New research from think-tank Demos, with support from Trust for London, explores the ‘democratic doom loop’ of mistrust, disengagement and political ineffectiveness surrounding immigration policy. The work aims to set out a practical route to detoxify one of the most polarised policy issues of our time.
Key findings
Immigration reform is a chance not just to change policy, but to repair trust. By involving the public meaningfully in shaping settlement and integration rules, government can move beyond polarisation and build immigration policy that is practical, fair and rooted in shared values.
Immigration is high-profile – and trust is low.
Immigration remains one of the public’s top concerns. But trust in government to manage it fairly and competently is very low. No major political party or leader is widely trusted on immigration, and many people feel decisions are made without their voice being heard.
Public opinion is more nuanced than the debate suggests.
Despite polarised political rhetoric, most people hold balanced and conditional views. Many want immigration to be:
- Controlled and fair
- Based on clear rules
- Linked to contribution and integration
People often support migration in key sectors like health and social care, while also wanting overall numbers reduced. This shows attitudes are complex and shaped by trade-offs, not simple “for or against” positions.
Settlement and integration reflect deeper public values.
Decisions about who can settle permanently in the UK are not just technical. They raise questions about:
- What counts as a meaningful contribution
- What “good integration” looks like
- What responsibilities are shared between newcomers, communities and the state
If these value-based questions aren’t openly addressed, reforms risk further damaging public trust.
Polling and consultations don’t capture considered public judgement.
Traditional tools like opinion polls and formal consultations often:
- Capture “top of mind” reactions
- Over-represent highly engaged or organised groups
- Miss the quieter, moderate majority
This leaves a gap in understanding how the public would weigh real trade-offs if given time, information and space to deliberate.
Deliberation can unlock better policy and rebuild trust.
The report argues that structured public deliberation - where a representative group of citizens engages with evidence, hears different perspectives and works through trade-offs - can:
- Surface shared values and areas of consensus
- Produce more coherent and balanced public judgements
- Strengthen the legitimacy of immigration reforms
- Increase trust when people see that policy reflects considered public input
Evidence shows that when people know policies were shaped by citizens like them, support and trust increase.
A ‘new deal’ is needed.
The report calls for a new deal between the state and citizens on immigration. One where:
- Public trust and legitimacy are explicit goals of reform
- A national deliberative process helps define what “earned settlement” should mean
- Local, place-based deliberation shapes what integration looks like in practice
- Deliberation becomes a routine part of immigration policymaking
