Very little link between migration levels and attitudes to immigration

Much like the assertion that nobody can talk about immigration without being accused of being a racist (if anything immigration is talked about too much relative to its impact), the idea that public concern about immigration is related to the numbers of migrants settling in the UK appears also to be a myth.

Immigration graph

Much like the assertion that nobody can talk about immigration without being accused of being a racist (if anything immigration is talked about too much relative to its impact), the idea that public concern about immigration is related to the numbers of migrants settling in the UK is also largely a myth. As the graph below shows. (Hat tip: @robfordmancs).

The next time you hear a politician talk about the public’s “legitimate concerns” over immigration, ask yourself whether they really mean the exaggerated concerns of right-wing politicians and the press rather than worries over the actual number of migrants.

The report the graph comes from also found that:

In 2002, the average public estimate of migration levels was more than double the actual level. The proportion of British voters who demand lower migration levels drops by 15 per cent when respondents are presented with real numbers, suggesting a significant portion of current opposition to migration stems from exaggerated views of the situation.

The full report can be read here.

11 Responses to “Very little link between migration levels and attitudes to immigration”

  1. LB

    In 2002, the average public estimate of migration levels was more than double the actual level.

    ==========

    And since then, the figures have been revised up. The figures don’t include illegal migration.

    You’re assumption is based on a fallacy. The public had it right.

    Since confirmed by lots at the top of Labour.

  2. Cole

    As if anyone would believe any ‘facts’ from LB.

  3. LB

    You don’t post any at all do you?

    Lets see. Migration is good for the UK. In other words, Abu Qatada, a migrant is good for the UK.

    Labour policy.

  4. LB

    You’ve not commented on your employment at Stafford General.

    Doctor or Nurse?

  5. Sparkyboy

    Look how the levels of immigration, pretty much steady since the 1960s, exploded under Labour. And still they try to deny it.

  6. Sparkyboy

    Question for James Bloodworth. Why do the levels of settlement grants soar to unprecedented levels in the late 1990s?

  7. Cole

    Actually I replied to your silly and childish question elsewhere. I have nothing to do with the NHS except, like most people, I use it. You obviously don’t understand that the overwhelming majority of the British people value it highly.

  8. Cole

    Pathetic.

  9. LB

    You’re confused.

    They have no choice. Hence its rather frightening to find out that when you are forced to rely on the NHS, they are killing so many people Hence one attitude is to stick your fingers in your ears and deny the problem.

    Why would you say that people value it highly, but at the same time be so strident that you can’t mention the slaughter that the NHS is inflicting?

    Over 800,000 avoidable accidents a year – I’ll leave you to do the googling on that. After all, you don’t produce any numbers of your own.

    So what is it Doctor or Nurse at Stafford?

    Have you killed someone deliberately or by accident?

    Are you involved in the desecration of graves of whistle blowers? I’m seeing similar behaviour with you now. You can’t tolerate that I’m pointing out the slaughter.

    For example, what if Tesco killed hundreds? Would you support Tesco’s right to carry on?

  10. LB

    Answer the question.

    Is Qatada a benefit to the UK?

  11. Cole

    Go and take your meds.

Leave a Reply