Anti-Immigration Statistical Fallacies
If you believe in research and writing that break down borders, foster cross-cultural understanding, and inspire people to live unbound, consider becoming a paid subscriber to Born Without Borders.
All my work is published on Ghost, a decentralized, non-profit, and carbon-neutral platform—free from VC funding and the grip of technofeudal lords.
I don’t use algorithms to hijack your attention.
My work can only exist if you share and support it.
The Hard Problem of Social Research: Why Immigration Statistics Often Mislead
When immigration statistics appear in headlines or spew from indignant mouths, they often arrive with a false sense of finality — “Immigration raises unemployment,” “Immigrants cost taxpayers billions,” “Immigration boosts GDP,” and so on. But as political scientist Brian Klaas explains in his discussion of Nate Breznau’s groundbreaking 2022 study, reality is far murkier.
In a large-scale experiment led by Nate Breznau and colleagues, 73 independent research teams — all given the same dataset and the same research question — were asked to test whether higher immigration reduces public support for social safety nets.
The results showed striking variation:
- 60.7 % of teams found no effect.
- 14.8 % found a statistically significant negative effect (supporting the idea that immigration reduces support).
- 6.8 % found a statistically significant positive effect (suggesting immigration increases support).
- 13.5 % concluded the question was not testable with the provided data.
This wide range of results — despite identical data and hypotheses — underscores how much researcher choices can influence scientific conclusions.
As Klaas summarizes:
“If Breznau’s team had asked only one research team to answer the immigration question, there would be a nearly equal chance that they would find either that higher immigration increased support for social spending or decreased it. Once published, either a positive or a negative result might be considered a settled question. The irreducible uncertainty would be hidden from view… This is a much bigger problem than the replication crisis. It challenges the most basic assumptions of social research.” – Brian Klaas
This “universe of uncertainty” problem isn’t exclusive to immigration — it pervades social science. And sure, perhaps some in the social sciences are PC-obsessed, silky-handed left-leaning elitists out of touch with reality, and so, they'll interpret the data to favour all those immigrants ruining the good ol' days when you could own a home and crack a beer with Jesus. Or, you could be grateful that many academics, unlike politicians and lobbyists, have a shared value system of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.
The purpose of this essay isn't to pit the left against the right or blue-collar against white-collar. We're all humans who share a history of migration, and if we don't listen to each other to make the best possible immigration policies, we're screwed.
What I hope for you to understand is that any single immigration statistic — whether pro- or anti- — could just as easily have been different if a different research team had run the numbers. This is not to say all immigration research is meaningless, but rather that methodological transparency and replication are essential before making sweeping claims.
Why Statistical Fallacies in Immigration Matter
Immigration is one of the most emotionally charged and politically potent topics worldwide—yet the data used to argue for or against it is often misrepresented, selectively framed, or simply misunderstood. Whether it's worrying about $1.3 billion in housing costs or fatalistic claims that newcomers “never integrate,” anti-immigration rhetoric frequently leans on statistical fallacies.
The Power of Big Numbers Without Context
Anti-immigration arguments often begin with impressive totals: “Canada has spent $1.1 billion on temporary hotel housing for asylum seekers” — and that sounds massive. But without context, such figures are alarmingly misleading:
- Spread over four years, $1.1 billion averages to roughly $275 million per year.
- Canada’s annual federal spending is in the hundreds of billions, so this hotel cost is roughly 0.05–0.1% of the budget.
- Selling a number without scale (per taxpayer, per year, per housing unit) creates a proportionality fallacy—it’s a small cost treated as a crisis.
Additional reading from canada.ca: CIMM – Housing Supports for Asylum Seekers – November 25, 2024, New funding to support housing for asylum claimants, and CIMM – Interim Housing Assistance Program – February 28, 2024.
In the UK, people also claim, "UK: “£8 million per day on hotel housing for asylum seekers.” As of late 2024, the Home Office was spending around £8 million/day on hotels, and councils spent over £1.7 billion annually on all forms of temporary housing. UK Parliament Committees
- Why it’s deceptive:
- Temporary measure: These are emergency costs, not reflective of settled, integrated spend.
- No alternatives costed: Investing in real housing could save £300 million/year vs. hotels—and repay capital in under a year.
- Lacks fiscal perspective: The UK central government budget is around £1 trillion annually—£8 m/day (~£3 billion/year) is under 0.3% and may be reduced with smarter policy.
Chain Migration & Family Reunification — The Numbers Behind Family-Based Immigration
EU Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC) — This applies to most EU member states (except Denmark, Ireland, and the UK, which had opt-outs when they were in the EU).
- It grants legally resident non-EU nationals the right to bring certain family members (typically spouse and minor children, sometimes dependent parents) to join them.
- Requirements often include proof of stable income, suitable housing, and health insurance.
- Some countries impose integration measures, such as language or civic knowledge requirements.
Country-specific examples:
- Germany – Allows spouses, minor children, and in some cases dependent parents to join residents. Spouses usually need to show basic German skills before arrival.
- France – Similar to Germany, but language requirements usually come after arrival. The income threshold depends on household size.
- Netherlands – Often has stricter income requirements and mandatory civic integration exams before arrival.
- Sweden – Historically generous, but has tightened requirements, now including income and housing standards.
