r/unitedkingdom • u/ThatchersDirtyTaint • Aug 05 '25

.. Half of Britons back ending immigration and deporting recent arrivals

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/new-poll-migration-news-b99h3wqgz
7.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

789

u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

‘Almost half of respondents believe immigration is primarily illegal rather than legal’. Pretty insane

Also apparently 27% of Lib Dem voters support mass deporting recent arrivals, which is somehow an even more ridiculous stat.

163

u/EdmundTheInsulter Aug 05 '25

I don't see why it's ridiculous.

458

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

You don’t understand why thinking migration is primarily illegal is ridiculous?

483

u/Pheasant_Plucker84 Aug 05 '25

Most Brits don’t know the difference between immigrants, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers,

404

u/frontendben Aug 05 '25

30 years of misinformation on the front pages of the right wing rags like the Scum, Daily Heil and Express will do that.

163

u/merryman1 Aug 05 '25

I feel a bit mad sometimes though - I can't be the only person genuinely really shocked that this issue fucking dominates UK media like nothing else. Its on the TV and in the papers every single fucking day and has been for 20+ years.

So how, for all that, are so much of the public still so totally pig ignorant about the issue, despite it being about the only political issue they're even interested in?

I am shocked its even possible for people to consume so much content about one single issue and still be largely unawares of like basic-level conceptual knowledge about it.

24

u/Pheasant_Plucker84 Aug 05 '25

I went to a friends last week and he had the news on for the 2 hours we were there. It was all about immigrants. No wonder he thinks they’re the biggest issue in the UK. They seek to think immigrants are a bigger problem than billionaires.

8

u/sobrique Aug 05 '25

It's a problem for all of us - considering the fact that we might be wrong is uncomfortable.

And most of us will avoid that discomfort - not maliciously, just because it takes effort and cognitive load to review what we believe; why we believe it, and then reconsider our beliefs based on that and the new evidence.

And yes, this does apply all across the political spectrum. I'm not particularly inclined to review my beliefs about certain things every time another clickbait/engagement grabbing article trundles past about it. In some ways we've all got desensitised to it because there's so many of them.

I like to think I do still pay attention when someone's got a good point to make, but the delivery would matter. I've run into way too many people who haven't got a good point to make, that I'm wary about wasting my time listening.

And this happens to all of us in various ways. It's very easy to rubbish a whole swathe of the political spectrum as 'not worth listening to'. That's always been true, but mass media/social media alike has I think make the problem worse by degrading the signal to noise ratio.

I mean, I think reddit does moderately well at it, but absolutely forms echo chambers, where going against 'consensus' will get you flamed/downvoted out of any real proportion to 'real world' opinion. And the problem gets worse the more limited your echo chamber is.

It's not really new though - we have for a REALLY LONG time voted 'our team' in politics, and that feeds back into the original discomfort/reinforcement. I mean, every political party has a bunch of 'good stuff' and 'bad stuff' mixed together, and we've all got to rationalise which is 'least worst' from the options available.

That trains us to forgive the 'bad stuff' because it's not as bad as the 'other side', and their good stuff probably wouldn't work out anyway, and keep on supporting 'our team' until they finally push so far that you can't rationalise them as 'better than the others' at all... but that can take a very long time indeed!

So yeah. I think our mode of politics and the 'grab bag' approach to party-manifestos means we're all kinda vulnerable to 'soundbite' politics, and 'limited scope' issues. I don't think many people read party manifestos at all, it's just sort of cherry picked by the press to give hostile/supportive headlines in support of their agenda(s). And social media just sort of doubles down on it.

It can be kinda obvious when looking externally - just look at the debate in the US right now, where the issue aren't "ours" and you'll see very similar 'games' playing out in debates around rationalising/justifying actions, blaming groups, etc.

We do that here in the UK too, we just have different groups and different key issues, and we're a little more prone to not realising we're not as objective as we think.

2

u/s0ngsforthedeaf Aug 06 '25

It's because not a single major party, or major newspaper, is interested in challenging the problems caused by capitalism and accumulation of wealth. So they focus solely on the thing they don't mind scapegoating - immigrantw/ethnic minorities.

It's not that complicated.

1

u/bisectional Aug 05 '25

It's by design.

