This paper gains an understanding of the perceptions of migration among non-migrants within the United States and Mexico. Given the politicization and relevancy of migration in contemporary politics, a deeper sociological analysis is important to understand if perceptions from a migrant-receiving and a migrant-sending country are similar or different and to understand the motivations of these perceptions. This study utilizes quantitative data from the World Values Survey that asked questions centered around policy preferences for migration. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted with both American citizens and Mexican citizens with questions centered around perceptions of migration within their country, perceptions of United States-Mexico migration, and their general perceptions of the economic reliance between both countries. The analysis of this data has shown a strong correlation between one's home country and their perspective on migration. Both Americans and Mexicans have liberal attitudes about migration but have a slight variation in responses. Americans tend to favor surveillance, legality, and security. Additionally, Americans had a lack of a holistic understanding of migrant motivations. Mexican participants responded to questions with more of an emphasis on empathy and a comprehensive understanding of the push and pull factors that drive migration. Both countries agreed that the United States and Mexico have economic interdependence and agreed that Mexico has a higher reliance on the United States. However, American respondents viewed the reliance between both countries as lower than Mexican respondents. The study concludes that historical, economic, political, and geographic factors have a strong influence on perceptions of migration and these factors vary depending on one's country of origin.

Can the fatality of a terror attack determine the level of public support for violent retaliatory policies? Can this relationship indicate response proportionality? This replication and extension study examines the empirical linkages between exposure to non-fatal and fatal terrorism and support for violent retaliatory policies to determine whether response proportionality can be observed in public support for violent counterterrorism policies. Building upon the original study by Shandler et al. (2021), which employed a series of randomized controlled experiments to 1,848 participants across the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel to examine the political effects of exposure to cyberterrorism on support for retaliation, this study utilizes the data from these controlled experiments and employs a distinct set of statistical analyses to instead investigate response proportionality, exploring the association between terrorism attack fatality and public support for various violent retaliatory policies. Findings indicate that the level of public support for violent retaliatory responses is dependent on attack fatality, confirming the existence of response proportionality in public support for violent counterterrorism policies. This study found little evidence of response proportionality in public support for non-violent counterterrorism responses. Most critically, this study found that regardless of attack fatality, participants disapproved of retaliatory policies that result in adversary civilian harm, indicating that public counterterrorism opinions align with existing state and international norms of proportionality. As the consideration of both public support and proportionality are vital to state counterterrorism operations, this study extends to the realm of foreign policy the existence of a relationship between these two factors. While existing literature suggests public opinion favors disproportional retaliation responses, this study argues proportionality may influence public counterterrorism opinion more than research has previously established.

Analyses of the iconic film ”Mean Girls” have often characterized the dominant clique, The Plastics, as embodying an absolute autocracy, which is a system of government ruled by one person with absolute power. However, I will argue that viewing The Plastics through the lens of oligarchy offers a more nuanced understanding of their political behavior and power dynamics. By applying a political framework to existing psychological and sociological arguments, this study argues that The Plastics operates under an oligarchical regime, where power is concentrated among a select few individuals. To test this theory, I conducted a focus group study with thirteen participants, comprising a mix of graduate and undergraduate students. Results from the focus group revealed that seven out of the thirteen participants agreed that The Plastics can be best characterized as an oligarchical regime. By complementing political theory with psychological and sociological analyses, this paper seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within ”Mean Girls” and their broader implications.

Racial categorization of individuals and White-passing phenotypes have carried complex implications throughout U.S. history, and represent the continuation of the European colonial project and mindset. This study was performed in order to research the cultural experiences of White-passing individuals of color, and how affluence, liminal identity, and language proficiency impact one’s feelings of cultural belonging. Individuals who self-identified as having White-passing appearances, but belonging to distinct non-White cultural groups, were interviewed in order to study their experiences. It was found that affluence and language ability had the most profound impacts on one’s feelings of cultural belonging and connection.

The term "Latinx" has emerged as a gender-neutral alternative to the gendered "Latino/Latina" label, sparking debates within the Latino community. However, the implications of creating a new label extend far beyond the minority group it aims to represent. This study investigates the differing perspectives of individuals within and outside of the Latino community regarding the term and its meaning. It provides additional literature that explores how people's identification with labels affects their support for political candidates and advocacy groups. Specifically, the survey experiment examines how candidates’ use of these labels influences their political support.

This research paper seeks to explore the environmental justice movement in California, through specifically examining the cleanup of EPA Superfund sites. In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency created the Superfund list, consisting of the nation's worst toxic waste sites, which the EPA has committed to clean. This paper qualitatively analyzes the cities/counties near two Superfund sites in California, one that has been permanently cleaned and another that has yet to be cleaned. While many factors may influence the EPA to clean up certain sites over others, this paper focuses on whether race, income/education, representation, and community groups play a role in the permanent cleanup of a site. I initially hypothesized that the site with a higher non-white population and lower educational attainment/income was less likely to receive permanent cleanup. This hypothesis was not supported in my analysis of the two selected sites. I also hypothesized that the site with lower levels of bureaucratic representation would be less likely to experience permanent cleanup, however it seems that distributional equity may have played more of an influential role on the EPA than bureaucratic representation. My results regarding the presence of community organizations were inconclusive, though some groups were found to have had access to the EPA. While examining more sites across the U.S. would further research in this area, this project serves as a basis of understanding toxic waste sites in vulnerable communities and the EPA's role in the environmental justice movement.