Asylum and refugee protection norm contestation: an analysis of anti-migration networks in the US

Anti-migration sentiment in the US is one of the core values which drove support for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Forced migration and the framing of the ‘refugee crisis’ has been examined as a catalyst for the rise of radical right populism (RRP) in the West (Mudde, 2019) and increasing security concerns regarding the influx of irregular migrants via the US-Mexico border as a key factor for the demand and support for Trump’s RRP leadership (Wright and Esses, 2019). However, research is less clear on how anti-migration and RRP movements contest international refugee norms. To assess this area of contestation, this article investigates the anti-migration movement in the US and identifies a strategic framework employed by networks of state and non-state actors which utilise RRP ideology to contest established international refugee norms. I conduct a qualitative discourse analysis of anti-migration networks and political and legal documents to uncover the mechanisms employed by networks of actors, and the political and judicial platforms used to shape and change refugee norms in the US. The analysis is situated within the International Relations theoretical frameworks of norm resistance, contributing to new understandings of actors as regressive norm entrepreneurs, norm antipreneurs, and norm saboteurs, through a unique strategic framework of refugee norm resistance and RRP ideology. By studying the anti-migration movement in the US, this article develops a deeper understanding of international refugee norm contestation and argues that norm resistance strategies and RRP politics contribute to regression of refugee rights.