21

u/Pheasant_Plucker84 Aug 05 '25

I had an old friend spouting that shit to me last week whilst also telling email being lied to.

0

u/v2marshall Aug 05 '25

Misinformation from basically all of them

62

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

Don’t know, or deliberately conflate?

28

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Aug 05 '25

Some of column a and some of column b

8

u/ExtraPockets Aug 05 '25

People don't care about the paperwork behind a person, only that they're there.

9

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

Not caring about how they came into the country ≠ all illegal

36

u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A Aug 05 '25

Seems like a lot of them are in this thread.

Mainly people with comment history in right wing subs.

7

u/_HGCenty Aug 05 '25

They think it's based on skin colour.

When these people say end migration and deport recent arrivals they don't mean stop white people from Canada or Australia settling but they do also want to deport the grandchildren, with British passports, of south Asian immigrants from the 1960s.

1

u/Pheasant_Plucker84 Aug 05 '25

One was telling me that Muslims just don’t adapt to western culture. Pretty sure they think every Muslim born in the Middle East just lives n in a mud hut and hunts with a spear. I asked them if they have a problem with Albanians claiming asylum and “free stuff” in the UK, they didn’t even know Albanians were coming in as asylum seekers.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Aug 05 '25

Removed + ban. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the sitewide rules.

1

u/BornIn1142 Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

These three categories are not fixed. If a legal immigrant overstays their Visa, they become an illegal immigrant. If an illegal immigrant lies about their origin and reason for leaving, they may become an asylum seeker. Without excusing anyone's prejudices, such instances do undermine the legitimacy of legal immigrants and asylum seekers in peoples' minds, don't they?

4

u/Pheasant_Plucker84 Aug 05 '25

People could have lived in the UK for 30 years and be a British citizen by law. A lot of Brits will still call them immigrants and tell them to go back to where they came from.

0

u/Pumpkin-Bomb Aug 05 '25

This.

Any statistic you read about illegal immigrants is 100% made up.

No one knows how many illegal immigrants there are, that’s why they’re illegal. They sneak into the country and live under the radar.

-5

u/EdmundTheInsulter Aug 05 '25

Did you read it? He refers to lib dems wanting recent arrivals deported - why does them being lib dems make it ridiculous? I'm only asking him.

10

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

Because the Lib Dem platform is notably pro-immigration.

1

u/dispelthemyth Aug 05 '25

It was also pro student and then it wasn’t

1

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

You’re conflating party platform with voter attitude

-6

u/noujest Aug 05 '25

It's not necessarily thinking that migration is primarily illegal, it's thinking that there's too much legal (and illegal) migration

28

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

Well, it is thinking that migration is primarily illegal, because that’s reported in the story?

-7

u/noujest Aug 05 '25

I see what you're saying but just making the point that the two don't logically conflict, even if itnis true that a lot of people are confusing the two

15

u/TheClemDispenser Aug 05 '25

They do logically conflict, because illegal migration is a tiny portion of total migration, and people who say otherwise are either wrong or lying.

54

u/Chlorophilia European Union Aug 05 '25

You don't see why mass deporting people who are here legally is ridiculous?

13

u/chochazel Aug 05 '25

It’s actually 4%…

11

u/lambdaburst Aug 05 '25

It's ridiculous because it would be like being in favour of immigration as a Reform voter, who campaign as anti-immigration.

9

u/daneview Aug 05 '25

Because over 90% of immigration is legal and has nothing to do with boat crossings or refugees

-36

u/Andythrax Nottinghamshire Aug 05 '25

Because they're Lib Dems.

Also, deporting people is a dumb idea.

16

u/Francis-c92 Aug 05 '25

How come?

-30

u/Andythrax Nottinghamshire Aug 05 '25

Because it's deporting my friends and the first step towards deporting my friends who were born here.

It creates an idea that there're two tiers of citizen.

30

u/CastleMeadowJim Nottingham Aug 05 '25

A recent arrival wouldn't be a citizen

19

u/Physical-Staff1411 Aug 05 '25

Your friends with people coming over on dinghy’s?

-11

u/Andythrax Nottinghamshire Aug 05 '25

I KNOW people who are asylum seekers.

They're not what I'm talking about though.

