In an era of global migration, debates over granting non-citizens rights traditionally reserved for citizens are increasingly salient. Research often highlights economic contributions, residency duration, and political alignment as key factors shaping public attitudes toward non-citizen enfranchisement, yet these drivers are frequently studied in isolation. This study uses a conjoint experiment in the United Kingdom to investigate how voters balance civic deservingness with instrumental considerations, such as socio-economic and cultural proximity or partisan gains, when evaluating non-citizen eligibility. Extending beyond voting rights, the analysis also examines public attitudes toward non-citizen access to free healthcare and citizenship to explore whether opinions shift depending on the rights under consideration. Findings reveal that instrumental motivations, often attributed to political calculus, are strongly influenced by perceptions of cultural and economic alignment, highlighting the role of ethnocentric dynamics. By analyzing normative and strategic considerations across multiple rights, this research contributes to understanding how democratic societies navigate pluralism and polarization in shaping immigration policy.