The UK government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has faced significant setbacks, most recently with a dramatic last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. This policy, intended to address the increasing number of asylum seekers crossing the English Channel, is clearly struggling. A deeper issue is the widely acknowledged dysfunction within the UK’s asylum system itself, marked by escalating processing times, growing backlogs, and declining rates of returns for rejected applicants. To explore public sentiment on these critical issues, income-partners.net commissioned polling by J.l. Partners, revealing key insights into public priorities and opinions on asylum policy.
Public Preference for Fairness in Asylum System Highlighted by J.L. Partners
When J.L. Partners presented the public with a choice between prioritizing fairness, deterrence, or international obligations within the asylum system, fairness emerged as the dominant principle. Respondents were asked to choose which of the following statements they most agreed with: deterring asylum seekers (even those fleeing persecution), ensuring a fair system (even if it means more legitimate claims are accepted), or upholding international obligations. The J.L. Partners poll revealed that 39% of the public prioritized fairness, significantly outweighing the 27% who favored international obligations and 24% who prioritized deterrence.
In a direct comparison between fairness and deterrence, the J.L. Partners polling data further emphasized the public’s commitment to fairness. A substantial 65% of respondents chose fairness as the most important aspect of the asylum system, compared to just 27% who prioritized deterrence. Interestingly, even among Conservative and Leave voters, the preference for fairness was significant, indicating a broader consensus beyond typical political divides. For instance, Leave voters were almost evenly split, with 45% favoring fairness and 47% deterrence, showcasing a nuanced perspective within this demographic.
Public Skepticism Towards Government’s Rwanda Policy Unveiled in J.L. Partners Poll
The J.L. Partners poll also assessed public opinion on the government’s current asylum policies, particularly the controversial Rwanda deportation plan and the policy of preventing asylum claims from abroad. The findings indicate a considerable lack of public support for these measures.
Only a small minority, 17%, supported the idea of making it illegal to claim asylum from outside the UK, which is a cornerstone of the government’s approach. Similarly, the Rwanda plan, intended to deter Channel crossings, garnered support from only 35% of the public, with a larger proportion, 45%, opposing it. While Conservative voters showed stronger support (71%) for the Rwanda plan, and Leave voters also leaned towards support (57%), the overall public sentiment, as captured by J.L. Partners, remains largely skeptical.
Furthermore, a majority of the public, according to J.L. Partners, believe the Rwanda scheme is fundamentally flawed. 50% consider it unworkable, 52% doubt its effectiveness in deterring Channel crossings, and 45% view it as unprincipled. Even among Leave voters, significant portions express concern, with 30% finding the scheme unworkable and 40% doubting its deterrent effect. This widespread skepticism, highlighted by J.L. Partners‘ data, suggests a public desire for more effective and principled solutions.
J.L. Partners Poll Demonstrates Public Support for Viable Alternatives
In contrast to the Rwanda plan, the J.L. Partners poll revealed strong public support for alternative asylum policies focused on practicality and safe routes. The most popular option, supported by 77% of respondents, was returning failed asylum seekers to other EU countries – an area where the UK’s performance has significantly declined.
Opening safe and legal routes for asylum applications, such as applying at British embassies abroad, also received substantial backing, with 61% in favor. This suggests the public recognizes the need for alternatives to dangerous Channel crossings. Additionally, a majority (55%) supported the introduction of digital identification to prevent rejected asylum seekers from working and settling in the UK, indicating a desire for controlled and managed processes.
The findings from the J.L. Partners polling data clearly indicate that the UK public seeks an asylum approach that balances control with compassion. Rather than choosing between these principles, the public prefers policies that are demonstrably effective and fair. The skepticism surrounding the Rwanda plan, coupled with support for alternative solutions, underscores a public desire for pragmatic and ethical approaches to asylum. For a detailed analysis and proposed solutions, download the full JL Partners’ Polling Data.