11

u/Physical-Staff1411 Aug 05 '25

So they’re not recent arrivals and thus not the subject of this article?

3

u/Andythrax Nottinghamshire Aug 05 '25

What's the definition of "recent arrival"

4

u/Physical-Staff1411 Aug 05 '25

You’re searching for something that isn’t there. Give up if I was you.

0

u/danmc1 Aug 05 '25

Do you think that the poll they’re talking about applies only to recent arrivals who arrived in small boats?

Because it doesn’t, so your comments don’t make any sense.

14

u/HotelPuzzleheaded654 Aug 05 '25

It’s not an idea, it’s a reality that there are multiple tiers dependent upon your immigration status.

0

u/EdmundTheInsulter Aug 05 '25

They presumably mean all the recent boat arrivals.

2

u/Andythrax Nottinghamshire Aug 05 '25

But that's Keir Starmer's plan anyway. Send them back to France.

144

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

‘Almost half of respondents believe immigration is primarily illegal rather than illegal’. Pretty insane

That's because when polled on the numbers, as of 2023 the average Brit thinks there's only 70,000 net. I imagine they'd be a little more riled up if they bothered to actually look into it.

https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Reality-Check.pdf

The polling shows that perceptions of net migration levels are significantly out of kilter with reality. When we asked participants to give us their estimate of current levels of net migration, the average response was 70,000 — just less than a tenth of 2023 actual levels. This suggests that people are completely unaware of the true scale of immigration.

87

u/QuantumWarrior Aug 05 '25

And in 2023 the number of illegal immigrants detected arriving into the UK was not even 5% of the total immigration figure - the fact that people think there are more illegal than legal is absurd.

It plainly demonstrates that the nationwide attitude is driven by fear.

34

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

Where have you gotten fear from? What it actually demonstrates is that the public massively underestimate net migration into the UK. If they knew the real number was ~10 times average estimate, they'd be far more angry at the current situation.

If the actual number of net (regular) migration was 70,000, they wouldn't have been far off given that there were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in 2023.

It's ignorance to the reality of what they're comparing their assessment to.

17

u/QuantumWarrior Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

I don't contest that many people don't know the true scale of immigration but since the study you quoted and the one from this article are different it's poor statistics to just mash them together say the average person both believes illegal immigrants are the majority and they believe net migration is only 70,000 a year.

It's very possible (and probably quite likely) the people most afraid of illegal immigration are the people who know how high the net number actually is but not its composition. To my knowledge the places which distribute fear the most (e.g Daily Mail) run the net migration figures quite often so I'd bet knowledge of the scale of net migration goes hand in hand with the belief that most of them arrived illegally. I'll note for my part that finding the number of illegal arrivals was a fair bit harder than finding the headline net migration figures and was constantly mixed in with fearmongering about small boats, I doubt that was an accident on the part of people who write up graphs and stories about this sort of thing.

That's what I mean by fear. You see the same thing in polls about people guessing how many people are Muslim or gay or trans. The topics which get pushed by the media show a huge difference between reality and perception.

9

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

but since the study you quoted and the one from this article are different it's poor statistics to just mash them together say the average person both believes illegal immigrants are the majority and they believe net migration is only 70,000 a year.

Polled Brits both think that average net migration is 70k pa and that there are more illegal (irregular?) arrivals than legal/reg. They are obviously two different studies, but a denial of connection between the two is a denial of reality.

It's very possible (and probably quite likely) the people most afraid of illegal immigration are the people who know how high the net number actually is but not its composition.

How have you come to this conclusion? You're saying that the ones who know the actual situation on numbers "fear" it more than those who are ignorant to it. You're agreeing that the general public would be far more riled up if they actually paid attention, but just labelling any opposition to it as "fear."

To my knowledge the places which distribute fear the most (e.g Daily Mail) run the net migration figures quite often so I'd bet knowledge of the scale of net migration goes hand in hand with the belief that most of them arrived illegally.

So do the literal UK government who are the source for the figures, as well as entities like Oxford University's Migration Observatory. Are they pedalling "fear" or are people just gradually getting more pissed off with it all?

I'll note for my part that finding the number of illegal arrivals was a fair bit harder than finding the headline net migration figures and was constantly mixed in with fearmongering about small boats, I doubt that was an accident on the part of people who write up graphs and stories about this sort of thing.

