To What Extent Does Asylum Policy Match Public Policy Preferences?

Although a large body of research demonstrates that policymakers generally respond to citizens' preferences, immigration issues are often thought to elude this model of representation. It has been widely argued that immigration policymaking is characterized by an "opinion-policy gap" whereby immigration policies are more permissive than public preferences. However, we argue that immigration policy preferences have been poorly measured. Adopting a multidimensional approach, we disaggregate immigration into its component policies and focus specifically on asylum policy preferences. We test whether current asylum policies align with public opinion in Britain using an original conjoint experiment with realistic policy choices relative to the status quo. Contrary to the gap hypothesis, we show that the British public is not consistently in favor of more restrictive asylum policies. Our findings suggest that immigration policy preferences can be better understood by disaggregating the multidimensional policy field of immigration.