Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK

Funded by the European Union under Grant Number 101094373. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency or UK Research and Innovation. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK Country report ________ Laurence Lessard-Phillips and Nando Sigona November 2025 Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 2. About the Survey ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.1. Development and methodology .......................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Target population, sample and fieldwork ........................................................................................... 5 2.3. Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Survey respondents’ main characteristics ........................................................................................... 6 2.4.1. Views toward immigration ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Main Results .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Knowledge of irregular migration and irregular migrants ................................................................ 9 3.1.1. Scale and level of concern ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2. Becoming ‘irregular’: testing scenarios ................................................................................................... 11 3.2. Irregular migrant and work: sectors & overall feelings .................................................................... 15 3.3. Attitudes ............................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1. Hiring choice ............................................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.2. Perceptions of integration and settlement ............................................................................................ 22 4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 27 5. References ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 3 Executive Summary This report presents findings from the I-CLAIM public perceptions survey on irregular migration, conducted in the United Kingdom in February 2025 with a nationally representative sample of 1,147 adults. The survey provides new evidence on what the UK public knows about irregular migration, how they define it, and their attitudes toward irregular migrants, particularly in the context of work. The results reveal major gaps in knowledge. Most respondents significantly overestimated the number of irregular migrants within the UK’s foreign-born population. While estimates suggest that irregular migrants account for around 10–13% of the foreign-born, over half of respondents placed the figure far higher. This pattern was particularly strong among older and right-leaning respondents, while younger adults and Labour or Liberal Democrats voters were more likely to underestimate the share. When asked how irregular status arises, respondents strongly associated irregularity with unauthorised border crossings and pending asylum claims, reflecting dominant political and media narratives. Fewer recognised routine or administrative pathways to irregularity, such as overstaying a visa or losing lawful residence after changes in employment—processes that research shows are central to the production of irregular status in the UK. Attitudes toward irregular migrants as workers were mixed. Respondents identified food delivery, construction, hospitality, cleaning, and care as the main sectors of irregular employment. In hiring experiments, they expressed pragmatic preferences: favouring candidates with longer UK residence, good recommendations, and family ties in the country, even if irregular. However, preferences were shaped by racialised hierarchies, with candidates from Nigeria and Bangladesh less favoured than those from Moldova. Perceptions of integration hinged on English fluency and having family and friends in the UK. Social distance was lowest in public or commercial encounters and highest in private spaces such as the home. Overall, the survey shows that UK perceptions of irregular migration are partial, uneven, and often distorted. Attitudes combine suspicion with pragmatism and show openness to social markers of belonging. These findings highlight the importance of addressing both misperceptions and the wider narrative environment that shapes public debates on irregularity. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 4 1. Introduction Information about public knowledge and attitudes toward irregular migration and irregular migrants, a situation where foreign nationals residing in a given country do not hold legal residence due to different circumstances, is limited. In order to improve our understanding of this issue, this report summarises the main findings from an online survey on public perceptions of irregular migration conducted among the public of the United Kingdom in February 2025. The survey is part of the programme of work of the Horizon Europe-funded project “Improving the living and labour conditions of irregularised migrant households in Europe” (I-CLAIM) project. The survey aims to explore public perceptions on the topic, especially given the lack of evidence on views toward irregular migration – and irregular migrants – in general, but especially within the context of work. This report complements earlier work (Piemontese 2025) we carried out investigating the narrative construction of migrant irregularity in the United Kingdom across three primary domains: media, politics, and civil society in which we examined how different stakeholders frame and influence public discourse on irregular migration, with particular attention to the intersection of employment, gender, race, and familyrelated representations. Overall, the study of public narratives showed how they are constructed and contested across media, politics, and civil society. It also pointed to the fundamental disjuncture between public narratives which singlemindedly focused on irregular crossings and borders and the reality of a phenomenon which has multiple footings and drivers and is shaped by the UK’s immigration policy and governance, what we have termed the legal and policy infrastructures of irregularity (Piemontese and Sigona 2024). Informed by these research findings and the concept of ‘irregularity assemblage’ (Sigona and van Liempt 2025; Gonzales et al., 2019) which emphasises how irregularity is not a fixed status but rather a dynamic position vis-à-vis the state co-constructed at the intersection of different regulatory frameworks that encompasses not only migrants without a residence permit, but migrants increasingly at risk of irregularisation due to structural features of the immigration system, the I-CLAIM survey has investigated who counts for the UK public as an irregular migrant, what value they attach to this label and what are the consequences on how they respond to them. The I-CLAIM survey aimed to contribute to the developing evidence based on irregular migration and irregular migrants through ‘traditional’ questions as well as survey experiments, an increasingly popular tool to gauge public attitudes (Sobolewska & Lessard-Phillips 2024). In this report, we use the findings from the survey to explore two main questions: 1) What does the public know about irregular migration and irregular migrants? 2) What are public attitudes toward irregular migration and irregular migrants within the context of work? Before we present this, however, we provide background information about the survey and sample. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 5 2. About the Survey 2.1. Development and methodology The aim of the I-CLAIM survey was to gauge perceptions of, and attitudes toward, irregularity among the general UK public. This was done through an online survey, administered by YouGov, where more ‘traditional’ survey questions, as well as survey experiments,1 were asked to UK respondents to fulfil the aim of grasping public opinion toward irregular migration and irregular migrants, but also gauge views toward immigration and collect relevant socio-demographic information. The content of the survey was developed in collaboration with the I-CLAIM consortium through survey development workshops and discussions. It included 6 main sections and 25 questions (see Appendix for a summary table of the questions included in the survey). The survey was tested and piloted with a number of respondents prior to the fieldwork stage. The final dataset also included demographic information previously collected by YouGov as part of their panels2. 2.2. Target population, sample and fieldwork The target population for the survey was the UK adult population, with the aim to collect responses from at least 1,000 respondents (the sample). Participants in the survey were randomly drawn from YouGov’s panel of registered users, using “targeted quota sampling”. The sample aimed to reflect the makeup of the UK population and YouGov considered the following criteria when constructing the sample and producing sampling weights to ensure representativeness of the general population: age; gender and education level; vote at the 2024 General Election and region; social grade; EU Referendum vote; and level of political interest. Responses from selected respondents were collected during the fieldwork stage, which occurred between 3rd and 14th February 2025. Responses were collected from a total of 1,147 respondents. 2.3. Data Analysis The statistical software Stata was used for all analyses. The data was analysed through various means, using the most relevant types of analysis for the questions under investigation, using the provided sampling weights. In the case of categorical variables, percentage frequency distributions were used for univariate and bivariate statistics, and chi-squared tests helped determine the possible presence of a relationship in bivariate relationships. None of the percentages presented are based on fewer than 5 respondents. For continuous variables, means and standard deviations were derived, using t-tests and ANOVA (when relevant) to examine mean differences across groups. Data from the experiments used Average Marginal Components Effect (AMCE) (Hainmueller et al., 2014) to look at probability of selection across attribute categories and Marginal Means (MMs) (Leeper et al., 2020) to look at group-based preferences and 1 Survey experiments are a way to gauge public opinion by experimentally changing question conditions/characteristics in order to look at effects of specific aspects (such as wording, characteristics, etc.) on responses. It has been increasingly used in migration studies (Sobolewska and Lessard-Phillips, 2024). 