Verdicts · Immigration
What the UK thinks about immigration
Settled referendums
43
since Jun 2026
Votes cast
9,114
all time, on immigration
This week
2,720
votes · 5 referendums settled
Written opinions
465
all time, left by voters
This week's opinion highlightThe most respected opinion this week
“YES But with a caviat. It should be targeted, we as a country need immigration without it our country would eventually grind to a halt. To do this we have to invest in the government departments that control immigration. Keeping out those who would be a drain on Britain. Whilst at the same time quickly processing & helping those who's skills we need to integrate & become useful members of our com”
JustFactsNotBeliefs, debating Yes on “Should immigration levels be reduced?” · read the thread →
6
Respects
Most respected on immigration this week
- 1.JustFactsNotBeliefs15 respects
- 2.BenL14 respects
- 3.CCWales12 respects
- 4.Jonathan10 respects
- 5.constancia8 respects
Who answered this week
The 847 placed voters lean Centre Right overall.
H. Left6%
Left19%
C. Left8%
Centre8%
C. Right11%
Right41%
H. Right7%
Regions this week
South EastC. Right
ScotlandCentre
LondonCentre
North WestC. Right
South WestC. Right
YorkshireCentre
East of EnglandC. Right
North EastC. Right
East MidlandsCentre
West MidlandsC. Right
WalesC. Right
Northern IrelandC. Right
Votes each week
2,720so far this week
45327 Jul
6073 Aug
1,76710 Aug
90217 Aug
1,71624 Aug
2,72031 Aug
All-time immigration highlights
Biggest landslide
YES 84%
Should we deport foreign nationals convicted of any imprisonable offence within 5 years of arrival?
84% of 210 votes went the same way.
Closest result
YES 53%
Is Rupert Lowe right that mass migration is the core driver of grooming gang scandals?
Decided by 6 points.
Most debated
YES 72%
Does the Home Office’s decision to issue asylum seekers with guidance on rape and sexual consent amount to an admission of a specific public-safety risk to women in the UK?
44 written opinions.
This week
5 settled · 2,720 votes
0% NO
Majority against
YES 40%
568 votes
0 skipped
by @CurtisStackhouse⏱ Ended 4 Sept 2026
Should Parliament transfer ongoing power over immigration policy to direct citizen votes?
The verdict
“Do the job we hired you for” captured the mood: the proposal was rejected as a remedy for parliamentary failure, with voters preferring elected government to permanent immigration referendums.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 22%
573 votes
0 skipped
by @Slaine202⏱ Ended 4 Sept 2026
Should employers be required to advertise jobs to British nationals for 28 days before recruiting overseas?
The verdict
The winning case was blunt: “Our own first” — and the proposal passed by nearly four to one. Yet the sharpest dissent warned that advertising could become a “box ticking exercise”, making this a vote for priority more than faith in the mechanism.
0% NO
Majority against
YES 40%
578 votes
0 skipped
by @Blumik⏱ Ended 3 Sept 2026
Should asylum seekers be allowed to work whilst their claims are being considered?
The verdict
The chamber chose No, sounding less hostile to work itself than fearful of the waiting period becoming “an alternative route for economic migration”.
0% NO
Majority against
YES 37%
499 votes
0 skipped
by @alancoleman⏱ Ended 31 Aug 2026
Should the UK keep paying France to stop small boat crossings?
The verdict
“Pointless, France will not stop the boats” was the room’s sharpest line: No carried the vote, while Yes voters mostly demanded consequences for failure rather than a blank cheque.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 25%
502 votes
0 skipped
by @DrewHutchinson⏱ Ended 30 Aug 2026
Should immigration levels be reduced?
The verdict
The winning Yes case was less “close the door” than “control the gate”: voters backed lower immigration, while the room’s strongest arguments still made room for skills, faster processing and legal routes.
Last week
5 settled · 1,716 votes
0% YES
Majority for
NO 34%
445 votes
0 skipped
by @refnation⏱ Ended 29 Aug 2026
Is the government misleading the public on asylum seeker accommodation when it says hotel numbers have halved?
