Immigration is a hot topic across the UK, often clouded by myths and political rhetoric. In October 2025, the North East Migration Partnership (NEMP), working with regional Police and Crime Commissioners, released a new “Myth Busting Migration Facts” leaflet to counter falsehoods about refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. The launch aimed to tackle misinformation and rising hate crime across the North East. (North East Migration Partnership)

With heated debates around recent and current policies – from the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (designed to detain and remove those arriving by small boats) to the now-scrapped Rwanda scheme – it’s more important than ever to separate fact from fiction. The Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful in November 2023, and after Labour took office in July 2024, the Prime Minister confirmed the plan was “dead and buried.” (Supreme Court UK) Despite earlier slogans like “stop the boats” and even talk of an “invasion” of the southern coast, the evidence tells a different story. Below, we expand each myth with up-to-date statistics and sources, contrasting the leaflet’s facts with common misconceptions and political narratives.

Myth: The UK Takes More Than It’s Fair Share of Asylum Seekers

It’s often claimed that the UK is “full” or “being flooded” with refugees – a sentiment amplified by headlines and even a former Home Secretary’s “invasion” remarks (theguardian.com). The reality is that, relative to other countries, Britain takes a modest share of the world’s asylum seekers and refugees:

• Small Fraction of Global Refugees: At the end of 2024, the UK had around 448,000 refugees, which is under 0.7% of the UK population (nemp.org.uk). That’s roughly 0.5% of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers (calderdale.cityofsanctuary.org) – a drop in the ocean compared to nations like Turkey, Pakistan or Uganda, which each host millions. The vast majority of people fleeing war or persecution remain in neighboring countries, not in the UK (calderdale.cityofsanctuary.org).
• Mid-Table in Europe: Despite perceptions, Britain is nowhere near the top destination in Europe. In 2024, the UK received about 108,000 asylum applications, ranking 5th in absolute numbers among European nations – but only 17th per capita (relative to population size) (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). In other words, many European countries take more asylum seekers per head of population than we do. For example, Germany and France consistently handle far more claims when adjusted for population.
• Asylum Seekers ≠ Most Immigrants: Asylum seekers make up a small portion of people coming to the UK. In 2024 they accounted for just ~10% of total immigration (calderdale.cityofsanctuary.org). Most immigrants arrive for work, study or family reasons under controlled visa routes – not to claim asylum. Indeed, 69% of non-EU immigrants in 2024 came to Britain for work or study (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk), contributing skills and tuition fees.

Given these facts, the UK’s intake is proportionally low. Yet the political climate often suggests otherwise. The government has pursued hardline measures like the Illegal Migration Act – which bars anyone arriving “illegally” from settling in the UK (gov.uk) – and a Rwanda relocation scheme to deter Channel crossings (commonslibrary.parliament.uk). These policies were sold on the premise that Britain is overwhelmed, even though Britain’s share of the refugee challenge is relatively small. The Supreme Court in 2023 struck down the Rwanda plan as unlawful (finding Rwanda not “safe” for asylum) (commonslibrary.parliament.uk), highlighting how far the debate has shifted from focusing on global cooperation to harsh deterrence.

Fact: The UK is not bearing an outsized refugee burden – our asylum numbers are modest by international standards

Claims that we take “more than our fair share” are simply not backed by the data. Far from being “invaded,” Britain is handling a manageable level of asylum claims, and poorer countries continue to host the lion’s share of refugees globally.

Myth: Migrants Drain Our Public Resources

A persistent myth is that migrants are a strain on public services and the economy – using up NHS appointments, school places, and welfare budgets without contributing. This narrative, popular in some media, paints migration as a net cost to the taxpayer. In reality, credible analyses show the opposite: migrants tend to contribute more than they take.

