This qualitative analysis explores the research gap of understanding state response toward a refugee group, with a focus on transit states. The research question guiding the study is: “How does the level of democracy affect a state's response towards a refugee group?”. Drawing from contemporary discourses of democratic countries linking high levels of democracy to a liberal response, and incorporating alternative theories such as the liberal paradox and strategic humanitarianism, the analysis consisted of two case studies. The first case-comparison, between Tunisia and Egypt, aimed to test the hypothesis;  “A more democratic state will have a more liberal state response to refugees than a less democratic one” was partially supported due to mechanisms of democratic mobilization facilitating de facto integration of refugees. The second comparison, between Panama and Costa Rica, further emphasizes the role of domestic mobilization and adherence to international law in shaping state response. Contribution of this study argues for policy recommendation of filling the information gap of refugee hosting.