Immigration enthusiasts and problematic polling | James Johnson – The Critic

UK in a Changing Europe released a ballot of the American public on Monday that day, coincident with the BBC Panorama program about the rise in the number of immigrants entering the country. According to Professor Rob Ford’s analysis of the data, “even larger majority of respondents say they oppose cuts to some of the largest migration flows driving that entire numbers,”” a majority of the common thinks general migration is very high.” According to the official statistics for the year ending September 2023, responders were also given the number of migrants entering each group. &nbsp,

Ford went on, posting on X: “]There are ] only two groups where a majority want cuts …]and ] six large migration flows which even a majority of those who say migration is too high do not want to see cut: health and social care workers, their dependents, other skilled workers, their dependents, family reunion immigrants, Ukrainian refugees”.

Look at the UK in a Changing Europe curve and it is clear much: a sea of blue for “increase/stay the same”.

There’s only one issue. The voter-asked questions are never answered in the diagram. They were in fact given three choices: whether they wanted emigration to stay the same, be increased, or been reduced. When the files chairs were uploaded, these statistics were made public on Wednesday night.

Crunch those figures, and the curve looks a little different.

Rather, we see that the percentage of voters saying they want to view emigration “increase” is almost always the least popular category and that “reduce” or — more frequently —” stay the same” are the most- picked options. With the exception of health workers ( inflow number 144, 000 ) not one category exceeds 33 per cent for “increase”. ” Lessen” is also higher than “increase” in the majority of groups. &nbsp,

Why does this problem? because the emigration figures are no” staying the same”. They have increased rapidly since the crisis to new peaks and have not for years. Although the government has made immigration changes known, there is likely to be a rise in applications for visas before they go into effect next month. Immigration is no staying the same, nor falling.

Immigration has increased in important categories even after the figures were presented to UK respondents in a Changing Europe surveys. Since the ballot, we have another weekly transfer from the Government, for the year ending December 2023. It demonstrates that migration has increased since then in some categories where both great outflows and large numbers of people claim to want migration to” stay the same.” For health staff, it has increased from 144, 000 to 146, 477. For their children, 173, 896 to 203, 452. For children of proficient workers, 50, 784 to 52, 009. How can you claim that the general public opposes reduces when the number is rising?

There are other issues with the research. According to Rob Ford,” Majority of Conservative voters support significant immigration cuts, but most also oppose cutting the precise immigrant groups who are currently inflowing; in fact, they want *more* movement from these organizations.” That would be untrue of the general population: for the public it is only true of health workers ( inflow 144, 000 ), and even here “increase” does not reach a majority. &nbsp,

No group sees more than 34 % of Tory voters wanting an boost, which is undoubtedly false for Tory voters. Although it applies to any other migrant group, it is true that more Conservative voters prefer a rise in the number of health workers ( 34 % ) than a decrease ( 22 % ). And do doctors, nurses and care workers ( 144, 000 ) really “drive inflows” more than students ( 472, 000 ), and their dependents ( 153, 000)? Even after taking into account the dependents of health workers ( 174, 000 ), which the public and Conservative voters would prefer not to increase, the math still falls flat.

Because this study was covered in the media, picked up by officials, and framed the conversation, this, and the false diagram, is concerning. We’re talking about college professors, British Social Attitudes contributors, and organizations funded by the taxpayer, not just some scoundrel academics. It is important that they get it straight and accurately provide the information.

I have no reason to doubt that scientists who have pushed and said these statistics are reputable, have dignity, and are great at their work. But amongst very numerous, migration seems to produce a slight hysteria, an uncoupling of intellectual duty from objectivity. The research is a little more ridiculous, and the interpretation gets a little thinner from the data.

There appears to be a double conventional at sing, in the most fundamental way. How would these same stars and their keyboard-happy outriders react if an intellectual set up a graph aimed to reduce immigration? I do n’t think I have to tell you.