis) in Central America as the primary triggers responsible. In contrast, while most government officials, conservative think tanks, and the agencies that work in the immigration and border enforcement realm admit poverty and violence may underlie some decisions to migrate, they instead blame lax U.S. immigration policies, incorrect perceptions of U.S. immigration policy, and the exploitation of immigration system loopholes (the Policy and Loophole Hypothesis) as the real cause of the surge. Despite the existence of opposing claims, neither side has provided a clear data-based explanation regarding what has caused the sudden surge of unauthorized immigration from Central America.</p> <p>To address these competing claims, this study explored both hypotheses from a macrolevel using an empirically-driven quantitative research design. The study first identified the universe of data as tracked and gathered by large reputable organizations for the seven relevant countries/regions in the study (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Latin America, and United States). A total of 195 independent variables were selected with 181 of them being specific to each country/region. This data produced a series of 68 independent stepwise regression models that explored the direct and indirect effects of both competing hypotheses. Ultimately, the study found more overall support for the Policy and Loophole Hypothesis, though it did not produce findings that confidently dismiss the Poverty and Violence Hypothesis. However, findings do suggest the often-cited Poverty and Violence Hypothesis has likely been overstated and exaggerated as a cause of the Central American migration surge. Furthermore, while neither hypothesis had enough inferentially robust support to conclusively back its claims, the findings do provide credence to the argument that the often-dismissed Policy and Loophole Hypothesis must be considered along with the Poverty and Violence Hypothesis in any analysis looking at unauthorized immigration from Central America.</p>

Degree

thesis:*
Name thesis:degree_name
PhD Leadership Studies
Level thesis:degree_level
Dissertation: Open Access
Discipline thesis:degree_discipline
Leadership Studies
Year dc:date.available
2021

Author and committee

dc:creator, dc:contributor.*
Author dc:creator
  • Santos, Nick

Subjects

dc:subject × 82

Identifiers

dc:identifier.*
Repository record dc:identifier
https://digital.sandiego.edu/dissertations/202
OAI identifier oai:identifier
oai:digital.sandiego.edu:dissertations-1204

Chain of custody

source
Harvested from
University of San Diego
Base URL
digital.sandiego.edu/do/oai/
Last updated
2026-07-24
Source record
OAI-PMH GetRecord
citation

Santos, Nick. An Inferentially Robust Look at Two Competing Explanations for the Surge in Unauthorized Migration From Central America. Dissertation: Open Access thesis, 2021. https://digital.sandiego.edu/dissertations/202