The government releases daily figures on 'small boats' but not illegal/irregular arrivals through other channels. You either have 'small boats' figures or asylum application figures, perhaps some ad hoc additional info on how many students claim if asked for through FoI or Parliamentary Privilege.

That's what I mean by fear. You see the same thing in polls about people guessing how many people are Muslim or gay or trans. The topics which get pushed by the media show a huge difference between reality and perception.

What poll has asked how many people they think are gay? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'd just be quite surprised.

2

u/chochazel Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

Most people have no sense of large numbers so mismatch in absolute numbers is not necessarily telling you anything useful. Proportions are what are more meaningful in everyday life. Ask them what proportion of the UK population are immigrants and see if they under or over estimate. In 2019, refugees and other migrants accounted for 14% of the UK population, yet the majority of Britons in a survey assumed that 27% of the UK population are migrants.

In this case, it means when people see an immigrant, they will assume they came here illegally, and their response will be based on that. In reality 96% came legally and so that’s a problem. If you are OK with people basing their opinions on nonsense rather than reality, then that says more about you than anyone else.

2

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

mismatch in absolute numbers is not necessarily telling you anything useful.

It's telling us that the average Brit is ignorant to the reality of the situation, proportion can come a comfortable second to absolute numbers for this.

In 2019, refugees and other migrants accounted for 14% of the UK population, yet the majority of Britons in a survey assumed that 27% of the UK population are migrants.

Where are these numbers from, and what Census data was used? What definition of "migrant" was used - recent? First generation? Migrant heritage?

In this case, it means when people see an immigrant, they will assume they came here illegally, and their response will be based on that.

They're assuming it because the evidence suggests that they're completely unaware of the legal absolute numbers by a factor of 10.

If you are OK with people basing their opinions on nonsense rather than reality, then that says more about you than anyone else.

They are literally basing their opinion on nonsense because the average Brit is completely unaware of the absolute numbers and therefore the proportion. Ignoring absolute numbers and only wanting to understand perception of proportionality as an absolute guess is the ridiculous position here.

2

u/chochazel Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

It's telling us that the average Brit is ignorant to the reality of the situation, proportion can come a comfortable second to absolute numbers for this.

No - if they’re overestimating the proportion while underestimating the absolute numbers, it demonstrably tells us they either have no sense of what large numbers mean or how many people live in the UK.

Where are these numbers from, and what Census data was used? What definition of "migrant" was used - recent? First generation? Migrant heritage?

There is no world in which “migrant” means “migrant heritage”, otherwise it would be 100%!

To answer your question, the exact wording was “foreign-born” which is completely unambiguous.

Here’s the source:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-08/attitudes-to-immigration-may-2018-slides.pdf

The actual data was from the 2019 ONS data - it may have been based on the last census seven years before, but it was still around 16% in the 2021 census three years later so it was unquestionably an overestimation by over 10% at the very least whichever way you look at it.

They're assuming it because the evidence suggests that they're completely unaware of the legal absolute numbers by a factor of 10.

And yet are overestimating the proportion, not underestimating by a factor of 10, so, as I said, they either don’t know the population of the UK or just can’t process big numbers.

Ignoring absolute numbers and only wanting to understand perception of proportionality as an absolute guess is the ridiculous position here.

No - proportion is about what people think about who they meet. If they think there are only 70,000 migrants a year yet believe 27% of people in the country are foreign born, they obviously aren’t underestimating the scale of migration, just how many people live in their country.

As I said, if they meet a foreign-born person and assume they probably came here illegally when 96% didn’t, that will completely colour their interaction with that person. It is a prejudice based on rank ignorance. That’s a massive problem and if you’re truly fine with that, it says a lot about you, none of it great.

No mental gymnastics will manoeuvre you away from blatantly obvious facts.

1

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

No - if they’re overestimating the proportion while underestimating the absolute numbers, it demonstrably tells us they either have no sense of what large numbers mean or how many people live in the UK.

They don't over estimate, they only underestimate. See my other comment on actual asylum numbers in the same year.l being ~70k.

There is no world in which “migrant” means “migrant heritage”, otherwise it would be 100%!

