The public prefer migrant workers to asylum seekers

YouGov have published a lengthy piece of polling on attitudes towards immigration, conducted for a three party Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the subject. There's plenty of interest in the figures here.

What interested me most there is the contrast in attitudes towards asylum seekers and economic migrants. It may just be me, but in discussion of immigration, I often detect an underlying assumption that public are more well disposed towards asylum seekers than economic migrants, that they are more charitable towards people fleeing from danger than from people just after earning money. In fact, the poll suggests the opposite - the public are more positive towards economic migrants than they are towards asylum seekers.

38% of people thought that "most migrant workers" didn't contribute anything to the economy and are a drain on resources. Asked the same question about asylum seekers, 59% agreed (of course, this particular result may just be a recognition that while asylum seekers cases are being considered they are prevented by law from contributing to the economy). Asked what changes they would like to the immigration system, 29% said they would like to dramatically cut the number of asylum seekers, so most immigrants are migrant workers. Only 19% prefered to cut migrant workers so most immigrants were asylum seekers who "really needed our help".

It may be a sign that people are more concerned about whether immigrants contribute to the economy or not once they get here, rather than how 'deserving' they are to come here. Alternatively, it may just be that the term "asylum seeker" has picked up a lot of negative connetations from the tabloid media when migrant worker hasn't.