What does the public think about the rights of irregular migrants?

The PRIME study conducted by researchers at the European University Institute and the University of Uppsala focused on public attitudes towards irregular migrants in five European countries: Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the UK. The study found that access to primary health care for irregular migrants was generally preferred over providing low-income support. Respondents in the UK were found to have more negative views towards irregular migrants across various policy areas compared to the other four countries. Despite this, the study showed that policy design plays a significant role in shaping public attitudes towards irregular migrants’ rights.

The research indicated that linking rights for irregular migrants to obligations for public sector employees to report them to authorities increased support for access to healthcare and back pay for withheld wages. However, the provision of cash assistance for irregular migrants, even when coupled with reporting obligations, did not garner public support. British and Swedish respondents were generally against back pay for irregular migrants, even when connected to subsequent removal procedures, while Italian respondents displayed a more positive attitude towards granting rights to irregular migrants, favoring regularisation and unconditional access to primary health care. Progressive and politically left-leaning individuals were more likely to express support for granting legal rights and regularisation opportunities to irregular migrants.

The study challenges the notion that public attitudes towards irregular migrants’ rights are binary and instead suggests that policy design can influence support levels. The selection of the five countries for the study was based on their geographical proximity and demographic variations, as well as differences in their welfare, labor market, and migration policies. The findings highlight the importance of considering a balanced approach that offers both control and protection in policies related to irregular migrants in order to increase public support.

Despite the overall preference for access to primary health care over low-income support for irregular migrants, British respondents were least supportive of granting such access, even when coupled with reporting duties. Swedish respondents also displayed similar views regarding back pay for irregular migrants. In contrast, Italian respondents stood out for their positive overall attitude towards granting rights to irregular migrants, with a higher likelihood to support regularisation and unconditional access to primary health care. These differences in attitudes among the five countries underscore the complexity of public perceptions and the impact of policy measures on shaping support levels.

In conclusion, the PRIME study sheds light on the diverse attitudes towards irregular migrants in Europe and the role of policy design in influencing public support for their rights. The findings emphasize the need for a nuanced approach that balances control and protection in policies related to irregular migrants. Progressive and politically left-leaning individuals were more likely to express positive attitudes towards granting legal rights and regularisation opportunities to irregular migrants. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the complexities of public opinions and policy responses towards irregular migrants across different European countries.