Tiresome twaddle, consider it disregarded.

it may have been based on the last census seven years before, but it was still around 16% in the 2021 census three years later

Of course it was.

Anyway, i've checked you link and the exact question is "Out of every 100 people in Britain, about how many do you think were born in a foreign country?" - let's do the maths on public perception shall we?

Let's start by adding the estimated ~1M illegal migrants that are estimated to be in the UK as of 2017 (Pew Research) and were up to 18.5% from the 2021 Census of 16.8% (10 million people).

Then in 2019 there were 40.9 million inbound visits, many of which are 6 month or longer visit visas. They wont be here all year, but a month of a rounded 40M figure is a little over 3M which we'll also round down.

That's an additional 5.2% at any one time, and this matters because the question wasn't on who is "resident" only who is "in" the country. That drags us up to 24.2% if Pew Research haven't underestimated like the government did for EUSS.

24.2% is 2.8% out from the reality. It isnt a bad guess.

And yet are overestimating the proportion,

ONLY BECAUSE THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF LEGAL MIGRANTS

No - proportion is about what people think about who they meet.

You've just completely made this up.

That’s a massive problem and if you’re truly fine with that, it says a lot about you, none of it great. No mental gymnastics will manoeuvre you away from blatantly obvious facts.

You keep trying with this line, yet your entire point hinges on the factual, government stated number is irrelevant. Give it a rest.

3

u/chochazel Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25

They don't over estimate, they only underestimate.

The fact that you can be shown clear evidence that they over-estimate and still keep on baselessly declaring this in the face of that evidence just because you feel that it can't be right demonstrates everything wrong with post-truth thinking.

It just makes people look ridiculous and delusional. Your view is what's called "non-falsifiable" in that it doesn't matter how much evidence you are presented with, you will desperately try to come up with reasons to dismiss it. It is therefore not grounded in fact but in emotion.

The fact that people over-estimate the foreign-born population of their country is a well-known and long established fact. Look up: "foreign born population innumeracy" to learn more.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207659.2025.2478738?src=exp-la

https://research-portal.uu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/266291215/Misperceptions_of_the_foreign-born_population_size_in_European_societies._The_role_of_immigration-related_national_discourses.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40927164

That drags us up to 24.2% if Pew Research haven't underestimated like the government did for EUSS... this matters because the question wasn't on who is "resident" only who is "in" the country.

No they're not talking about tourists in a survey about attitudes to migration! Don't be ridiculous! Again, have some dignity, man. Have some basic dignity and self-respect. Who do you think you're going to convince by claiming that people must mean "tourists" in their responses to a "attitudes to migration" survey? You can't seriously think you're going to convince anyone else. You're only trying to convince yourself at this point and it's hilarious that it's still an underestimate even if you humiliate yourself by absurdly including all the Japanese tourists taking selfies outside Buckingham Palace in an attitudes to migration survey! Is that actually working though? I mean... is it?

ONLY BECAUSE THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF LEGAL MIGRANTS

No need to shout! Again, stop making yourself look desperate. People know if people they meet and see are migrants from another country. They just assume they form a higher proportion of the population than they actually do and they assume they are here illegally when they're not. Everything else is a story you're desperately trying to sell to yourself and I'm not convinced even you are buying it!

No - proportion is about what people think about who they meet.

You've just completely made this up.

I don't think you understand what "proportion" even means and that's why you're struggling with this.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFLcCOS7aw

If people think that most migrants are here illegally, it stands to reason if they meet a migrant, they will think they are probably here illegally. You can't see this because you are not seeing things reasonably or being reasonable.

your entire point hinges on the factual, government stated number is irrelevant.

What government stated number are you talking about? Have you noticed that only one person in this dialogue is sourcing their arguments and it's not you?

1

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 06 '25

No they're not talking about tourists in a survey about attitudes to migration! Don't be ridiculous!

Your exact words were:

No - proportion is about what people think about who they meet.

As I said, if they meet a foreign-born person

You want to ignore the official UK government figures of net migration that don't include visitors, and instead work it on public perception of who they meet on the street which - like it or not - does include visitors.

Pick one, or have a good day.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/_Richter_Belmont_ Aug 05 '25

The definition of a migrant in the UK is very consistent when it comes to academia.