The verdict
The hotel count has fallen, but the argument has moved next door: the chamber’s Yes verdict, by nearly two to one, treated substitution as the story rather than resolution.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 27%
336 votes
0 skipped
by @Dragontao⏱ Ended 25 Aug 2026
Should the Refugee Convention be replaced with a new agreement?
The verdict
“Was never designed for a world population of 8 billion” became the winning side’s organising thought: Yes carried the vote, while the minority’s strongest case was that the problem lay in application, not the Convention itself.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 31%
332 votes
0 skipped
by @Jacko⏱ Ended 25 Aug 2026
Would it be a problem if white British people became a minority in the UK?
The verdict
A question about demography became a vote about continuity: Yes won by more than two to one, with the floor’s strongest case tying minority status to consent, cohesion and culture.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 41%
310 votes
0 skipped
by @OftenRight⏱ Ended 24 Aug 2026
Should indefinite leave to remain be abolished?
The verdict
Abolitionists carried the day despite the chamber’s most-respected argument warning that “Forcing long term contributors onto perpetual temporary visas fosters precarity” — a close verdict in which the losing side made the sharper case.
0% YES
Majority for
NO 30%
293 votes
0 skipped
by @Lixhul⏱ Ended 23 Aug 2026
Should foreign nationals, including EU citizens, be barred from most UK benefits?
The verdict
“Can’t see how to undo such a calamitous mistake” was the oddest line in a clear Yes victory: the winning side carried the vote, but the floor’s sharpest arguments came from No.
Every immigration verdict
- NO 60%Should Parliament transfer ongoing power over immigration policy to direct citizen votes?“Do the job we hired you for” captured the mood: the proposal was rejected as a remedy for parliamentary failure, with voters preferring elected government to permanent immigration referendums.
- YES 78%Should employers be required to advertise jobs to British nationals for 28 days before recruiting overseas?The winning case was blunt: “Our own first” — and the proposal passed by nearly four to one. Yet the sharpest dissent warned that advertising could become a “box ticking exercise”, making this a vote for priority more than faith in the mechanism.
- NO 60%Should asylum seekers be allowed to work whilst their claims are being considered?The chamber chose No, sounding less hostile to work itself than fearful of the waiting period becoming “an alternative route for economic migration”.
- NO 63%Should the UK keep paying France to stop small boat crossings?“Pointless, France will not stop the boats” was the room’s sharpest line: No carried the vote, while Yes voters mostly demanded consequences for failure rather than a blank cheque.
- YES 75%Should immigration levels be reduced?The winning Yes case was less “close the door” than “control the gate”: voters backed lower immigration, while the room’s strongest arguments still made room for skills, faster processing and legal routes.
- YES 66%Is the government misleading the public on asylum seeker accommodation when it says hotel numbers have halved?The hotel count has fallen, but the argument has moved next door: the chamber’s Yes verdict, by nearly two to one, treated substitution as the story rather than resolution.
- YES 73%Should the Refugee Convention be replaced with a new agreement?“Was never designed for a world population of 8 billion” became the winning side’s organising thought: Yes carried the vote, while the minority’s strongest case was that the problem lay in application, not the Convention itself.
- YES 69%Would it be a problem if white British people became a minority in the UK?A question about demography became a vote about continuity: Yes won by more than two to one, with the floor’s strongest case tying minority status to consent, cohesion and culture.
- YES 59%Should indefinite leave to remain be abolished?Abolitionists carried the day despite the chamber’s most-respected argument warning that “Forcing long term contributors onto perpetual temporary visas fosters precarity” — a close verdict in which the losing side made the sharper case.
- YES 70%Should foreign nationals, including EU citizens, be barred from most UK benefits?“Can’t see how to undo such a calamitous mistake” was the oddest line in a clear Yes victory: the winning side carried the vote, but the floor’s sharpest arguments came from No.
- YES 72%Does the Home Office’s decision to issue asylum seekers with guidance on rape and sexual consent amount to an admission of a specific public-safety risk to women in the UK?The booklet was treated as a tell rather than a primer: “If those things need pointing out...” captured the suspicion that carried the vote.