2 See Abraham (2025) for a description of YouGov’s methodology. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 6 likelihood of selection. Unless directly relevant, any respondent with missing information was not included in the provided statistics, leading to a variable sample size across the questions examined. 2.4. Survey respondents’ main characteristics Here we give a brief overview of the main characteristics of the I-CLAIM survey respondents for the United Kingdom; all related supporting tables can be found in the appendix (Tables A.2-A.3). The main respondent demographics (Table A.2) were as follows. The mean age of the sample was 48.6 years, with 48.2% of respondents aged 50 and over. There were 51.5% female respondents and 48.5% male respondents. Just over 14% of respondents reported as being a member of a minority ethnic group. The majority of respondents were either married or partnered, and mostly lived in urban areas. The geographical distribution of respondents was spread across the UK, with more respondents residing in the South East, London, the North West, and the East of England. Moving onto more socio-demographic characteristics (Table A.3), 27.2% of the British respondents reported having low levels of education (up to GCSE or equivalent), 37.6% having medium levels of education (A-level or equivalent, up to university diploma), and 35.2% having high levels of education (first degree or higher). Just over 57% of respondents were in work (either full-time or part-time), and 40.8% reported a low household income (up to £29,999 per year), 22% a medium household income (£30,000-£44,999), and 37.2% a high level of household income (£45,000 and above). The majority of respondents (57%) reported a high social grade (middle class). Among those who voted, most respondents reported having voted for Labour (33.8%), followed by the Conservative Party (23.7%), Reform (14.3%), Liberal Democrats (12.3 %), and Greens (7.6%). The reporting of the Brexit vote was spread across Remain and Leave, for those who had partaken in the referendum. Given the survey’s topic matter, we also explore the respondents’ own links to, and experiences with, migration (Table A.4). Within the survey, this has been measured as being born outside of the UK (9.6% of respondents); having at least one parent born outside of the UK (23.8% of respondents), having some experience of living abroad (19% of respondents), and having immigrant friends (41.3% of respondents). The characteristics shown above are useful for two reasons: they help us gauge the makeup of the survey respondents, and also provide us with main groups whose views we want to compare when it comes to knowledge and attitudes toward irregular migration and irregular migrants. For the purpose of this report, we will focus on differences across gender (male/female), age groups (18-39; 40-64; 65+), and political views through the party voted for at the last General Election (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, Other parties, No vote). 2.4.1. Views toward immigration Other respondents’ characteristics that we incorporate here include overall views toward immigrants and immigration. We include these as we deemed them important in shaping perceptions toward irregular migration and irregular migrants, as they are in shaping views related to migration (Richards et al 2025). We started the survey by asking respondents about the main areas of (policy) concerns for their country as well as themselves, to gauge the prevalence of immigration as an issue. With regard to the perceptions of the relevance of immigration as a concern, 44.2% of respondents indicated that immigration was a top issue Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 7 for the UK, and 33.7% indicated that it an issue of relevance for themselves. While not a perceived area of concern by all respondents, a relatively large share of respondents did include it, and appears to match levels of concerns found elsewhere in more recent polling (Ipsos, 2025). We also asked respondents about the perceived costs and benefits of migration with regard to (1) whether immigrants take out more than they put in in terms of taxes and services (Figure 1) and (2) whether the country’s cultural life was undermined or enriched by immigrants (Figure 2). These questions emulated those asked in the European Social Survey (Heath et al., 2016), and respondents provided their answers on a scale from 0 (more negative outlook) to 10 (more positive outlook). For the purpose of this report, we grouped answers along 5 categories: Negative outlook (scores of 0-4); Neutral outlook (score 5); and Positive outlook (scores 6-10). We also explored differences in views across the main respondent groupings (gender, age and political affiliation). As seen in Figure 1, just over 40% of respondents indicated that immigrants take out more than they put in regarding paying taxes and accessing services (negative outlook), whereas 43.5% indicated that immigrants put in more than they take out (positive outlook). Views toward the issue are generally consistent between men and women, whereas there are more differences across age groups (with older age groups holding a more negative outlook) and political affiliation (with those affiliating with Reform UK and the Conservative Party having a more negative outlook). Figure 1 Perceived costs and benefits of migration among I-CLAIM survey respondents: immigrant take out/put in more (taxes and services). