Media coverage of Small Boat Crossings triggers immediate shift in UK immigration views, study finds

Irregular migration, and particularly small boat crossings across the English Channel, has become an incredibly polarising topic in public discourse, and a priority for previous and present governments. However, given its concealed nature, little research has been done to understand how small boat crossings can influence public opinion and attitudes about immigration in real time.

Recent research from the University of Birmingham has revealed that coverage of small but salient events can disproportionately shape public sentiment about immigration through media framing and individuals’ prior beliefs.

Dr Apurav Bhatiya, Assistant Professor in Economics at the University of Birmingham, who led the research, said: “Irregular migration is one of the most politically charged issues across the UK, Europe and the US. Last month, there were huge protests in Los Angeles, in Europe, countries are grappling with people arriving by boat via the Mediterranean, and in the UK, small boat crossings across the Channel have become a major flashpoint. Successive governments have pledged to ‘Stop the Boats’ and `Smash the Gangs’.

"High-profile coverage of large numbers of small boat Channel crossings, and stories of people losing their lives whilst making the journey, has been assumed to shape public opinion, but our research shows the direct impact for the first time.”

The researchers took the British Election Study, which tracks the same individuals over time and merged it with daily data on small boat arrivals. This allows them to compare someone’s views on immigration in, say, 2018 or 2019—when small boat arrivals were low (more like a 1000 per year) and not much discussed—to their views in 2023 or 2024, especially if they were surveyed just after a spike in small boat arrivals.

The study finds that small boat arrivals lead to a noticeable drop in public support for immigration. The survey asks people, on a scale from 0 to 10, how many migrants they think the UK should allow —where 0 means many fewer and 10 means many more. If someone is interviewed just after a spike in small boat arrivals, they are significantly more likely to say they want fewer migrants.

The surveys also ask which category of migrants people don't want. There are 5 categories: asylum seekers, EU migrants, non-EU migrants, foreign students and families of existing migrants. The study found the largest decline to be among foreign students and non-EU migrants, followed by a decline in support for families of existing migrants and migrants from the EU. Showing that the impact of small boat crossings is not contained to irregular migration—it also spills over into legal routes.

Dr Bhatiya said: “Irregular migration is not new to the UK. For years, people have arrived by air without papers or hidden in lorries or freight vehicles. But what is new is the visibility of small boat crossings. These events are captured on video, reported in the news, and often politicised. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of public sentiment to acute, visible migration events leading to a broader backlash against all forms of immigration.”

The research found that one of the key channels driving this is media consumption. What we know—and how we feel—is shaped by how media cover the issue. Right-leaning newspapers like the Daily Mail or The Sun are much more likely to report on small boat arrivals than left-leaning ones like The Guardian or The Mirror. In fact, for every article in a left-leaning outlet, there are about 2.5 articles in a right-leaning one. And when small boat arrivals go up, it is the right-leaning media that ramps up their coverage more aggressively.

The British Election Study also asks people which newspaper they read. Among non-newspaper readers, immigration attitudes do not change. But right-leaning newspaper readers become less supportive of immigration, while left-leaning readers show a slight increase in support. This reflects how framing matters: right-leaning media highlight law, security, and threats, prompting fear and calls for border control, whereas left-leaning media focus on humanitarian stories, evoking compassion and support.

Reports of fatal incidents, where migrants have lost their lives while making crossings, were found to have a statistically insignificant impact on support for immigration. Across the 2018–2024 period, only 8% of days were preceded by a fatal incident, with 128 incidents and 231 total deaths recorded. The researchers suggest that these humanitarian events, though morally relevant, may not occur frequently or receive prominent enough coverage to shift aggregate public sentiment.

Dr Bhatiya concluded: “Our research points to a real challenge for how we design immigration policy. Two people can see the same event and come away with completely different views, depending on how that event was framed. And that makes the whole immigration debate ideologically polarised, and it becomes harder to find a common ground. For UK policymakers, the key takeaway is this: controlling the narrative is as important as controlling the border. These small boat arrivals are a tiny fraction of the overall immigration, but they have an out-sized impact on public perceptions.”