• Net Fiscal Contribution: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) found that an average migrant will contribute £341,000 more in taxes than they consume in public services over their lifetime (for a migrant arriving at age 25 and working till retirement) (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). In fact, because the UK hasn’t borne the cost of their childhood education or healthcare, a working-age migrant’s lifetime contribution can exceed that of a UK-born person on the same salary (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). The Migration Observatory confirms that under a range of studies, the overall fiscal impact of immigration is small but generally positive – often less than ±1% of GDP (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk), with recent migrants contributing more than longer-resident ones.
• Boosting the Budget, Not Burdening It: Higher immigration can actually improve the public finances by bringing in younger, working-age taxpayers. OBR forecasts typically find higher net migration reduces government borrowing and debt over the long term (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). For example, one projection estimated that keeping net migration at 245,000 instead of 129,000 per year would shrink the UK’s budget deficit by 1.1% of GDP by 2073 (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). Migrants help delay the fiscal pressures of an ageing native population by replenishing the workforce (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk).
• Public Services & Jobs: Migrants don’t just “use” public resources – they are public resources in many cases. They staff our hospitals, build our infrastructure, and start businesses. Consider the NHS: over 20% of NHS England staff are non-UK nationals (theguardian.com), including 30% of nurses and 36% of doctors trained overseas (theguardian.com). Far from draining the NHS, without migrant doctors and nurses the health service “could have buckled” under pressure (theguardian.com). Similarly, in social care, agriculture, hospitality and construction, migrant workers fill crucial shortages, keeping services running and prices stable.

To be sure, there is an upfront cost in areas like asylum support. The UK’s failure to process asylum claims quickly has led to a backlog – housing thousands of claimants in hotels at an estimated £8 million per day (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). But this is largely a policy and bureaucracy issue: if asylum decisions were faster, many of those people could be working and supporting themselves. The broader picture remains that immigrants contribute significantly to the economy over time, and there’s no evidence of an overall drain on public finances (durham-pcc.gov.uk).

Fact: Migrants as a group pay more into the system than they take out. They help fund public services and alleviate labour shortages rather than overwhelming them (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk) Portraying migrants as a fiscal burden is not supported by OBR data or economic research – on the contrary, sensible levels of immigration can strengthen the public purse and support the very services we all rely on.

Myth: They’re Only Here for the Benefits

A common sceptical view holds that people come to Britain to live off benefits and “freebies” – that refugees and migrants are drawn by a generous welfare system. Tabloid stories about asylum seekers getting put up in hotels or receiving phones feed this belief. The truth is that migrants are actually less likely to claim benefits than UK-born people, and asylum seekers in particular have extremely limited support:

• Migrants Claim Less Welfare: Studies show foreign-born residents are less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK-born residents of similar age and status (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). For example, among unemployed people in 2019–21, about 50% of UK citizens were on some form of benefits, compared to only 21% of non-EU migrants who had arrived within 5 years (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). This reflects both eligibility rules and the fact many migrants come to work. The vast majority of welfare claimants are British citizens. Government data released in 2025 revealed that 83.6% of Universal Credit claimants are UK or Irish nationals, while refugees accounted for just 1.5% of claimants (the-independent.com). In other words, out of ~8 million people on UC, only about 119,000 were refugees (the-independent.com) – hardly an invasion of the welfare system.
• Asylum Seekers Cannot Access Mainstream Benefits: People who are claiming asylum have “No Recourse to Public Funds” – meaning they cannot claim benefits like Universal Credit, housing benefit or child benefit while their application is pending (the-independent.com / reuters.com). Instead, asylum seekers can apply for a basic subsistence allowance and accommodation from the Home Office if they would otherwise be destitute. That support is minimal: currently £45–£50 per week (about £7 per day) for food, clothing and essentials (coventry.gov.uk). There are no luxuries – despite myths, the government doesn’t hand out free phones or lavish payments (coventry.gov.uk). In fact, some asylum seekers receive as little as £9.95 a week if housed in full-board hostels (coventry.gov.uk). It’s subsistence living, not exactly the allure of “benefit tourism”.
• “They come for benefits” is a Myth: Most migrants come for work, study or family – not to live on handouts. Asylum seekers, by definition, come seeking safety from persecution, not economic gain. Surveys find that many asylum seekers know little or nothing about UK benefits before arriving (nemp.org.uk). Far from trying to avoid work, 94% of asylum seekers say they wish to work and contribute if given the chance (calderdale.cityofsanctuary.org). (The UK’s own rules usually bar them from working for at least 12 months, one of the longest work bans in Europe – coventry.gov.uk.) It’s also worth noting that net migration is driven by those who do work – work visas hit record highs – whereas those coming purely to exploit welfare would not qualify for visas or asylum.

Government rhetoric often emphasises restricting migrants’ access to benefits – for instance, proposals to bar newly arrived workers or students from certain benefits, or politicians arguing that “benefits should be for UK citizens only.” In reality, the rules are already strict, and migrants either don’t qualify or simply don’t use welfare at high rates. The image of the “benefit-shopping” immigrant is a caricature unsupported by data (durham-pcc.gov.uk).

