This study examines whether there is popular support for a restrictive immigration policy aimed at denying safe haven to human rights abusers and those affiliated with terrorism. We designed a public opinion survey experiment that asks respondents to evaluate whether low level or high-level Taliban members who otherwise qualify for refugee status deserve immigration benefits. We found that a majority of respondents did not immediately deny a visa to low-level worker. Looking at respondents' explanations for their decision, we find two distinct clusters of reasons that we classify as either circumstantial–focused on the particularities of the case–or categorical–focused on general attributes of the applicant. We suggest that domestic and international criminal law logics about acts and intentions, as well as roles and responsibilities, are reflected in beliefs about deservingness in this distinct immigration context, and may support more generous attitudes toward those seeking refugee status. Many respondents using circumstantial reasoning saw a distinction between the jobs potential immigrants have done in their pasts and what they actually believe, underscoring the fraught dynamics of armed conflict in which people may be swept up in violence they do not support.

中文翻译：

---

受害者，肇事者，两者都不是：移民法中对应得性和罪责的态度

本研究调查是否有民众支持旨在拒绝为侵犯人权者和与恐怖主义有关联的人提供避风港的限制性移民政策。我们设计了一项民意调查实验，要求受访者评估原本有资格获得难民身份的低级或高级塔利班成员是否应获得移民福利。我们发现，大多数受访者并没有立即拒绝低级别工人的签证。查看受访者对其决定的解释，我们发现了两组不同的原因，我们将其归类为间接原因（侧重于案例的特殊性）或分类原因– 关注申请人的一般属性。我们认为，关于行为和意图以及角色和责任的国内和国际刑法逻辑反映在这种独特的移民背景下关于应得的信念中，并可能支持对寻求难民身份的人采取更慷慨的态度。许多使用环境推理的受访者看到了潜在移民在过去所做的工作与他们实际相信的工作之间的区别，突显了武装冲突的令人担忧的动态，人们可能会卷入他们不支持的暴力之中。