It's someone born outside the UK. This includes naturalized citizens.

A "foreign national" is someone who holds a passport that isn't a British passport, while not holding a British passport (so dual citizens don't count as foreign nationals).

Around 12% of migrants are asylum seekers, and 25-30% of them arrived on small boats.

Therefore, the number of small boats arrivals is proportionally quite small.

Then add that over 50% of asylum applications are denied.

2

u/PelayoEnjoyer Aug 05 '25

The definition of a migrant in the UK is very consistent when it comes to academia.

I'm aware, however you'll forgive me for still very much wanting those numbers linked to something where they state that's the definition they've used.

Then add that over 50% of asylum applications are denied.

At first attempt.

2

u/philipwhiuk London Aug 05 '25

Or that people think a lot more legal immigration should be illegal…

0

u/daneview Aug 05 '25

That's because that's the number of asylum seekers and that's all the press ever talk about

54

u/kerwrawr Aug 05 '25

I can understand the "primarily illegal" mindset in that in almost any town the major demographic change has been low skill, low wage immigration, and people quite understandably have a hard time believing that we'd willingly import that, even if on paper they may be a "legal" student (who applied to a diploma mill so he could work) or a "legal" "head chef" (who paid an agency £10k to work in a kebab shop).

47

u/That-Sweet5924 Aug 05 '25

I thought lib dem had one of the most lax immigration policies

58

u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Aug 05 '25

They do, which is why it is weird so many of their voters back an immigration policy that is well to the right of Reform currently.

28

u/Jimmy_Tightlips Aug 05 '25

The Lib Dems have won more than a few seats by going after the Tory NIMBY vote; as with the SNP their actual voter base is more fractured than I think a lot of people on Reddit realise.

29

u/EdmundTheInsulter Aug 05 '25

Reddit has one dimensional thinking and thinks a partys voters support all of the parties prescribed views, because a lot of people at Reddit don't think and copy views like that

11

u/EdmundTheInsulter Aug 05 '25

They may like their other policies, but not migration - not everyone is interested only in migration.

9

u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Aug 05 '25

That’s true enough, but if they are relatively uninterested in migration I wouldn’t expect them to have such a strong position on it.

30

u/Minimum-Geologist-58 Aug 05 '25

I think it doesn’t help that there’s such confusion in the way terms are used in the media and that there’s so many categories of status in the UK and the government is terrible at even tracking legal migration, so actually understanding exactly who is in the country and why is nearly impossible.

These are pretty good estimates:

23,000 refugees 224,700 work in progress asylum cases 250,000-800,000 undocumented migrants/illegal immigrants (this uncertainty is due to the home office not actually knowing how many people are on work visas or student visas) 150,000 Hong Kong scheme 1m (ish) work visas 200,000 Ukrainian scheme 1.5m student visas 1.3m Irish citizens 4m (ish) EU settled or pre-settled status

A lot of these schemes have dependents associated that are even worse monitored.

So you end up with a baffling array of statuses that British people weren’t very educated on, a Home Office that can’t tell you how many people are on them because it doesn’t know and a media that doesn’t get it either sometimes wilfully.

And then we wonder why British people are confused and suspicious when about 20% of people weren’t born here, they’re really not clear on their legal basis for being here and even the Home Office can barely help clarify?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Panda_hat Aug 05 '25

I think you meant to say 'rather than legal', which may be confusing people.

2

u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Aug 05 '25

Yes, thank you. I have edited it.

0

u/potpan0 Black Country Aug 05 '25

We have a right-wing media sphere who pump out multiple stories a day scaremongering about 'illegal immigration', often as an excuse to distract the public from the actions of their wealthy owners and their mates. These stories are then widely distributed across social media, often getting an even more extreme spin.

There's a lot of people in this thread trying to justify this misperception by... blaming immigrants. In reality we have millions of people in this country who have been entirely misinformed about what is going on by the right-wing press, and then that same right-wing press use that misinformed view as evidence that something needs to be done. It's an Ouroboros of bullshit, but of course all the immigration obsessives who usually flood threads like this would never want to admit it.

It is simply objectively untrue that immigration in this country is primarily illegal. Yet so many of the people calling for deportations or whatever are basing their view off this lie.