The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea, a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the U.S. and a not-too-strong endorsement of Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of Americans. The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support among its closest allies.

The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis, who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the U.S. as their security umbrella, and the Russians, who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favorable attitudes toward the U.S. in the survey, conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.

The U.K. results of the poll, conducted by ICM research for the Guardian, reveal a growing disillusionment with the U.S. among the British public, fueled by a strong personal antipathy toward Bush. The ICM survey shows that if the British had a vote in the U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 2 they would vote 50 percent for Kerry and only 22 percent for Bush.

Sixty percent of British voters say they don’t like Bush, which rises to a startling 77 percent among those under 25. The rejection of Bush is strongest in France, where 72 percent say they would back Kerry. But it is also very strong in traditionally pro-American South Korea, where fears of a preemptive U.S. strike against North Korea have translated into 68 percent support for Kerry.

In Britain the growth in anti-Americanism is not so marked as in France, Japan, Canada, South Korea and Spain, where more than 60 percent say their view of the United States has deteriorated since Sept. 11. But a sizable and emerging minority — 45 percent — of British voters say their image of the U.S. has got worse in the past three years; only 15 percent say it has improved.

There is widespread agreement that America will remain the world’s largest economic power. This is underlined by the 73 percent of British voters who say that the U.S. now wields an excessive influence on international affairs, a situation that 67 percent see as continuing for the foreseeable future.

A majority in Britain also believe that U.S. democracy is no longer a model for others.

But perhaps a more startling finding from the Guardian/ICM poll is that a majority of British voters — 51 percent — say that they believe American culture is threatening Britain’s culture. This is a fear shared by Canadians, Mexicans and South Koreans, but it is more usually associated with the French than the British. Perhaps the endless television reruns of “Friends” and “The Simpsons” are beginning to take their toll.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,008 adults age 18 and over by telephone between Sept. 22 and 23. Interviews were conducted across the country, and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

For full results, commentary and methodology, see www.guardian.co.uk/uselection.

But lower-skilled migrants, mainly from other E.U. countries, will not be able to bring their families, will be barred from claiming welfare benefits and will be expected to leave after five years. Those from “higher-risk countries” will be required to deposit an unspecified financial bond — which they will forfeit if they fail to return home.

Clarke received praise and criticism from M.P.’s when he explained the proposals to the House of Commons. Left-wing Labor M.P.’s, some Liberal Democrats and nationalists accused the home secretary of entering a “bidding war” with the Conservatives over asylum and urged Clarke to be more positive about the benefits of immigration.

When Tory spokesman David Davis accused Clarke of responding too late to remedy a “confused, weak and chaotic” Labor policy since 1997, including 250,000 failed asylum seekers who had not been removed, Clarke said the Tory quota scheme would damage the economy and weaken human rights. He called it “Stalinist.”

Tony Blair, whose spokesman denied suggestions that No. 10 had pushed Clarke further down a hard-line road than the Home Office intended to go, gave his full support in a foreword to the five-year plan. Though Blair stressed the importance of managed migration — “essential for our continued prosperity” for centuries past — he put “rooting out abuse” at the top of his priorities and warned that cheating could be used increasingly “by extremists to promote their perverted view of race.”

Clarke said the points system would soon replace work and student permits. It would be simpler and more effective for those wishing to work in Britain, focusing on the “highly skilled migrants that can help us build our economy.”

The quota-based schemes for the low-skilled in agriculture, food processing, and the hotel and restaurant industries will be phased out “in the light of the additional labor now available from the new E.U. countries.” Last year 17,000 people from developing countries outside the E.U. came to Britain to work under such schemes.

The new regime will be accompanied by 2,000-pound, on-the-spot fines on employers who use illegal labor.

In an extra twist Monday night, the immigration minister, Des Browne, announced that immigration fees are doubling to between 300 and 500 pounds to raise 170 million pounds a year to make the migration program self-financing within three years.

Fresh pressure on ministers is expected Tuesday in a report from the Commons public accounts committee that criticized the handling of asylum cases and urged better procedures for fast-tracking them. Only 9 percent are fast-tracked in Britain, compared with 40 percent in the Netherlands.

The five-year plan heralds moves to step up the removal of failed asylum seekers, including more widespread use of detention and the introduction of tagging of asylum claimants. And the right to permanent settlement after five years in Britain will end for those granted refugee status. Their position will be reviewed after they have been in the country for five years.

The Refugee Council and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants questioned how the measure would enable them to develop a commitment to British society.

But 24 hours after David Blunkett, the law’s sponsor, was forced to resign as home secretary, Downing Street and the new home secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to tough it out. They said they would study the judgment, but made it plain they are more likely to renew the controversial laws than modify them. Lord Hoffmann ruled that there is no “state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation” — the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from Article 5 of the European Convention, the right to liberty. It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Blunkett that posed a threat, he declared. “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”

The judgment adds to the clutch of election-sensitive law-and-order problems in Clarke’s in box. No. 10 signaled it is “clearly minded to renew it,” and Clarke chose to stress continuity with Blunkett’s policies.

On Channel 4 News Hazel Blears, the police minister, said judges who authorized detentions had seen intelligence data that the law lords did not. “This is a matter for Parliament to decide” in line with the European Convention. “Our overriding concern is the protection of this nation.”

Sixteen Muslims have been detained under the anti-terror legislation, with 10 still held in Belmarsh, southeast London, and Woodhill, Bucks, and one in Broadmoor mental hospital. They are certified as “suspected international terrorists.”

The law lords’ ruling said the state should decide whether a state of emergency existed. But they argued that the government’s response breached the human rights convention because it went further than required. It was a disproportionate interference with liberty and equality and unlawfully discriminated against foreigners because British terror suspects thought to pose a similar risk cannot be locked up without charge or trial.

Lord Scott described the regime under which suspects can be detained indefinitely on the say-so of the home secretary with no right to know the grounds for detention as “the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of Section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom.”

The judgment does not oblige the government to release the detainees immediately, but under the Human Rights Act the government must take steps soon to remedy the situation. These could include legislation — for example, making evidence obtained from telephone tapping admissible in a criminal court — that would make it easier to try detainees. Another option would be measures allowing them to be released under constant surveillance and monitoring.

Clarke is expected to produce new proposals in the new year, and until then the detainees will remain in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Gareth Peirce, solicitor for eight detainees, commented: “The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees.”

The judgment puts Clark under huge pressure to devise a solution or face the prospect of more embarrassing court defeats in the run-up to the general election. The detainees’ solicitors could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, if the government drags its heels. Lawyers said another possibility was an application in the English courts for a declaration that it was unconstitutional for the home secretary to continue to detain the men in breach of a House of Lords ruling.

The case was heard by an almost unprecedented panel of nine law lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional significance. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who argued the case for the government, had tried to persuade the judges that they were “undemocratic” and should defer to the will of elected representatives.

Jeffrey Jowell, professor of public law at University College London, said: “It establishes that, even where the government claims national security is an issue, the court has authority to delineate the proper boundaries of a rights-based democracy.”