Lots of news reports in the last few days, rather a large number of which tell you more about the previous views of the journalist and their editor than about the substance of the news they are reporting on. Which makes this post over on the LSE’s blog, pulling apart some of the details, well worth a read. In particular,
The MAC has chosen to present its results for the whole period (from 1995 to 2010). But if it had chosen instead to separate the two – for example, to look at the period 1995–2008, and then separately at 2008–2010 – the same results would have yielded an ‘association’ between immigration and unemployment in a downturn, but not in periods of economic growth…
Opponents of immigration should reflect on the finding that any ‘association’ between immigration and lower employment for residents does not last if migrants stay, and on the fact that the MAC find no ‘association’ in relation to EU migrants, despite the fact that the intuitive argument seems to be strongest in relation to eastern European migrants.
You can read the full post here.