Fact: People do not flock to Britain to milk the benefits system. Migrants are less likely to be on benefits than natives (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk), and asylum seekers have no access to most welfare at all (the-independent.com). The small asylum allowance provided is a lifeline to prevent destitution, set at subsistence levels. Far from a draw, the UK’s limited support often leaves refugees starting from nothing. Most would much rather work and support themselves – contributing to the economy – than depend on state support they’re ineligible to receive.

Myth: Asylum Seekers Get Priority Housing Over Brits

Among the more emotive myths is the idea that refugees or asylum seekers are “jumping the queue” for social housing, leaving British families at the back of the line. This claim has been splashed in the papers – for example, a headline about migrants “leaving locals out in the cold” by taking council flats. Such stories fuel resentment, but they misrepresent how housing actually works:

• No Right to Social Housing for Asylum Seekers: By law, asylum seekers are not entitled to council housing (reuters.com). Local authorities do not allocate social housing to people with pending asylum claims. Instead, if an asylum seeker has nowhere to live, they can get Home Office-arranged accommodation – typically in modest hostels or shared houses, often in cheaper areas of the country (reuters.com). This is entirely separate from council housing. A recent fact-check by Reuters was blunt: claims of asylum seekers jumping the housing queue are “Misleading. Asylum seekers cannot jump the queue because they are not even on it” (reuters.com)
• Basic Home Office Accommodation, Not “Free Houses”: The housing provided to destitute asylum applicants is basic and temporary. Often it’s in former hotels or hostels repurposed as holding accommodation – small rooms, sometimes shared, with no choice over location (coventry.gov.uk). The government’s “dispersal” policy deliberately places asylum seekers where housing is cheaper or more available, not in high-demand council flats (coventry.gov.uk). Asylum seekers do not own these properties and must leave them once their case is decided. It’s a stark contrast to the myth of migrants getting keys to new council houses.
• Refugees Face the Same Housing Criteria: If an asylum seeker wins refugee status, they no longer get Home Office housing after a short grace period (28 days to move out). At that point, they have the same rights (and struggles) as any UK resident who needs housing. They can apply for social housing or homelessness assistance, but refugees get no automatic priority on council waiting lists (coventry.gov.uk). Social housing in the UK is allocated based on need – factors like homelessness, disability, family size – not on nationality. A refugee with children who becomes homeless may get temporary housing, but this is because councils must assist any resident homeless family. They stand in the same queue as British families under the same criteria (reuters.com). In fact, many newly recognized refugees struggle to find any home – charities report that a significant number end up homeless after their asylum support ends (calderdale.cityofsanctuary.org), hardly living in luxury.

Local authorities and housing associations have been clear: “Asylum seekers are not housed by the council and not in council housing stock.” They simply do not displace anyone on council house waiting lists (reuters.com). Yet the myth of queue-jumping persists, often inflamed by sensational media stories. For instance, in late 2024, a Facebook post cited by Reuters claimed asylum seekers from a barge were getting council houses in Worksop over locals (reuters.com). The council refuted this, confirming none of its housing list was affected (reuters.com). Unfortunately, such myths gain traction and can drive anger toward migrants.

Fact: Asylum seekers cannot and do not “jump” the social housing queue (reuters.com). They are housed separately by the Home Office in interim accommodation and are ineligible for council housing. Even once granted refuge, they must apply like anyone else, with no special advantage (coventry.gov.uk). Social housing is allocated on need – not ethnicity or origin – and British citizens are the majority of those housed. The image of refugees taking homes from local families is a myth that has been debunked by councils and fact-checkers (reuters.com).

Myth: Migrants Bring Crime to Our Streets

Do migrants make the country less safe? Some high-profile voices suggest a link between immigration and crime, implying that asylum seekers might be criminals or that certain nationalities are responsible for a wave of offenses. In truth, there is no evidence that migrants commit more crime than anyone else in the UK – and in some cases, the data shows they are less likely to offend:

