Why do so many well-meaning campaigns to change people’s hearts and minds on immigration fall flat? Despite overwhelming economic evidence of immigration’s benefits, public skepticism remains entrenched. Furthermore, as seen by the recent reversal of public opinion in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, even the existing immigration support may often be more fragile than it appears and cannot be taken for granted. As a result of such public negativity, many politicians reasonably fear backlash and consider major reforms unfeasible.
In Our Interest takes an earnest look at this predicament and offers a pragmatic roadmap for change. Although based on years of survey data collection and analysis from around the world, my core argument is simple: simply telling people immigration is good is not enough. To build and retain support, democratic governments must also demonstrate how immigration benefits their citizens through their policies in an explicit and straightforward way.
Populist rhetoric tends to energize preexisting anti-immigration sentiment rather than convert those who are undecided or indifferent.
Indeed, decades of efforts to sway public opinion through information campaigns and moral appeals across the world have done little to shift the needle. What ultimately resonates with voters is not some special rhetoric or a particularly good story. It’s tangible results—policies that create visible, measurable improvements in their lives, even if it takes a long time. From drawing skilled talent and addressing labor shortages to revitalizing regions and reuniting families, the key to making immigration popular lies in aligning policies with the public’s understanding of what’s good for their country.
Attitude Stability and the Limits of Persuasion
Why have decades of advocacy struggled to change minds? My earlier research, which inspired my book, showed that people’s general views on immigration remain remarkably stable, even amid major political events or economic changes. Drawing on longitudinal panel studies where the same people are interviewed over the years, my colleagues and I found that the vast majority of people maintain consistent views on immigration issues throughout their lives. This stability likely stems from deep-seated personality traits like openness or ethnocentrism and early-life socialization.
Labeling opponents of immigration as ‘racists’ does little to change their views.
This underlying stability of people’s orientation toward immigration also helps us understand the limits of informational campaigns.
While big political events like a refugee crisis may shift people’s views in the short term, I find that these changes are small, and they eventually revert back to people’s initial beliefs.
So, if a refugee crisis doesn’t change people’s worldview much in the long run, your new article—including this one—probably won’t do it either.
At the same time, this stability offers some resilience against misinformation and negative rhetoric. While making people more supportive of immigration is challenging, it is equally difficult to significantly deepen hostility.
Populist rhetoric, for instance, tends to energize preexisting anti-immigration sentiment rather than convert those who are undecided or indifferent. The media plays a vital role in informing the public within a democracy, but these efforts are already widespread and unlikely to significantly shift public opinion on immigration.
Most People Have a Conditional Preference for Better Immigration
Yet, the stability of immigration attitudes is not absolute. While broad opinions on immigration may be resistant to change, people’s views on specific policies like H-1B visas or their “thermostatic” response in terms of wanting more or less immigration can be more malleable.
The way I suggest thinking about that is that most people have “conditional preferences”—their underlying opinions on immigration may not change much, but they may want more or less of it under certain conditions, such as better border control or more selectivity in terms of who gets in.
Conventional wisdom often attributes opposition to immigration to racial prejudice, and there is much truth to this. However, this insight is not particularly actionable. Labeling opponents of immigration as ‘racists’ does little to change their views. Moreover, research shows that ethnocentric personality traits, which underpin much of this opposition, are likely even more stable than attitudes toward immigration itself.
Encouragingly, however, I find that only 10-20% of voters in democracies around the world categorically oppose most types of immigration. A roughly similar proportion, by contrast, are staunchly humanitarian, willing to accept many migrants even at significant personal or national cost.
This means that, while immigration is unlikely to become popular on humanitarian grounds alone, the vast majority of people should be open to changing their minds under the right circumstances. Most voters are what I call “altruistic nationalists”—individuals who support or oppose immigration based on whether policies are “demonstrably beneficial.”
Their reasoning is sociotropic: they assess immigration not by how it affects them personally but by its perceived impact on their country as a whole. Importantly, this support is more than just cheap talk. In a series of experiments, I found that individuals who donate to domestic charities over global ones are also more likely to view immigration through the lens of national contribution.
Therefore, most people are not inherently opposed to immigration, but their support is conditional. They prioritize the welfare of their compatriots and evaluate immigration policies based on perceived national benefits. When immigration is framed as a threat to jobs or cultural cohesion—a common occurrence—their opposition solidifies. However, when freer immigration policies are expected to deliver positive outcomes for their country, they are willing to support them.
Explaining that Immigration is Actually Good One More Time Won’t Work
Advocates often invest significant energy in reframing the immigration debate, focusing on peripheral issues rather than addressing core policy challenges. Some pro-immigration writers, for instance, concentrate on the language used to refer to various types of migrants. Debates over terminology—such as whether to use “undocumented” or “illegal,” “immigrants” or “migrants”—have become prominent among activists. But, as some have noted, focusing on debating euphemisms in the immigration debate does little to address the underlying issues with real competing interests at stake or develop practical policy solutions that offer mutual benefits.
Programs addressing specific economic needs, such as labor shortages or regional revitalization, can be particularly effective.
