United States🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative4 days ago
Britons Have More Negative View of Immigration Than at Brexit Referendum: Poll
A YouGov survey reveals that the British public holds more negative views on immigration in 2026 than they did immediately after the 2016 Brexit referendum. The poll indicates that 43% of Britons now consider immigration 'mostly bad' for the UK, compared to 33% in 2016. Conversely, only 21% view immigration as 'mostly good,' with 29% seeing it as 'both good and bad.' The survey also highlights that 69% of respondents believe immigration levels have been too high over the past decade, with 47% stating they are 'much too high.' This perception is stronger among Brexit supporters, with 93% believing immigration is too high, compared to 53% of Remain voters. The findings show stark differences across political affiliations, with Reform UK supporters overwhelmingly (98%) believing immigration is too high, while support for this view is lower among left-wing parties like the Greens (40%). The survey further notes that Britons favor immigration from certain countries, particularly those in the Anglosphere, while expressing less favorable opinions toward migrants from Russia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Most respondents emphasized the importance of considering criminal records when evaluating移民
Britons have expressed a more negative view of immigration than at any time since the Brexit referendum, according to a new poll conducted by YouGov. The survey, a follow-up to a similar one carried out in August 2016, reveals that 43% of respondents now consider immigration to be “mostly bad” for the UK, up from 33% a decade earlier. Conversely, only 21% believe immigration has been beneficial, while 29% describe its impact as mixed. This shift underscores growing concerns about the effects of migration on national identity, resources, and social cohesion. The survey also indicates that a substantial portion of the population believes immigration levels have been excessive. A consistent 70% of respondents held this view in 2016, and the figure has remained largely unchanged, with 69% expressing the same stance in 2026. However, current data shows that 47% of voters think immigration has been “much too high,” slightly higher than the 44% recorded a decade ago. This suggests that while public perception of immigration's overall impact has become more negative, the belief that numbers are too high has not significantly shifted. The survey further highlights divisions along political lines. A majority of both Brexit supporters and Remain voters agree that immigration levels are too high. Yet, there is a notable gap between the two groups, with 93% of Brexit voters holding this view compared to 53% of Remain voters. When breaking down responses by party allegiance, Reform UK supporters were the most vocal, with 98% believing immigration has been excessive, followed by 90% of Conservatives. Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters were less divided, with 53% and 56% respectively agreeing, while only 40% of Green Party members shared this sentiment. Public opinion on the origins of immigrants also reflects a complex hierarchy. While citizens generally favor migrants from certain countries, preferences vary widely. Those from Anglosphere nations, such as Ireland, Australia, and Canada, enjoy the highest approval ratings, with 69%, 68%, and 68% respectively. First-world nations like Sweden, Germany, Japan, and the United States also receive favorable treatment, with approval rates ranging from 55% to 64%. In contrast, immigrants from Russia, Pakistan, and Nigeria face greater skepticism, with 58%, 52%, and 48% of respondents expressing a desire for fewer or no immigrants from these regions. When considering criteria for admitting migrants, the British public prioritizes criminal history above all else. A staggering 94% of respondents agree that individuals with a history of violent or serious crimes should be excluded from entry. Education level, prearranged employment, and family reunification also feature prominently in public opinion, with 76% supporting each of these considerations. Other factors, such as wealth, age, and intelligence, are deemed relevant by smaller percentages, 60%, 56%, and 54% respectively. The findings reveal a deepening divide in how immigration is perceived and managed, with significant implications for policy and public discourse. As the debate continues, the focus will likely shift toward balancing security concerns with humanitarian values, and addressing the underlying anxieties that drive public sentiment.