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). Baseline N=1,067. With regard to views toward whether the UK’s culture was undermined or enriched by immigrants, 40.1% of respondents had a more negative outlook, whereas 49.3% had a more positive outlook. Women and 40,8% 44,3% 37,4% 29,0% 43,4% 54,9% 59,2% 25,9% 25,9% 84,4% 22,0% 38,6% 15,7% 11,8% 19,4% 12,5% 18,7% 15,7% 16,7% 13,3% 18,4% 8,0% 15,7% 19,7% 43,5% 43,9% 43,2% 58,5% 37,9% 29,4% 24,2% 60,7% 55,7% 7,5% 62,3% 41,8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Male Female 18-39 40-64 65+ Cons Lab Lib Dems Reform UK Other No vote/DK Gender Age Party % Respondents Taxes and services: Immigrants take out/put in more Negative Neutral Positive Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 8 younger respondents appeared to have a more positive outlook. Again, respondents who voted for Reform UK exhibited a more negative outlook, as did respondents who voted for the Conservative Party. Figure 2 Perceived costs and benefits of migration among I-CLAIM survey respondents: Cultural life undermined/enriched by immigrants. Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). Baseline N=1,098. The picture above gives us a good indication as to the respondents that were included in the survey, their main characteristics, as well as their opinions toward immigration and immigrants in general. In the next section, we turn to their views toward irregular migration and irregular migrants. 40,2% 45,3% 35,3% 27,0% 41,6% 58,1% 56,7% 25,0% 21,9% 84,5% 14,9% 43,6% 10,6% 10,3% 10,8% 9,2% 11,0% 12,0% 12,0% 11,7% 13,3% 6,6% 11,0% 9,0% 49,3% 44,4% 53,9% 63,8% 47,4% 29,8% 31,3% 63,4% 64,8% 8,9% 74,1% 47,4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Male Female 18-39 40-64 65+ Cons Lab Lib Dems Reform UK Other No vote/DK GenderAgeParty % Respondents Country's culture undermined/enriched by immigrants Negative Neutral Positive Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 9 3. Main Results Now that we have a better understanding of who the survey respondents were, this section focuses on showcasing answers to the focal questions that this report aims to explore, namely: 1) What does the public know about irregular migration and irregular migrants? [knowledge section] 2) What are public attitudes toward irregular migration and irregular migrants within the context of work? [attitudes section] Each question will be addressed in their dedicated section, first by showcasing answers for the whole sample, and then by investigating main group (gender, age, party voted for) differences. 3.1. Knowledge of irregular migration and irregular migrants This section covers questions that were asked about respondents’ knowledge about irregular migration and irregular migrants. We first look at knowledge about: the scale of, and the level of concern about, irregular migration; and scenarios leading to irregularity. We then move to more work-related topics, covering the sectors in which irregular migrants are deemed to work; perceived and social distance toward working irregular migrants. 3.1.1. Scale and level of concern One big gap in knowledge is that of the scale of irregular migration in the UK. In order to look at this issue, we asked respondents to estimate the share of irregular migrants among all foreign-born people in the UK. Recent estimates have put the number of irregular migrants at between 10.5% and 13.1% of the foreign-born population (MIRREM, 2025). Based on the answers and the published estimates, we evaluated whether respondents’ estimates about the share of irregular migrants in the UK were ‘below the estimated range’; on/around the estimated range; ‘up to 10% above the estimated range ’; and ‘10% above the estimated range’. Results are shown in Figure 3. Results shown in the figure indicate that more than half of respondents overestimated the share of irregular migrants by over 10%, 14.8% where within 10% of the upper estimate, 10.1% were within the estimated range, and 18.3% underestimated the share of irregular migrants in the UK. There was variation in the response patterns between men and women (with men underestimating the share of irregular migrants, and overestimating by over 10%, more often than women), between age groups (with larger shares of older adults (65+) overestimating the share of irregular migrants), and across political affiliation (with Conservative and Reform UK voters as well as non-voters having larger shares of overestimation, and Labour, Liberal Democrats, and other party voters having larger shares of underestimation of irregular migrants). Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 16 In other words, respondents were asked whether they would mind having an irregular migrant working in their home, their workplace, and a shop. Respondents were asked to record their level of ease in having irregular migrants in these settings on a scale from 0 (would not mind at all) to 10 (would mind a great deal). The mean levels of social distance for the overall sample and by group is shown in Figure 9, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social distance. Figure 9 Social distance indicators. Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). Baseline Ns=1,043/1,008/1,059. Results indicate that respondents have higher levels of social distance toward irregular migrants working in their home, a space within their private lives, and lower levels of social distance for encountering irregular migrants in their professional lives and in a shop setting. Encountering (whether knowingly or not) an irregular migrant in a shop had the lowest mean level of social distance across all groups, but we can also see variation in the perceived levels of social distance across groups. While levels of social distance are lower for irregular migrants encountered in the workplace, in some instances (men, younger respondents, Labour and Liberal Democrats, Reform and other voters) the levels are not much different than for irregular migrants encountered in a home setting. Lower mean levels of social distance are also found for women (workplace and shops), younger adults, as well as respondents who voted for Labour, Liberal Democrats, and other parties at the 2024 General Election. The focus on work sectors and the ease that respondents have regarding the (hypothetical) presence of irregular migrants in various settings is especially relevant to understand overall attitudes towards working irregular migrant, to which we now turn. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Male Female 18-39 40-64 65+ Cons Lab Lib Dems Reform UK Other No vote/DK Gender Age Party Average score Social distance indicators Home Company Shop Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 17 3.3. Attitudes Now that we have explored the respondents’ knowledge of irregular migration and feelings of social distance toward irregular migrants in different settings, we delve into more specific attitudes toward irregular migration within the context of work/employment, looking also at the intersection with racialisation and gender. This is especially relevant within the context of I-CLAIM, where public perceptions and attitudes are relevant to understandings of the narrative construction, and production, of irregularity. Within the survey, we examined these through different means, some of which we have covered above, but also by including the use of survey experiments, a generally unobtrusive way to tease out individual preferences in instances where we are dealing with sensitive topics, as is the case here, with as little bias as possible. In this section, we present results from two of the survey’s experiments, one that focuses on hiring preference for irregular migrants, and another showing evaluations of irregular migrants’ level of integration in UK society. 3.3.1. Hiring choice In the experiment looking at hiring preferences, respondents were presented with hypothetical applicants to hire to care for a relative. This is especially relevant given the importance of the care sector identified by respondents as a main sector of work for irregular migrants. Respondents were presented with two pairs of applicants, one male and one female, to hire for the job, with certain sets of characteristics, but who were unable to provide proof of residence in the UK, a feature of irregular status. Based on the information presented, respondents had to indicate the likelihood of hiring either candidate, but also choose who to hire between both candidates. Aspects that varied included country of origin and associate name (see Appendix); length of residence in the UK; recommendation status; and location of family. Figure 10 shows an example of what was presented to respondents. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 18 Figure 10 Hiring choice experiment questions (varying attributes in italics and blue for reference– see Appendix for details) We present results from analyses of the last question (hiring choice) that allow us to identify which characteristics of the hypothetical candidates were more likely to led to them being hired within the experiment. We present this through the Average Marginal Components Effects (AMCEs) in Figure 11 for all candidates, as well as for male and female candidates separately.3 Any data point to the right of the vertical dotted line indicates a positive likelihood of hiring a candidate with that particular characteristic in comparison to the reference group (indicated in-between parentheses). A data point to the left of the line indicates a negative likelihood of hiring a candidate with that characteristic compared to the reference category. Note that the yellow data points indicate results for both sets of experiments, whereas the dark purple data points show results for the experiments with female candidates only, and light purple data points for male candidates only. 3 See Hainmueller et al. (2014) for a detailed explanation of the use of AMCEs in conjoint experiments. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 19 Figure 11 Results from hiring choice experiment (AMCEs). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,147. Results from Figure 11 indicate that, when hiring, respondents were less likely to hire candidates from Bangladesh and Nigeria than from Moldova. This was consistent for both male and female applicants, even if in the case of female applicants, the negative likelihood of hiring a candidate from Bangladesh was not as strong. Respondents were more likely to hire candidates with a longer stay of residence and who came recommended by a friend. Finally, candidates who were providing for their family based in the UK were more positively evaluated for hiring, especially for female candidates. It is also possible to show the overall popularity of specific attributes across groups of respondents. This is done through the use of Marginal Means, which indicates how each individual attributes are favoured by respondents, and shown in Figures 12-14. A data point to the right of the dotted line indicates a positive preference, whereas one to the left indicates a negative preference. What we can see from the Figure 12 is that, in their hiring choices, male respondents tended to more positively favour candidates from Moldova than female respondents, but also favour candidates from Nigeria negatively. Female respondents were slightly more positive or negative in their preference for length of residence and recommendation status compared to male respondents. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 20 Figure 12 Attribute preference by gender of respondent, hiring choice experiment (Marginal Means). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,147. With regard to the age groups of respondents, most differences in the preferences operated at the level of the origin of respondents. This is especially the case for candidates from Moldova and Nigeria, where a generational gap appears to exist in the preference for these attributes (more positive for the older age group for Moldova, more negative for the candidate from Nigeria). Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 21 Figure 13 Attribute preference by age group of respondent, hiring choice experiment (Marginal Means). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,147. Finally, with regard to political affiliation, more polarised views were expressed by Conservative and Reform UK voters with regard to the origin of the candidates, with Conservative and Reform UK voters expressing a stronger preference for the Moldovan candidate, Reform UK voters expressing a stronger negative preference for the Bangladeshi candidate, and Conservative, Reform UK and Other voters expressing a stronger negative preference for the Nigerian candidate. Reform UK voters were not swayed by length of residence and recommendation status in their hiring choice (data points crossing the dotted line) and were more generally less influenced by the location of the family. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 22 Figure 14 Attribute preference by party affiliation of respondent, hiring choice experiment (Marginal Means). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,147. 3.3.2. Perceptions of integration and settlement We also investigated respondents’ attitudes toward irregular migrants within the context of work through the lens of their perceptions of long-term settlement, or integration, of irregular migrants engaging in work. This is especially relevant given that, despite popular discourses about irregularity focusing mostly on newlyarrived migrants, some irregular migrants have settled in the UK for a number of years. Moreover, exploring perceptions of male irregular migrants, who tend to be some of the most negatively portrayed within popular discourse, was deemed of relevance. As part of this, respondents were asked to evaluate the level of integration of two profiles of male irregular migrants, one from Kosovo and one from Nigeria on a scale from 0 (not well integrated at all) to 10 (very well integrated). Each profile contained a set number of characteristics deemed to influence evaluations of the level of integration that were randomly varied for each profile (see Appendix for a detailed list of characteristics): reason for migration; language fluency; religiosity; location of family and friends; and marital status. Example of what was seen by respondents is shown in Figure 15. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 23 Figure 15 Experimental set up for perceptions of integration experiment (varying attributes in italics and blue for reference – see Appendix for details) Analysis of this experiment are presented in Figures 16 and 17. Results are interpreted as per the previous experiment, with any data points to the left of the dotted line indicating a negative effect/preference, and data points to the right indicating a positive effect/preference. We first focus on the effect of specific attributes on the evaluation of integration, first for both profiles (Figure 16) and then for respondents by country of origin (Figure 17). As can be seen, English language fluency and the location of friends and family had a significant effect on evaluations of integration: profiles received a lower score if the person was not fluent in English and if the person had friends and family in their country of origin. This picture was generally consistent across the origin of the person, with the exception that the location of friends and family led to more negative evaluations of the profiles from Kosovo and that being married led to more positive evaluations of integration for respondents from Kosovo. