RESEARCH EXCHANGE
Why people’s views of a fair asylum system are based on their moral foundations and what this means for asylum policies
Author
About
Lenka Dražanová and Martin Ruhs
research to policy
Public disagreement over asylum is not just about facts or interests, it’s about moral dilemmas.
As part of the Algorithmic Fairness for Asylum-seekers and Refugees (AFAR) project, we set out to understand how fairness is perceived in asylum systems.
To find out, we conducted original surveys in Germany and Italy, asking 7,200 people how they view asylum processes.
The responses revealed that individuals care about two types of fairness when assessing asylum decision-making: procedural and distributive. These two fairness types are grounded in people’s deeper moral values and expose ethical and practical dilemmas at the heart of asylum policy.
Why fairness in asylum decisions matters
Fairness is at the heart of democratic legitimacy but is rarely explored in debates about asylum policy. Our research shows that people evaluate fairness in asylum processes in two ways:
- Procedural – are procedures fair toward asylum seekers?
- Distributive – are the outcomes of asylum decision-making fair for the host population?
The two surveys conducted allowed us to unpack how people think about fairness in asylum decision-making, how these views are shaped by their underlying moral beliefs and to look into the causes and effects of these two types of fairness.
We wanted to know why some people think it is important that asylum procedures are fair in procedural terms, while others prioritise distributive fairness concerns. Strikingly, our research shows that perceptions of fairness in asylum decision-making are based on moral judgements. By this, we mean that they are grounded in what social psychologists have called people’s ‘moral foundations’. This means people’s innate moral intuitions that shape their views on social and political issues.
How did we do this? Connecting Fairness, moral foundations, and asylum decision-making
We presented people with choices and asked them to evaluate asylum decision-making processes that varied in procedural and distributive attributes. This could be the presence or absence of the rights to appeal (procedural fairness) or annual limits on asylum applications (distributive fairness). We also linked people’s fairness evaluations to their moral foundations, meaning the broad value systems such as care, loyalty, or authority that shape people’s moral intuitions or, put more simply, their world views.
What do people care about?
People care about both procedural and distributive fairness in asylum decision-making.
Respondents in Germany and Italy viewed asylum processes as more fair when they included procedural safeguards for asylum seekers, such as access to legal advice and the possibility of appeals and when they considered the interests of host countries, such as the possibility to impose annual limits on asylum applications or EU-wide responsibility sharing. We find that, on average, fairness perceptions in asylum are not just about helping refugees or protecting national interests, but about balancing both.
Fairness perceptions are distinct from policy preferences.
People’s views on what is fair do not always match their policy preferences on how many refugees should be admitted or their immigration attitudes. Even respondents with restrictive asylum preferences sometimes rated processes with strong procedural protections as fair, suggesting a moral commitment to fairness beyond political views.
The identity of asylum seekers doesn’t necessarily change fairness views.
It surprised us that when we ‘primed’ respondents with specific asylum seeker groups, such as saying that they came from Syria or Sudan, this did not significantly alter fairness evaluations. This indicates that fairness perceptions may be relatively stable and principled regardless of the perceived national, racial or ethnic identity of the asylum seeker.
Fairness judgments reflect deeper moral values.
People who prioritise moral foundations such as care and equality are more likely to view procedural safeguards as fair. Those who emphasise loyalty and authority are more likely to value distributive fairness that prioritises national interests. In other words, people’s fairness perceptions reflect how they evaluate and resolve any conflicts between their moral foundations, especially between care and loyalty/authority.
Three key takeaways
- Policy design should balance both fairness types.
Sustainable asylum policies need to respect humanitarian norms and address public concerns about national interests and capacity. - Fairness messaging can cut across political divides.
Since fairness perceptions don’t map neatly onto policy preferences, appeals to fairness may resonate even with people who are sceptical about asylum policies, especially if the process feels orderly and impartial. - Understand the moral roots of public opinion.
Public disagreement over asylum is not just about facts or interests, it’s about moral dilemmas. Policymakers and advocates must engage with these underlying moral intuitions if they want to build public support.
This research findings draw on two original survey experiments with over 7200 respondents in Germany and Italy during 2024.
Learn more:
–The moral conflict underpinning public perceptions of fairness in asylum decision-making. EUI, RSC, Working Paper, 2025/11, Migration Policy Centre.
– Fair protection: public perceptions of fairness in asylum decision-making, EUI, RSC, Working Paper, 2024/37. Migration Policy Centre.
Lenka Dražanová is a Research Fellow at the Migration Policy Centre, EUI.
Martin Ruhs is Professor of Migration Studies, Migration Policy Centre, EUI.
Submit your idea for a ‘short’ to be featured on the Co-Lab.
