The British Public's Attitude Towards Immigration Levels and Prospective Changes

How the public’s perspectives on immigration and levels of immigration have shifted?

We asked questions on immigration routes and reasons to help understand the nuance behind the headline figures for public perceptions of immigration in this research.

Whist our research shows a continued preference among the British public for an overall reduction in the numbers of immigrants coming to Britain, when asked more in-depth questions regarding the specifics of different migration routes, irregular and regulation migration, as well as immigrants’ occupations, differing patterns and preferences emerged.

What types of immigration should be limited or favoured?

When asked what group of migrants should be given preference to come to Britain, a plurality of respondents (28%) chose ‘people who stay in Britain permanently’. This was a sharp contrast with those prioritising those who come to the country for ‘less than a year’ or ‘between one and five years’ (12% each).

In terms of preferences for length of residence, it appeared that those who said they had voted for Labour, or the Conservatives, held similar views (figure 2.1.1). Voters for both major parties shared a preference for permanent migrants (29% of those who said they voted Labour in 2019 and 25% of those who said they voted Conservative). However, one in five (20%) of declared Conservative voters did say ‘none of these’ when asked about which group of migrants should be given preference by length of duration, compared to less than one in ten (9%) of declared Labour voters. When it comes to age, younger members of the public indicated a greater preference for short-term or medium-term migration, whereas older respondents are more likely to favour permanent immigration.

Whether or not respondents wanted to see immigration reduced, remain the same, or increased, we asked which groups of immigrants they would be in favour of seeing reduced immigration (figure 2.1.2). All respondent cohorts, perhaps unsurprisingly, preferred to see reductions in irregular immigration (i.e. without a visa) rather than regular (i.e. with a visa). Even among respondents who did not favour an overall reduction in immigration, two in five (41%) wanted to reduce ‘people coming to work without a visa’ and just over a quarter (28%) wanted to see a reduction in ‘people coming to apply for refugee status (asylum) without a visa’.

However, respondents who supported reduced immigration overall were markedly more averse to irregular immigration. Demand for reducing ‘people coming to work without a visa’ was 21 points higher at 62%, and 42 points higher at 70% for ‘people coming to apply for refugee status (asylum) without a visa’. Among these respondents, this is reflective of a general opposition to the immigration of asylum seekers, as the majority of asylum seekers come to the UK irregularly (without a visa) because a person must first be in the UK to be able to claim asylum.

It is worth noting that irregular family migration (to join a spouse or partner) appears to be viewed more favourably by the public than both irregular economic migration and seeking asylum without a visa.

For whom should immigration be made easier or more difficult?

Respondents were also presented with different groups of immigrants and asked to state whether immigration to Britain should be made easier or more difficult for each group. For some groups, such as people from Afghanistan, Hong Kong and EU nationals, there was no definitive support for or against. However, respondents did express more definitive views in relation to other groups of immigrants (figure 2.2.1). Nearly three times more respondents supported making immigration easier for people from Ukraine compared with making it tougher (41% vs. 14%). Clear support was also expressed for enabling immigration of students, ‘high-skilled workers’ and ‘workers in jobs where there are shortages’. In contrast, members of the public said that immigration to Britain should be made more difficult for ‘low-skilled workers’ and ‘people applying for refugee status (asylum)’.

Whilst immigration of ‘low-skilled’ workers was viewed less favourably by the public, it is discernibly more palatable now in 2023 than in 2011, which could reflect a rise in support for workers coming to the UK in general. In 2011, just 7% of respondents wanted immigration of ‘most low-skilled workers’ to be increased. In 2023 this view appears to have shifted, with one in five (20%) of respondents now feeling that immigration for low-skilled workers should be made ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ easier. Note that question wording was slightly amended for 2023.

When it comes to people applying for refugee status, respondents who said they had voted Conservative in 2019 expressed strong opposition to facilitating their immigration to Britain, whilst those who said they had voted for Labour or the Liberal Democrats expressed support (figure 2.2.2). In fact, the latter group of respondents expressed similar levels of support for people from Ukraine as they had for people applying for refugee status, and slightly lower levels of support for people from Afghanistan and Hong Kong.

Occupation breakdown

Data from our research is consistent with other studies which also show that people’s attitudes towards immigrants are linked to an immigrants’ skill profile. As mentioned above, a sizeable proportion of respondents thought that ‘low-skilled’ migration should be made more difficult (36%), whilst ‘high-skilled’ and shortage-occupation migration should be facilitated. More than half (55%) of respondents said it should be easier for ‘workers in jobs where there are shortages’ to come to Britain, as did 60% for ‘high-skilled’ workers. However, when prompted to answer the same question about selected specific occupations, a different trend emerged (figure 2.3.1), which suggests that the public may have different perceptions of the typical ‘low-skilled’ and ‘high-skilled’ migrant.

For example, care workers and agricultural workers tend to be classified as ‘low-skilled’ in occupational statistics. However, a higher share of respondents wanted immigration to be made simpler for both these specific groups of workers (55% and 45%, respectively) than for ‘high-skilled’ IT or financial sector workers for example (39% and 27%, respectively).

This could be explained by perceptions that there is a shortage of agricultural and care workers, despite both professions not being classified as ‘skilled’. This perception is highlighted by the overall desire among respondents for ‘workers in jobs where there are shortages’, where 55% of respondents who stated a preference to make immigration easier for these immigrants, compared with just 12% to make it more difficult. However, it could also be related to a perception that these particular workers make a significant contribution to the UK economy and society.

It is worth noting that for most professions listed there were few differences in views between individuals of different ages and political affiliations.

The general desire among respondents make migration of ‘high-skilled’ workers easier appears to be at odds with the same general desire to reduce or keep the same the overall number of immigrants coming to Britain. Even respondents who favoured a reduction in overall immigration at the same time favoured many of the largest groups that make up total immigration (figure 2.3.2). While ‘NHS staff’ and ‘care workers for older people’ are highly favoured by this group with only 11% of respondents wanting to make their immigration more difficult, health and care skilled workers also make up a sizeable proportion (13%) of all entry clearance visas (excluding visitors) issued by the Home Office in the year ending March 2023^[vi]. A similar mismatch applies to the other large groups of entry clearance visas issues for people coming from Ukraine, and students.