- NO 66%Does the government actually have any intention of stopping the boats?The government’s enforcement record did not persuade voters here: No won by two to one, while the floor’s sharpest Yes voices recast the question as one of capacity, not intent.
- YES 82%Should homeless UK citizens be prioritised over illegal migrants for interim housing in former armed services properties?‘Help everyone and stop dividing everyone’ was the losing side’s cleanest line, but Yes won decisively, with the chamber’s winning case more forceful than nuanced.
- YES 57%Should UK leave ECHR and withdraw UN Refugee Conventions?A revolt against judges carried the room, but the floor’s sharpest lines came from those asking who would surrender rights “because of <checks notes> small boats?”
- YES 58%Should the government hold a binding referendum on capping net migration?“Referendums are blunt instruments” came from the losing side, which supplied the room’s sharpest case even as the debate sent a binding vote on a migration cap through.
- YES 57%Projections estimate decline of share White British from ~73% (2025) to ~57% in 2050, should we try to stop it?The room chose to try to arrest the projected demographic shift, yet its strongest Yes case insisted: “This isn’t about race, it’s about integration and culture.”
- YES 58%Should a UK ICE force be formed?An ICE-style force won support, but the floor’s sharpest formulation was a warning against copying America: “Yes - but just don't call it that.”
- YES 67%Should all non UK citizens, excluding family visa holders, who cannot financially support themselves be deported?The floor backed the proposal two to one, but its sharpest objection came from a No voter: “I would not exclude family visa holders.”
- YES 54%Is net migration the main cause of the issues around services in the UK?The winning Yes side barely argued its case, while the floor’s most-respected voices defended No — a room divided less by slogans than by rival diagnoses of migration, planning and austerity.
- YES 69%Should migrants be banned from claiming social welfare?A decisive welfare-ban vote, but the floor’s sharpest line was that the question itself was “a mess”: the result was broad, while the arguments were not.
Show all 43 verdicts ↓
- YES 53%Is Rupert Lowe right that mass migration is the core driver of grooming gang scandals?The room split almost down the middle, but its strongest Yes voice framed the issue as communal impunity: “We are not the same.” A narrow Yes verdict leaves the argument more fractured than settled.
- YES 60%Should the UK use the navy to stop small boat crossings?The floor’s most respected voice warned that stopping small boats could mean “murder on the high seas”; the navy proposal nevertheless carried the room, with Yes winning the conclusion more decisively than its case.
- NO 58%When granting citizenship, should the UK enforce to drop all other citizenships by a new citizen?The floor’s sharpest No line saw dual citizenship as “a slightly better chance of deporting unwanted people”; No won a clear majority, while the lone Yes voice wanted a tougher route to citizenship instead.
- YES 57%If the proportion of the white population has dropped from 90% in 2010 to c70% now, is it time to reverse immigration?A narrow majority backed reversing immigration on demographic grounds, yet the chamber's most respected voice went further than the question itself, calling for mass removal and declaring "I no longer care how it's done" — the sharpest line came from the fringe of the winning side, not its centre.
- YES 73%Should the UK government reduce net migration below current record levels?A near three-to-one vote for cutting net migration further wasn't matched by a comparably lopsided debate — the floor's single most-respected voice actually argued the opposite case, that migrants "contribute more to the economy in net terms" than the numbers suggest.
- YES 83%Should Spain use its Army to stop the migrant invasions?A vote that barely paused to argue the finer points of Spanish military law landed with force: five in six of the 144 who turned out backed sending in the army, and the loudest dissent on the page was a joke about castle walls.
- YES 57%Should we put navy gun boats in the channel?A clear majority backed navy gunboats in the Channel, yet the chamber's most respected arguments came almost entirely from the side that lost — a mismatch that says more about this vote than the 14-point margin does.
- NO 81%Should a foreign worker such as a plumber be allowed to go bankrupt before leaving the UK?A four-to-one rout, this one, with the losing side actually landing the more considered blow: the chamber decided by 130 votes to 31 that foreign workers should not be allowed to go bankrupt before leaving the UK, treating equal legal rights as a lesser concern than the exit itself.
