Date:
Author: Martin Ruhs, Professor of Migration Studies, European University Institute
Original article: https://theconversation.com/europeans-have-more-flexible-views-on-how-to-respond-to-irregular-migrants-than-policymakers-think-new-research-253473
With an estimated minimum of 2.6 to 3.2 million irregular migrants in Europe and fierce public debates about them, policymakers face the difficult question of how to ensure migrants’ basic rights of protection from exploitation, destitution and ill health while also establishing effective migration controls. However, we know surprisingly little about how Europeans think about this policy dilemma.
In our study, the first of its kind in Europe, we surveyed 20,000 people across Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the UK to understand their preferences on policies regarding access to healthcare, social welfare and labour protections, as well as the obtainment of regular legal status or “regularisation” for irregular migrants.
The results challenge the idea that public attitudes toward irregular migrants’ rights are simply “for” or “against”. Instead, we find that variations in policy design matter – and when policies include both migration controls and protections for migrants, public support often increases.
Our method
To study public preferences for policies relating to irregular migrants, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment. In it, respondents were presented with different multidimensional “policy packages” that randomly varied in how they regulated opportunities for regularisation, as well as legal rights to access primary health care, financial support in low-income situations, and back pay of withheld wages.
Respondents were shown two policy packages at a time, and then asked to rate and indicate which of the two they preferred. For each respondent, this process was repeated five times. This method allowed us to study how a change in a particular policy feature – e.g., a change in how access to primary healthcare is regulated – affects individuals’ support for the overall policy package.
So, what do Europeans think? Here are some of our key results.
- People favour selective regularisation
Our results suggest that the public prefers targeted pathways for regularisation for irregular migrants. Across all five countries we analysed, respondents consistently preferred policies that allow irregular migrants to acquire legal status based on certain conditions, including a clean criminal record and a minimum length of stay in the host country. Somewhat surprisingly, there was no consistent preference between a five-year or ten-year minimum residence period.
- Healthcare gets more support than financial assistance
We found that giving irregular migrants access to healthcare is far less controversial than giving access to financial support for those living on low incomes. This aligns with findings from the US, where such support has remained politically divisive.
- Some migration controls boost support for access to rights – but not all rights
We also found greater support for irregular migrants receiving health care and back pay for withheld wages when these rights were linked to a migration control measure: obligations for public sector employees to report irregular migrants to authorities.
This suggests, as existing literature highlights, that many people experience an internal conflict between humanitarian concerns and a desire for stricter migration controls.
However, the pattern in our data does not hold for all rights: even when combined with reporting obligations, the provision of cash assistance for irregular migrants still does not generate public support.
- A preference for essential workers
Not all irregular migrants are viewed equally: our findings show that people are more supportive of rights and regularisation opportunities for migrants who previously worked legally in the host country – especially in essential roles like elder care. This reflects broader research on attitudes toward welfare deservingness, which found that public perception of migrants’ past contributions to society shape views on whether they should get access to rights.
How do attitudes differ across countries?
While there are many similarities in public views on regularisation opportunities and access to rights for irregular migrants across the countries we studied, there are also some notable differences. For example, support for providing primary healthcare varied: respondents in the UK were the least supportive, and respondents in Italy were the most. Similarly, while respondents in most countries opposed the provision of low-income support, Italian respondents were more ambivalent, showing no strong preference for or against this right for irregular migrants.
Overall, respondents in Italy showed the greatest preferences for inclusive policies, including the strongest support for allowing irregular migrants to apply for legal status. While our analysis does not investigate the reasons for this, it may reflect Italy’s history of regularisation programmes in recent decades, which may have made Italian respondents more open to and supportive of such programmes.
Rethinking public attitudes about irregular migrants
Public attitudes matter – they influence which policies are feasible and sustainable over time. Our research shows that EU and UK residents don’t default to blunt and one-sided policies such as blanket opposition to irregular migrants ever gaining legal status. Instead, people are selective, and prefer policies that distinguish between giving irregular migrants different types of rights. People also have specific views about when and why irregular migrants should have access to healthcare, social welfare, labour protections and legal status.
This does not mean that survey respondents wanted to offer unconditional legal status and access to rights to all irregular migrants. Instead, respondents often preferred an approach that combines selective access to rights with enforcement of migration rules. What our study indicates is that the public has more nuanced views on how migration should be managed than policymakers generally give them credit for. This suggests there may be more room for selective and inclusive policymaking than often assumed.
This article is based on a research paper co-authored by Lutz Gschwind (Uppsala University, UU), Martin Ruhs (EUI), Anton Ahlén (UU) and Joakim Palme (UU). The paper is part of the international “PRIME” project that analyses the conditions of irregular migrants in Europe. PRIME is funded by the European Union Horizon Europe programme. Views and opinions expressed, however, are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the EU nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
The author has received support from the European Union Horizon Europe funding programme for research and innovation (project number 101095113).