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 24 Figure 16 Results from evaluation of integration experiment, all profiles (AMCEs). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,080. Figure 17 Results from evaluation of integration experiment, by origin of profile (AMCEs). Source: I-CLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,080, Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 25 If we, however, look at group differences in the preference for individual attributes, we can see that, overall, male respondents were generally more negative in their evaluation for integration than female respondents. This is exemplified by the fact that most attributes led to a more negative evaluation of integration (data points to the left of the dotted line). The preferences were also consistent regardless of the origin linked to the profile (not shown here). Figure 18 Attribute preference by age group of respondents, evaluation of integration experiment (Marginal Means). Source: ICLAIM Survey (2025). N=1,080. When comparing across age groups, we see that the various attributes were linked to more negative preferences among older age groups. Respondents in the 40-64 age group did, however, express a positive preference for profiles showing language fluency. Respondents in the youngest age groups did have a positive preference for language fluency, the location of family and friends in the UK, and profiles of married individuals. The strongest negative preferences were for lack of language fluency and location of family and friendship in the country of origin for all age groups, to various extents. Note that these patterns held regardless of the origin of the profile. Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 32 Table A.2: Main Demographics Main Respondent Demographics, UK Age (N=1,147) 48.6 (17.6) Age group (N=1,147) 18-29 16.9% 30-39 20.7% 40-49 14.2% 50-59 16.8% 60-69 17.3% 70+ 14.1% Gender (N=1,147) Male 48.5% Female 51.5% Ethnic minority (N=1,085) No 85.7% Yes 14.3% Marital Status (N=1,145) Married, partnership, living as married 54.4% Separated/divorced/widowed 11.0% Never married 34.7% Region (N=1,147) North East 4.3% North West 10.7% Yorkshire and the Humber 8.0% East Midlands 7.0% West Midlands 8.9% East of England 10.5% London 11.5% South East 13.2% South West 9.6% Wales 5.2% Scotland 8.3% Northern Ireland 2.8% Urban/Rural (N=1,054) Urban 77.7% Rural 22.3% Source: I-CLAIM survey (2025). Table A.3: Socio-demographics Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 33 Respondent Socio-Demographics, UK Education level (N=1,104) Low 27.2% Medium 37.6% High 35.2% Work status (active/inactive) (N=1,147) Working (full time/ part time) 57.1% Not working (student, pensioner, family carer, unemployed etc.) 42.9% HH income (N=885) Low 40.8% Medium 22.0% High 37.2% Social grade (N=1,147) ABC1 57.0% C2DE 43.0% Party voted for, 2024 (N=1,147) Conservatives 17.4% Labour 24.8% Liberal Democrats 9.0% Reform UK 10.5% Green 5.6% Other 6.0% DK or no vote 26.7% Brexit vote (N=1,126) I voted to Remain 36.3% I voted to Leave 36.5% I did not vote 27.2% Source: I-CLAIM survey (2025) Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 34 Table A.4: Respondents’ Links to migration Respondent Links to migration, UK Country of birth (N=1,134) Outside survey country 9.6% In survey country 90.4% Immigrant parentage (N=1,138) None 76.2% One parent 7.8% Two parents 16.0% Experience of migration (N=1,135) No 81.0% Yes 19.0% Has immigrant friends (N=1,115) None 58.7% Yes, several 14.5% Yes, a few 26.8% Source: I-CLAIM survey (2025) Table A.5 Attributes for hiring experiment randomly selected for each profile. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: FEMALE NAME/MALE NAME Two of three chosen for the female and male candidates. Moldova: Elena/Vasile Bangladesh: Asma/Abdul Nigeria: Ogechi/Chukwuma LENGTH OF RESIDENCE One of two. under a year 5 years RECOMMENDATION STATUS One of two. <no recommendation> but comes recommended by a friend LOCATION OF FAMILY One of two. Country of origin Survey country Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 35 Table A.6 Attributes for integration experiments randomly selected for each profile. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN/NAME One for each profile Kosovo: Klajdi Nigeria: Ayo REASON FOR MIGRATION One of four. <no reason stated> to improve his living standards to get an education to seek protection SURVEY COUNTRY LANGUAGE FLUENCY One of two. speaks does not speak RELIGIOSITY One of two. He regularly practices his religion. <none stated> LOCATION OF FRIENDS One of two. From COUNTRY OF ORIGIN From SURVEY COUNTRY FAMILY STATUS One of two. He is single He has a family LOCATION OF FAMILY If has family One of two. In COUNTRY OF ORIGIN In SURVEY COUNTRY Public understanding and attitudes to irregular migration in the UK 36 I-CLAIM Consortium Contact info [email protected] For press inquiries: I-CLAIM Communications Manager [email protected] www.i-claim.eu Follow us Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or UK Research and Innovation. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.