• No Overall “Crime Wave” from Migration: According to police and academic studies, migrants are not disproportionately involved in crime. The North East Myth Busters leaflet flatly noted “no evidence to suggest that migrants increase crime” (durham-pcc.gov.uk). National statistics back this up. In England and Wales (2024), about 13% of all convictions and cautions went to non-UK citizens – roughly in line with their share of the population (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). Similarly, around 12.4% of the prison population were foreign nationals (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk) which is proportionate to – if not slightly lower than – the foreign-national share of residents. Crucially, when you adjust for the fact that migrants are, on average, younger and more male (demographics more likely to offend regardless of nationality), non-citizens are under-represented in prisons compared to UK citizens of the same age (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). In other words, a young man is statistically more likely to commit a crime than an older woman – and migrants skew young – but a young migrant and a young Brit have similar likelihood of offending. Controlling for age and gender, migrants were actually slightly less likely to be imprisoned than natives in 2025 (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk).
• Myths and Misinformation: Claims about migrant criminality often stem from misuse of statistics. For example, sensational statements have circulated (and been debunked) about certain asylum-seeker nationalities being “20 times more likely” to commit particular crimes – figures experts say are not reliable given small sample sizes and population uncertainty (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). The government’s own data shows variation by offense type (foreign nationals are a higher share of certain offenses like foreign drug couriers, but lower in categories like violent crime) (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk), and large differences by nationality. But broad-brush claims that asylum seekers as a whole pose a crime threat are not supported by evidence. In fact, refugees undergo security screening as part of their asylum application. Many are survivors of violence and persecution themselves, keen to rebuild their lives lawfully. As the Coventry City Council explains, the “vast majority are law-abiding”, and irresponsible rumours linking asylum seekers to crime can fuel harmful stigma and even vigilante attacks (coventry.gov.uk).
• Hate Crimes Rising: Ironically, migrants are often more likely to be victims of crime (particularly hate crime) than perpetrators. Police data in late 2025 showed notable increases in hate crime in regions with heated migration debates (durham-pcc.gov.uk) Misinformation and inflammatory language can contribute to this spike. For instance, not long after the “invasion” rhetoric hit headlines, there was a firebomb attack on a migrant processing centre (theguardian.com). This underscores that false links between immigration and crime don’t just mislead – they can incite real harm against innocent people.

Fact: Migrants do not drive up crime rates – they commit roughly no more (or fewer) crimes than the general population once you account for demographics (migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk). Law enforcement and refugee organisations alike report no evidence that asylum seekers make communities unsafe (durham-pcc.gov.uk). On the contrary, those fleeing conflict usually want nothing more than to live peacefully under the law. The myth of migrant criminality is often propagated by cherry-picked or distorted figures, whereas reputable statistics show no general crime increase due to immigration. We should be cautious of scaremongering narratives and focus on facts: crime is a complex issue, but blaming migrants as a whole is unsupported and unjust.

Myth: Migrants Take Jobs from UK Workers

“They’re taking our jobs!” is a familiar refrain in immigration debates. The assumption is that there are a fixed number of jobs, and every migrant worker means one fewer opportunity for a British citizen. Politicians at times echo this, suggesting that reducing migration would open up jobs for domestic workers. However, economists and employment data consistently find that the labour market is not a zero-sum game. Migrants often fill essential roles and create jobs, and there’s scant evidence that they cause mass unemployment or wage suppression overall:

• Key Part of the Workforce: Migrants make up a significant and productive part of the UK workforce. As of late 2024, 19% of people employed in the UK were born abroad (about 5.75 million workers)migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk. They are especially prevalent in sectors with labour shortages. For example, migrants are over-represented in health and social care, hospitality, agriculture, and food processingmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk – jobs that need workers and often struggle to recruit locally. Far from replacing British workers, they are plugging gaps and keeping industries afloat. The care sector, for instance, has benefited from dedicated visa schemes because there simply weren’t enough care workers; by 2024 a record number of NHS nurses were being recruited overseas to meet staffing targetstheguardian.comtheguardian.com. If all those migrant workers were removed overnight, hospitals, farms, and restaurants would face crisis.
• No Surge in Joblessness: The UK has enjoyed low unemployment in recent years even as immigration reached record highs. This aligns with research that immigration generally does not cause higher unemployment among native workers. Migrants often take jobs that complement, rather than substitute, the local labour force – or they do jobs that would otherwise remain vacant. For instance, three in ten nurses and over a third of doctors in England are non-UK nationalstheguardian.com because we haven’t been able to train and retain enough nurses and doctors domestically. Those migrant medics aren’t displacing British doctors; they’re filling an NHS staffing shortfall. Likewise, seasonal farm work or certain STEM jobs have long relied on migrant labour. Overall, the evidence suggests immigration has a small effect on wages and employment – some studies find a slight downward pressure on low-wage sectors, others find negligible impact or even slight boosts in productivity that create more jobs. The Migration Advisory Committee and other expert bodies have repeatedly concluded that “lump of labour” fears are largely unfounded. Immigrants often start new businesses and spend money in the economy, which generates demand and jobs.
• Changing Policy, Same Outcome: The UK’s post-Brexit immigration system tightened routes for lower-skilled work (ending free movement from the EU) but opened others (like skilled visas and seasonal schemes). Employers in many industries lobbied for more visas because they needed migrant workers. Even with a government rhetorically committed to reducing net migration, the reality is that British businesses, universities and the NHS have actively recruited from abroad to meet their needs. This indicates that migrants are filling real economic needs, not gratuitously “stealing” jobs. Meanwhile, net migration levels have fluctuated without clear correlation to any employment crisis – for instance, net migration was very high in 2022–23 but unemployment remained around 4%. That’s no coincidence: immigration tends to occur when an economy is growing and creating jobs (or needs skills), whereas in recessions immigration falls. Migrant workers usually come when there is work to be done.

