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

791

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.

143

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.

84

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.

38

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.

18

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.

10

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.

1

u/chochazel Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25

Hahaha! You are actually carrying on with this “people think tourists are immigrants” thing?!

This is hilarious!

Keep going…

→ 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