Small boat migrants are seen as a security threat to the UK, a recent poll suggests.
The think tank commissioned the research—carried out by People Polling earlier this month—to explore public perception of illegal immigrants who had arrived in Britain by boat after crossing the English Channel.
Of the almost 1,900 people asked about whether they considered those entering the country illegally a national security threat, 52 percent said yes.
The sentiment was particularly pronounced among skilled workers who made up 66 percent of those who agreed, Migrant Watch said, while 78 percent of those identified themselves as Conservative party supporters.
When asked about views on illegal migrants, 46 percent of those who replied to the survey said they felt immigrants are “mostly bad” for the country.
Fewer than one in ten thought that illegal migrants are “mostly good” for Britain.
Notably, more than half considered the recent small boat influx as an “invasion.”
Invasion
Speaking on Friday, Migrant Watch UK chairman Alp Mehmet said the government needed to take the survey findings on board.“Public opinion is quite clear: illegal migrants are mostly seen as bad for our country,” he said.
“The government must heed this message and take action to safeguard our nation’s interests and uphold the rule of law.”
Of those who perceived small boat arrivals an “invasion,” 66 percent were described as “skilled working-class individuals,” while 78 percent and 77 percent were Brexiteers and Conservative party supporters, respectively.
The poll also investigated public sentiment regarding the influence of European courts and judges in Britain’s asylum and immigration policy.
The results showed that remarkably few voters support European courts and judges having such influence, with only one in five voters in favour.
In contrast, more than half of the respondents—52 percent—oppose this idea.
According to Migrant Watch, this opposition is especially pronounced among Conservatives (78 percent), pro-Brexit voters (72 percent) while 60 percent were recorded as “skilled” workers.
Rwanda
The findings come as the Home Office awaits a Supreme Court judgment in its challenge against a Court of Appeal ruling from that the UK’s multimillion-pound Rwanda deal over the processing of asylum claims was unlawful.In June, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill found there were “substantial grounds” to think that asylum seekers deported to Rwanda faced “real risks” of torture or inhuman treatment, or that their claims for asylum would not be properly determined there.
The ruling overturned the High Court’s finding that Rwanda could be considered a “safe third country” for asylum seekers.
The case was taken against the Home Office by those claiming asylum in the UK from Syria, Iran and Iraq.
Each “vulnerable” individual was previously told they would be removed to the east African country, their lawyers said earlier in the months-long litigation. None of them has any connection to Rwanda.
Anonymised in court proceedings under three-letter acronyms, the individuals were due on a flight out of the UK in June last year—before the plane was grounded amid a series of legal challenges.
After the Court of Appeal decision, which was seen as a setback in his bid to “stop the boats,” Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he “fundamentally” disagreed with the ruling and intended to appeal.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained “fully committed” to the policy and, despite the ruling, still had “every confidence” in the plan while stressing that Rwanda was a safe country.
Immigration featured heavily at the recent Conservative Party conference, with Mr. Sunak saying he “will do whatever is necessary to stop the boats.”