Fact: There’s no fixed pie of jobs that migrants slice away. They often take up jobs vacant or in demand, and help drive economic growth that can create jobs. The data shows no overall harm to employment prospects of UK-born workers – on the contrary, sectors from the NHS to tech have thrived thanks in part to international talent. Migrants also contribute entrepreneurial energy, founding companies and stimulating innovation. While, of course, localized impacts can exist (and support can help areas adapt), the blanket statement that “immigrants are taking jobs” is a myth not borne out by employment statistics. Britain’s challenge is more about skills and training than about shutting out foreign workers. Indeed, a balanced approach acknowledges that migrants and local workers together keep the economy dynamic and prosperous.

Conclusion: Replacing Myths with Facts

Public debate on migration is often charged with emotion and political posturing. The government’s pledge to reduce net migration – after record highs over the past decade – reflects legitimate policy questions about population and infrastructure, but it has also been accompanied by exaggerated rhetoric. For years, a target of “tens of thousands” was touted and never metmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk, and even today policies are introduced to curtail visas for students and workersmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk despite businesses warning of skill shortages. It’s crucial that any discussion or new law is grounded in reality, not misconceptions.

The myths addressed above – that the UK is overrun with refugees, that migrants are a drain, benefit scroungers, queue-jumpers, criminals, or job thieves – do not hold up under scrutiny. Each claim is contradicted by solid evidence from sources like the Home Office, Office for National Statistics, independent experts at the Migration Observatory, the Refugee Council, and international bodies like UNHCR. By examining the data:

• We see the UK takes a measured share of asylum seekers relative to other nationsmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.ukcalderdale.cityofsanctuary.org.
• Migrants enrich the public coffers and workforce, rather than deplete themmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uktheguardian.com.
• Asylum seekers receive minimal public support and have no special advantages over citizens in housing or benefitsreuters.comcoventry.gov.uk.
• And migrants are largely law-abiding contributors, not a criminal threatdurham-pcc.gov.ukmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk.

Understanding these facts is not about painting an unrealistically rosy picture – it’s about ensuring the conversation is honest. Like all populations, migrants are individuals: most work hard, some need help, a few might break laws. But as a group, their impact on Britain has been broadly positive, economically and sociallydurham-pcc.gov.ukcoventry.gov.uk. They staff hospitals, start businesses, care for our elderly, and yes, pay taxes that support public services.

In a time of rapid change, it’s natural for people to have concerns about immigration. The best way to address those concerns is through evidence-based dialogue. By busting myths, we can replace fear with facts and foster a discussion that is calm, informed and humane. Policies on migration – whether welcoming refugees or managing work visas – should be driven by reality, not falsehoods. The 2024 leaflet and this article aim to empower readers with the truth: so the next time someone claims “they’re all just coming for handouts” or “Britain is full,” you’ll have the numbers and sources to set the record straightdurham-pcc.gov.ukcalderdale.cityofsanctuary.org.

In the end, migration is a complex issue, but the facts make one thing clear: we have far more to gain from understanding and integrating those who come to our shores than from fearing them. Keeping the conversation grounded in facts and compassion will benefit both the UK-born and newcomers alike, building stronger communities on a foundation of reality rather than myth.

Sources: Office for Budget Responsibility, Migration Observatory, Refugee Council, UNHCR, Home Office, Reuters Fact Check, House of Commons Library, Coventry City Council, North East Migration Partnership (Myth Busters leaflet