British Attitudes and Welfare Policy Preferences Towards Migrant Labour During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Change or Continuity?

As the UK’s response to COVID-19 continues to unfold, some occupations have become more visible and valued by virtue of them being considered ‘essential’ or ‘key’ to the country’s ability to deal with the crisis. Large proportions of workers in these occupations and sectors are foreign-born, yet based on current immigration requirements based on salary and education, many would not qualify for permanent residency or publicly-funded benefits. Has the pandemic changed public attitudes and welfare policy preferences towards these groups? We report findings from an ongoing three-wave panel study (initial wave N = 5,022) which tracks how British respondents have been economically impacted by COVID-19 alongside an embedded conjoint experiment. The experiment measures preferences towards immigrant profiles that vary by national origins (comprising a variety of EU and non-EU countries) and occupations (essential and non-essential jobs). We investigate whether and how immigrants’ occupational essentialness—moderated by respondents’ own economic situations during the pandemic—impacts three outcomes: admission preferences; perceptions of economic impact; and willingness to extend access to a variety of welfare benefits including housing assistance, primary medical care, and Universal Credit (a form of payment for living costs). We also explore whether these patterns vary regionally, as different parts of the country continue to experience the pandemic and subsequent interventions differently. Our results not only speak theoretically and empirically to the dynamics of immigration attitudes during crises, but also to ongoing discussions about how governments should develop future immigration policies.