The challenge of making immigration popular is also not just about constantly emphasizing the benefits of immigration at the expense of often sensationalist negative claims. Some immigration policies and approaches are objectively better than others, as may be evidenced, for example, by the much lower immigrant crime rate in the United States compared to most European countries. Even if everyone adopts the right language overnight, practical challenges like fiscal burdens, overcrowding, assimilation, and security will not go away by themselves.
The findings in my book point to an alternative path: instead of changing people’s overarching negativity toward foreigners, policymakers should design policies aligned with the public’s conditional preferences for demonstrably beneficial immigration. The historical analysis of public opinion in my book shows that voters are far less influenced by language or storytelling than by clear evidence of immigration’s benefits. What resonates with voters is not the words we use but the results they see. This takes time and resolve, but the only effective way to change minds is for governments to deliver policies that yield clear, demonstrable outcomes.
What Can Work: Adopting Policies That Demonstrate Benefits to the Nation
In some ways, we already know that some immigration can be popular, such as in the case of overwhelming support for the immigration of foreign professionals. From country to country, we see that even those skeptical of immigration in general often express support for policies with clear benefits for the nation, such as programs to attract top talent.
The good news is that, while immigration cannot become popular in democracies on humanitarian grounds alone, policies showcasing national benefits extend beyond attracting the best and the brightest—from filling shortages and boosting regions to facilitating education and reuniting families.
Although making immigration popular is decidedly a top-down task that must be driven by governments in power, collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders such as researchers, think tanks, non-profits, and businesses is essential. These partners provide valuable insights and innovative ideas that help refine and adapt policies to real-world needs and challenges. By incorporating evidence-based strategies and diverse expertise, governments can create more effective, balanced policies that gain widespread support and foster long-term trust in immigration.
Programs addressing specific economic needs, such as labor shortages or regional revitalization, can be particularly effective. For instance, bilateral labor mobility agreements, such as Global Skill Partnerships popularized by think tanks and academics, bring skilled workers to sectors in need while simultaneously investing in training programs for the sending countries. These approaches create win-win scenarios that deliver tangible benefits, gaining public trust and avoiding backlash.
Lessons from and for Canada
Take Canada’s long-standing but much-reformed points-based immigration system as an example. This set of policies, which score potential migrants based on skills, education, local or employer demand, enjoys broad public support because its benefits are both tangible and easy to understand. Point systems may have their own problems, but they allow voters without a PhD in economics to see how the system aligns with national interests.
The historical success of Canada’s approach underscores a critical point: government policies that are demonstrably beneficial can build trust and support in ways that rhetoric alone cannot. By selecting migrants based on criteria like education combined with local needs, the system ensures that immigration serves the country’s best interest. This transparency and relative simplicity have fostered widespread trust with most Canadians, who still generally believe migration positively impacts the economy, despite all challenges and unlike most other countries.
Canada’s pragmatic approach underscores the critical importance of maintaining public trust and a sense of control over the immigration system, even from a global justice perspective. While Canada admits many immigrants through selective economic pathways, it also balances this with robust family sponsorship and humanitarian programs, welcoming more refugees and asylum seekers than most other wealthy democracies. Notably, Canada was the first country to successfully implement a private refugee sponsorship program, signaling to its citizens—and the world—that even vulnerable migrants can play a valuable role in local communities.
However, even the Canadian success is not preordained. Recent shifts in public mood highlight how quickly trust can erode when immigration policies are perceived as less demonstrably beneficial. The post-pandemic surge in immigration has strained housing and social services, while abuses of international student pathways have further fueled concerns. These challenges underscore the urgent need for the Canadian government to reassess its policies and reaffirm their tangible benefits. Notably, despite these issues, none of Canada’s mainstream parties have shown any desire to dismantle the country’s globally envied system of open yet selective immigration—a testament to the resilience of its foundational approach.
Conclusion: Breaking the Catch-22 of Making Immigration Popular
Making immigration popular is a challenging task, but it is ultimately doable. Many voters are uninformed and harbor negative views about the issue, creating fertile ground for populists to exploit with divisive rhetoric. The core challenge lies in breaking a political Catch-22: voters distrust immigration because they perceive governments as ineffective in managing it, while governments hesitate to enact meaningful reforms for fear of public backlash.
Overcoming this impasse requires more than compelling narratives—it demands responsible governance that directly addresses public concerns. Governments must meet voters where they are, delivering clear and demonstrable benefits through well-designed policies. Responsible policymakers should focus on creating reforms that align with national interests while minimizing the risk of sustained backlash. Whether helped by pro-immigration advocates or not, any feasible solution requires those in power to design and implement demonstrably beneficial policies.
By leveraging the conditional popularity of many forms of immigration and addressing voter concerns, governments can gradually shift public opinion and rebuild trust in a freer immigration system. This pragmatic approach offers a pathway to a sustainable and politically viable immigration framework—one that benefits both newcomers and host societies. However, it is crucial to recognize that building public trust on immigration is a long-term endeavor, extending beyond a single electoral cycle. While better policies are essential, they may not be sufficient to secure majority support for more open immigration in every context.
