Immigration has become the defining issue in British politics, with public concern reaching levels unmatched anywhere else in the world. According to a worldwide Gallup poll published on February 12, 2026, a staggering 21% of Britons now name immigration as their top concern—far outpacing the Netherlands and Cyprus, where only 13% of respondents felt the same. In a global context, the median across 107 countries was just 1%, underscoring how singularly preoccupied the UK has become with this issue.
This mounting anxiety is playing out against a backdrop of political maneuvering and sweeping policy reforms. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who took office with a pledge to confront the rise of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party, has made immigration a central battleground. Starmer, determined to focus his efforts on Farage rather than internal Labour disputes, appointed Shabana Mahmood as home secretary in September 2025 with a clear mandate: toughen up the nation’s approach to migration.
Mahmood’s flagship policy, announced soon after her appointment, is nothing short of a sea change. Legal migrants must now reside in the UK for 10 years—double the previous requirement—before they can claim permanent residency. The policy also introduces a raft of new restrictions on asylum seekers, forming part of a broader government pledge to clamp down on illegal migration and overhaul the indefinite leave to remain system. As Starmer put it, the goal is to “take the battle” to Farage and Reform UK, rather than squabbling within his own party.
Yet, the government’s tough stance has not gone unchallenged. Amnesty International UK has been scathing in its assessment of the reforms. In a statement released on February 12, 2026, Amnesty described the government’s new direction as “cruel”, “inefficient”, and “costly”. The group’s criticism centers on a policy document published in November 2025, titled A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: A statement on earned settlement, which outlines the proposed changes in detail.
Among the most controversial measures are those that make permanent residency less accessible. The time migrants must spend in the immigration system before applying for residency is increased, except for those with higher English proficiency, high earnings, senior public service roles, or extensive volunteering experience. Conversely, the wait is extended for individuals who arrive on visitor visas, breach immigration rules, or have ever received public funds. Permanent residency is to be denied outright to anyone with a criminal conviction, outstanding litigation, or debts to the NHS, tax authorities, or other government bodies.
Amnesty warns that these changes could have far-reaching consequences, especially for children born in the UK to long-term residents who have not yet achieved citizenship or permanent residency. The organization points out that, while the British Nationality Act 1981 entitles such children to citizenship, the process is poorly understood and riddled with barriers. According to Amnesty, “many children who grow up here are at risk of losing their citizenship rights altogether.”
The reforms are also expected to undermine integration and place significant financial strain on migrants, who will face additional application fees and repeated charges for the migrant health surcharge. “At best, people will be made less welcome and more marginalised. At worst, people will be made more at risk of destitution, homelessness, ill-health, and exploitation,” Amnesty states.
Further complicating matters, the reforms may increase pressure on the European Convention on Human Rights. Amnesty argues that the proposals are “likely to increase pressure on the European Convention on Human Rights by not satisfying those who are antagonistic to both that Convention and migrant rights, while increasing reliance on human rights laws by migrant people seeking to protect themselves against the proposals’ worst consequences.” The group cautions that this could ultimately threaten the UK’s commitment to the Convention.
There is also a concern that the government’s approach could stoke xenophobia and racism. Amnesty’s statement is blunt: “The proposals are highly likely to reward and fuel xenophobia and racism, which are a direct response to the government’s hostility towards migrant people.” The organization urges the government to reconsider, warning against the creation of a “US-style system, full of fear and hatred.”
Public concern over immigration is not occurring in a vacuum. The Gallup poll suggests that media coverage and a lack of reliable data have played a significant role in shaping attitudes. Research by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, published in December 2025, found that the government lacks basic information about the number of unauthorized migrants in the country, as well as what happens to asylum seekers before and after their initial claims. The Observatory warns that the absence of solid data leaves the public “in the dark about the true impact of immigration on the UK.”
Steve Smith, CEO of Care4Calais, echoed these concerns, telling The Independent: “The public debate on migration is full of politically motivated rhetoric, and almost entirely devoid of facts. It’s a dangerous situation that is undoubtedly inflaming hate and bolstering far-right actors.”
The Gallup poll reveals that attitudes toward immigration in the UK are not only more intense than elsewhere, but also deeply divided along political lines. Nearly half (48%) of Reform UK supporters see immigration as the biggest problem facing the country—double the proportion among supporters of any other major party in Europe. Conservative supporters are also more concerned (23%) than their right-of-center counterparts elsewhere, and even Labour supporters (16%) express higher levels of worry than most left-of-center voters across the continent.
Demographic factors further color the debate. Adults aged 55 and over, those with less education, and people “getting by” on their household income are especially likely to prioritize immigration as a top concern. In the UK, worries about immigration are now statistically tied with concerns about the economy (23%), a unique situation not mirrored in any other nation surveyed.
Despite the UK having a foreign-born population of about 17%—comparable to the US (15%), Norway (18%), and the Netherlands (16%)—Britons are far more likely to see immigration as the country’s most pressing problem. The reasons for this disconnect are complex, but the prominence of immigration in the news and the politicization of the issue seem to have played a major role.
As the government pushes forward with its reforms, the debate shows no sign of cooling. With public anxiety at a global high and critics warning of dire social consequences, the UK stands at a crossroads—facing tough choices about what kind of country it wants to be, and how it will treat those who seek to make it their home.