Latest immigration statistics for 2009 cause another storm in a teacup

This week, the Office for National Statistics released its quarterly immigration figures for 2009. The figures show that net long-term immigration to the UK rose by 20% from 163,000 in 2008, to 196,000 in 2009 – and this has been spun in media including the Telegraph  (Immigration jumps amid surge in student visas) and Daily Mirror (200,000 new immigrants in Britain as foreign students flock to UK)  as representing an overall ‘jump in immigration’ to the UK. This is not only scaremongering, but is sending a message that is just plain wrong.

The reason is that the increase last year was in the level of ‘net immigration’, not in immigration on its own. The net immigration figure calculates the difference between the total number of people coming into the UK (immigration) and the number leaving the country (emigration). As pointed out by the Institute for Public Policy Research, the rise in net immigration in 2009 was not due to an increase in the number of people entering the UK – in fact this figure dropped by 4% from last year. Rather, the increase in net immigration was primarily caused by a drop in the number of Brits leaving the UK (emigration overall was down by 13% from last year). Emigration is yet another aspect of international migration which subsequent British governments – always keen to overstate their ability to control immigration – have no control over whatsoever.

Analysis of the immigration figures shows that they paint a very different picture to that of a broad ‘leap’ in immigration to the UK. Asylum applications and economic immigration under the Points Based System both dropped last year. Immigration from within Europe broadly stayed at the same level as in 2008. The only area where there was a significant increase in applications was under the student route where visas granted went up by 23% from 2008. Of course this has the red tops baying for tighter controls over student visas, but the vast majority of these applications are likely to be perfectly legitimate. It is also worth reflecting that 2009 saw record levels of university intake for home students in the UK, explained by the limited employment opportunities available in the economic downturn.

Perhaps the overall message to be drawn from these statistics is that popular excitement about the level of immigration to the UK risks getting confused about the specific trends behind the figures. The coalition government will be disappointed that the steady decline in net immigration, on which they have made political commitments, has not continued as expected. But it would be a mistake to respond to the kneejerk analysis in much of the press with anything but scepticism.