Dubai, UAE — Public support for protecting refugees remains widespread across 29 countries, although many people continue to question whether asylum seekers are genuine refugees and favour measures that balance humanitarian assistance with stronger border management, according to an Ipsos survey.
The survey, conducted between April 24 and May 8 among 21,521 adults across 29 countries, found that majorities continue to express support for refugee protection while also voicing concerns over the asylum system, expectations of governments and international organisations, and responses to recent displacement caused by conflict in Iran and Lebanon.
The report found that perceptions of asylum seekers and refugees differ across countries but are shaped by common themes, including humanitarian responsibility, border management and confidence in asylum procedures.
Perceptions drive scepticism
Among respondents who believe many people claiming to be refugees are not in need of refugee protection, the most commonly cited reason for that view was the perception that asylum seekers appear to have financial resources, cited by 41 percent globally.
Thirty-four percent said genuine refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach rather than travelling farther, while 33 percent cited information reported in traditional media.
Twenty-nine percent pointed to information shared on social media, 29 percent cited conversations with friends, family or members of their communities, and 28 percent said direct personal experiences or observations influenced their views.
Official data or statistics were cited by 27 percent, while 16 percent referred to statements made by governments or ruling parties and 15 percent to statements by other politicians or political parties.
Ipsos said government and official sources played a larger role in some countries than the global average. In India, 35 percent cited government statements as influencing their scepticism, compared with the global average of 16 percent. Similar patterns were recorded in Türkiye and Malaysia, where 26 percent cited government statements.
Different perceptions of scepticism
The report said people who viewed refugees more positively often had different perceptions of what drives scepticism than those who questioned refugee claims.
Nearly one-quarter, or 24 percent, of respondents who believed refugees were in need of protection said they did not know what drove scepticism, compared with 9 percent among sceptics themselves.
Among those who did express a view, respondents supportive of refugees were more likely to attribute scepticism to politicians, with 22 percent identifying political figures as a driver compared with 15 percent among sceptics.
By contrast, respondents who doubted refugee claims were more likely to say their views were shaped by direct personal experience or observation, with 28 percent citing that reason compared with 17 percent among those who believed refugees required protection.
Ipsos said this difference meant the two groups often viewed the sources of scepticism differently, with sceptics tending to see their views as rooted in personal observation while others more frequently associated them with political influences.
International organisations seen as leading responsibility
Asked which groups should contribute more to refugee assistance globally in light of current funding challenges, respondents most frequently selected international organisations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.
Globally, 39 percent chose international organisations, followed by foundations and non-governmental organisations at 28 percent.
Governments of wealthier countries were selected by 21 percent, while 20 percent said their own governments should contribute more.
Nine percent selected individual volunteers and donors, businesses and corporations, and faith-based organisations respectively, while 7 percent said none of the listed groups should contribute more.
Ipsos said international organisations remained the primary choice across countries, while expectations were increasingly shared with NGOs and national governments.
Public favours aid and diplomacy in Iran-Lebanon displacement
Asked how their governments should respond to displacement caused by the conflict in Iran and Lebanon, respondents most frequently backed measures focused on humanitarian assistance and diplomacy rather than long-term domestic resettlement.
The most commonly supported response was sending humanitarian aid, such as food and medical supplies, directly to civilians inside Iran and Lebanon.
Respondents also supported diplomatic action or economic sanctions aimed at helping de-escalate the conflict, offering temporary asylum rather than permanent resettlement, and providing financial assistance directly to the affected region or international humanitarian organisations.
Other measures receiving support included strengthening border controls to make it harder for asylum seekers to enter a country without permission, providing financial or material assistance to countries neighbouring Iran so refugees could be hosted in the Middle East, and offering more financial assistance and support services to refugees who arrived in respondents’ own countries.
Fewer respondents backed military assistance or intervention or accepting more refugees from the region into their own countries.
Ipsos said the findings showed that while respondents supported helping displaced people, they generally prioritised assistance delivered closer to where displacement occurred, particularly humanitarian aid and diplomatic measures.
The report said measures involving longer-term domestic commitments received less support, reflecting wider uncertainty about outcomes, while responses suggested support became more selective in real situations, balancing compassion with caution.
Countries differ in preferred responses
Ipsos grouped responses into three broad categories: domestic refugee policies, international and regional support, and foreign policy or intervention.
Support for domestic refugee policy measures varied across countries, with India recording the highest level, followed by South Africa, Malaysia, Mexico and Thailand. Japan recorded the lowest level of support within this category.
For international and regional support measures, Indonesia ranked highest, followed by India, Singapore and Malaysia, while Canada recorded the lowest level of support among surveyed countries.
Support for foreign policy and intervention measures was highest in Italy, followed by Indonesia, India, South Africa and Türkiye, while Japan recorded the lowest level among countries surveyed.
Ipsos conducted the survey online between April 24 and May 8, interviewing 21,521 adults across 29 countries through its Global Advisor platform.
Samples included about 1,000 respondents in 14 countries and about 500 respondents in the remaining 15 countries.
