‘Debates about immigration are often framed in terms of jobs or economic pressure,’ Uysal says. ‘But what really matters is how people perceive fairness – essentially, collective beliefs about “our country” and “our resources”, and who is seen as entitled to access them.’

Perception of fairness trumps economic competition

Drawing on cross-national survey data from Europe and an original survey experiment in Turkey, the research challenges the long-standing idea that anti-immigrant attitudes are primarily driven by competition over scarce resources. Instead, it finds that people react most strongly when they feel that immigrants are receiving benefits or rights that they see as rightfully belonging to the native population. When these entitlements are perceived to be under threat, people are more likely to support stricter immigration controls and limits on immigrants’ rights after arrival.

This dynamic reflects what the dissertation describes as the “invisible borders of the mind” –symbolic lines that shape judgments about who should be allowed into a country, what rights they should be given, and whether they are seen as deserving members of society.

A central role for emotions

A key element of Uysal’s research is its focus on emotions. Rather than treating public opinion as driven by material self-interest alone, she shows that emotional responses play a decisive role in shaping attitudes. ‘Emotions are not just by-products of political opinions – they are a central part of the mechanism itself,’ she says.

In particular, anger and compassion emerge as powerful but opposing forces, much more so than anxiety, which is often assumed to drive opposition to immigration. Anger tends to arise when people perceive violations of fairness or group norms, leading to stronger opposition to immigrants. Compassion, by contrast, is triggered by awareness of immigrants’ hardship and can reduce exclusionary attitudes.

Why welfare remains contested

One of the most important findings concerns welfare access. Even when immigrants are described as hardworking, in need, and contributing to society, they receive less public support than native-born citizens.

‘This gap cannot be explained simply by economic self-interest, since no one is losing out under this scenario,’ Uysal says. ‘It reflects a deeper belief that the welfare state – and the entitlements that come with it – belongs to the native population.’

The research suggests that people often view welfare systems as a form of collective ownership, built over generations. When immigrants are perceived as benefiting from these resources, this can trigger resistance, even in the absence of direct competition. However, when identical welfare assistance was framed as being funded by the EU – foreign assistance external to the common pool that natives perceived as belonging to them –  the public support gap disappeared.

Implications for public debate

Taken as a whole, the findings point to a broader conclusion: immigration debates are not just about facts or figures, but about ideas of fairness and the emotions tied to them.

‘If we want to understand polarisation around immigration, we need to look beyond economic explanations,’ Uysal says. ‘We need to understand how people perceive fairness – and how emotions like anger and compassion interact with those perceptions. Working to foster compassion and address perceived violations of fairness – without allowing them to fuel exclusionary politics –  may be key to building more constructive public discussions about immigration.’