Go to the primary sources (4)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
A YouGov survey reveals that the British public holds more negative views on immigration in 2026 than they did immediately after the 2016 Brexit referendum. The poll indicates that 43% of Britons now consider immigration 'mostly bad' for the UK, compared to 33% in 2016. Conversely, only 21% view immigration as 'mostly good,' with 29% seeing it as 'both good and bad.' The survey also highlights that 69% of respondents believe immigration levels have been too high over the past decade, with 47% stating they are 'much too high.' This perception is stronger among Brexit supporters, with 93% believing immigration is too high, compared to 53% of Remain voters. The findings show stark differences across political affiliations, with Reform UK supporters overwhelmingly (98%) believing immigration is too high, while support for this view is lower among left-wing parties like the Greens (40%). The survey further notes that Britons favor immigration from certain countries, particularly those in the Anglosphere, while expressing less favorable opinions toward migrants from Russia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Most respondents emphasized the importance of considering criminal records when evaluating移民
Bias read (Conservative): The article emphasizes the increased negativity towards immigration, aligns with Brexit-related sentiments, and highlights higher support for restrictive immigration policies among right-leaning groups such as Reform UK. It frames the data in a manner that underscores the growing divide between pro-
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the primary source document, reporting that 43% of Britons now see immigration as mostly bad, up from 21% in 2016. It also correctly states that 69% believe immigration has been too high, aligning with the survey results. However, it slightly misrepresents the 2016 fi
Why objectivity (65): The article presents a somewhat biased perspective by emphasizing the 'more negative' view of immigration, especially in comparison to the Brexit referendum. The language suggests a narrative that immigration has become increasingly unpopular, which may reflect a political stance rather than purely
The HillIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 6510 days ago
Senate Democrats are scrutinizing Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding the acquisition of 12 new aircraft, including five described as 'extravagant new luxury jets.' These planes have reportedly been used by FBI Director Kash Patel and border security chief Tom Homan. The lawmakers are questioning whether these purchases were authorized by Congress, suggesting there may have been a lack of proper legislative approval for such expenditures.
Bias read (Progressive): The article uses terms like 'Democratic appropriators' and frames the issue as a potential misuse of funds without congressional authorization, which implies criticism of the administration’s spending practices. The emphasis on 'luxury jets' and the questioning of authorization suggests a critical,左
Why factuality (75): The article reports that Senate Democratic appropriators are questioning DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding the purchase of 12 planes, including 'luxury jets' used by high-profile officials. While the claim about the planes being 'extravagant' and used by specific officials is not independentl
Why objectivity (65): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'extravagant' and frames the issue as a congressional oversight concern, suggesting potential bias toward criticizing the administration. It does not present alternative viewpoints or provide context about the rationale behind the plane purchases
PoliticoIndependentConservativeFactual 30Objective 304 days ago
The article discusses the ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy under President Donald Trump, focusing on his deportation efforts and their impact on public perception. Despite Trump's continued emphasis on border security and criminal deportations, voter sentiment remains largely unchanged, with many Americans supporting the removal of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. The White House cites polling data showing strong public backing for deporting criminal aliens and highlights specific cases involving dangerous individuals. However, critics argue that the visible chaos and negative publicity surrounding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations have caused public unease. While the administration has taken steps to manage the narrative, such as replacing high-profile officials and shifting focus toward criminal arrests, some Republicans worry that the hardline approach is alienating key demographics like young voters, moderates, and Latinos. Although Trump secured a significant portion of the Latino vote in 2024, concerns over his deportation policies continue to grow within that community.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Trump's immigration policies as aligned with public opinion, citing polls and official sources that emphasize support for deporting criminal aliens. It portrays the administration's actions as fulfilling a 'clear mandate' from voters, while downplaying criticism by attributing it,
Why factuality (30): The article discusses U.S. immigration policy under Trump and does not reference the YouGov survey on British public opinion about immigration. It contains no factual claims related to the primary source document, making it irrelevant to the topic covered in the survey.
Why objectivity (30): The article presents a highly biased perspective favoring Trump's immigration policies, using emotionally charged language like 'Making America Safe Again' and describing enforcement actions as 'wins.' The tone is clearly supportive of the administration's approach without presenting opposing viewpo
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