- NO 61%Should any non-citizen immigrant ever be eligible to receive state benefits such as housing, money, education or NHS?Voters here drew a hard line between principle and practice: asked whether a non-citizen should ever qualify for state support, the chamber's answer was a clear no, with only four in ten backing any entitlement — but the age pattern beneath that verdict refuses to fit the usual "young open, old closed" script.
- YES 59%Should Andy Burnham reform UK immigration rules to make them more welcoming to skilled workers?Skilled-worker visas rarely divide neatly by age, but this one did something odder still: support dipped, rose, then dipped again as the decades ticked by, with the 55-64s the most resistant bracket in the chamber even as their elders loosened up again — a result that saw yes carry the day by eighteen points without ever settling into a simple young-versus-old story.
- YES 84%Should we deport foreign nationals convicted of any imprisonable offence within 5 years of arrival?Across every age band and both sexes the chamber reached almost total agreement, with the vote to deport foreign nationals convicted of any imprisonable offence within five years of arrival passing by more than four to one — a rare moment of near-unanimity on an immigration question that usually splits the floor down familiar lines.
- NO 79%Should Lewisham Council ban cooperation with the Home Office on immigration raids?Lewisham's proposed sanctuary-borough experiment ran into a wall on the floor, with No winning by nearly four to one and Yes struggling to muster support in any age group bar the very youngest.
- NO 57%Should UK-born children of Graduate route visa holders be allowed to apply as dependants?A technical fix to close a bureaucratic gap for children already born on British soil still met resistance, as No carried the floor by fourteen points on a question with barely any political charge to speak of.
- NO 63%Should the UK resume the refugee family reunion route?Not since the debates over the 2016 vote has a “compassion” question split so cleanly along the middle of working-age Britain rather than along the usual left-right lines, and here it produced a clear rejection of reopening the family reunion route, by 40 votes to 23.
- YES 67%Should right-to-work checks be expanded to gig economy workers and subcontractors?Extending immigration enforcement into the gig economy split not along the usual generational lines but through the middle of working-age Britain, with the 45-54s alone resisting a two-to-one verdict for tougher checks.
- YES 78%Should the UK change the law to allow deportation of the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader?Nearly four in five voters here backed changing the law to deport the Rochdale ringleader, but the consensus cracked hardest along gender lines, not age, with women split evenly while men swung heavily behind removal.
- YES 64%Should integration tests be required before granting indefinite leave to remain to UK immigrants?Yes carried the chamber 64-36, but the clearest fracture ran along age rather than the immigration-politics script you'd expect: the 55-64s broke almost unanimously (9 of 10) for tests, while the youngest cohort split dead even.
- YES 71%Does Islam need a reformation to truly be able to integrate in Britain?Yes carried the chamber comfortably, 22 to 9, with the only real resistance clustered among men, where roughly two in five still voted no.
- NO 71%Should members of the public decide asylum appeals instead of immigration judges?Voters rejected replacing immigration judges with citizen panels for asylum appeals by a decisive 15-6, with the scepticism concentrated among 25-34s, the platform's largest bloc, who broke 8-2 against.
- NO 55%Should the UK create new capped safe and legal asylum routes sponsored by universities and businesses?Narrow defeat for the sponsored-refugee model: No edges it 6-5, with a chamber this small hinging on a single vote.
- NO 62%Does immigration deliver a net benefit to the NHS?No won it, 16 votes to 10, but the headline hides a striking generational split: the 25-34s broke hardest against, 9 of 11, while the thin band of 35-44s went the other way, 4 of 6 for Yes.
- NO 62%Should Shabana Mahmood be removed as home secretary and her asylum policies scrapped?No, by a clear 24-point margin, kept Shabana Mahmood in post — but the story is the 25-34s, who voted 7 to 1 against removing her, the most one-sided reading of any group in the chamber.
- YES 56%Should the UK introduce tougher immigration measures to reduce net migration?A narrow YES on tougher immigration measures, 19-15, carried less by any generational revolt than by a gender gap: men backed it 13-9 while the 8 women who voted split 3-5 against.