No matter the country, the anti-immigration stance usually revolves around people coming into the country who don't speak the language. The other argument is about OLD PEOPLE. Those MOFOs who wreak havoc on the social welfare system. But here's the reality.
Economic and Social Integration Over Time
I'm focusing on Canada to keep this article short, but you'll find similar conclutions for other Western countries as well.
Direct Contributions:
- Spouses and partners:
Addressing the "Too Easy, Too Fast" and "Welfare Burden" Arguments
Concern: “Opening up family entry too easily means family members won't learn English/French, and they burden the welfare system.”
Evidence-based response:
- Learning the Official Language
- While parents may not arrive fluent, children typically integrate linguistically through school and daily life. Language adaptation takes time—and Canada’s system recognizes that with free settlement services, ESL programs, and community supports (more on that in Section V).
- Welfare Burden Realities
These numbers are useful, but they don’t tell the whole story. I'll admit these statistics can oversimplify reality—sample sizes, self-reporting, and differences in regional job markets all shape the results. They often leave out the unpaid, informal, and behind-the-scenes work that keeps households, communities, and even local economies running. And while correlations between employment, language skills, and welfare use are interesting, they don’t automatically prove cause and effect. We can likely argue about the economic side for hours and get nowhere. However, what's undeniable is that family supports the well-being of the people around them, and that's exactly what we need if we want people to integrate into their new culture.
Language & Cultural Integration – Myths Around Enclaves and Linguistic Persistence
Workplace & Communication Issues: A Cultural Intelligence Approach
Concerns often arise like:
“At my workplace, we have shared prayer rooms, but break times become complicated when different religions compete for the same schedule.”
or
“As a marine engineer, Ukrainians talk over the radio in Ukrainian—what if it's a safety issue?”
These aren’t unrealistic. They reflect coordination challenges, not willful segregation. The research offers clear guidance:
- Cultural competence training reduces miscommunication in multicultural workplaces. Organizations like La Passerelle I.D.É. offer cultural competency skills training specifically aimed at newcomer workers and employers to prepare both sides for inclusive work environments.
Alright, and here's where I quickly offer my services. Do you need a cultural competence coach for your business? Why not hire the dude who wrote this article?
Let's get back to it. In regulated environments such as marine operations, communication via official channels (like radio) already falls under licensing rules and safety protocols. Language guidelines in such sectors are not new—they simply need enforcement and clarity.
Look, I empathize with concerns about workplace communication or scheduling in mixed-faith environments. These are real coordination challenges, but not proof of non-integration. Canada’s legal framework and shared values support both cultural preservation and common-language functioning. With good policy—like cultural competency training, language enforcement in critical settings, and inclusive scheduling—these conflicts can be resolved in ways that matter both practically and humanistically. Before jumping to "DEPORT THE BASTARDS," why not "HIRE ME INSTEAD."
How to Think Statistically (and Fairly) About Immigration
You don’t need a PhD in econometrics to spot bad immigration stats — you just need a mental toolkit.
1. Baseline Problems—Why Anti-Immigration Statistics Often Start from the Wrong Place
One of the most common mistakes in debates about immigration isn’t in the numbers themselves but in the base from which they’re drawn.
Take a simple business example. If Tom, Jane, and Harry each get different percentage raises, you can’t just add them together to get a “total increase.” The real number depends on their original salaries — their baseline. Tom’s 5% raise on $100,000 is much larger in absolute terms than Harry’s 15% raise on $10,000. Add them up without looking at the base, and you end up with a nonsense figure.
This trick shows up again and again in anti-immigration rhetoric:
- Crime statistics: A headline might say “Immigrants commit 15% more crimes.” But 15% compared to what? If the baseline is a small group in one city, the number can look dramatic while hiding the fact that overall crime rates are stable or falling.
- Welfare use: Reports might claim “Immigrants are 20% more likely to use benefits.” Yet if immigrants start with lower incomes (a different baseline), the comparison is misleading. Once adjusted for income and age, the differences often shrink or disappear.
- Economic impact: Opponents of immigration sometimes compare “total costs” without considering per-capita baselines. For instance, if a city spends $100 million on immigrant services, that sounds like a burden — until you notice the city spends $5 billion overall. The percentage is small, but the raw number was chosen to grab attention.
The rule of thumb is simple: never trust a percentage unless you know the baseline. Just as in finance, percentages without context can make profits look like losses, or losses look like gains, immigration data without proper baselines can transform stability into a “crisis.”
2. Always Ask: “Compared to What?”
Big numbers love to hide in a vacuum.
- Bad stat: “Immigration costs $1.1 billion.”
- Better question: “How does that compare to the total budget?” (Answer: about 0.05–0.1% of Canada’s federal budget.)
Without a comparison, you can make anything sound terrifying — or trivial.
Tip: Any number without a baseline is basically a magic trick.
3. Look for Timeframes
A lot of scary stats are snapshots of a transitional moment.
- Refugee unemployment is higher in year one — that’s normal.
- By year five, rates often converge toward the native-born population.
If someone’s citing a “problem” from month three of arrival, it’s like judging a marathon runner at the 200-meter mark.
4. Check Who Collected the Data (and Why)
Government statistical agencies, peer-reviewed journals, and independent think tanks have different incentives.
- Example: A politician’s “cost” figure may exclude revenue contributions.
- A peer-reviewed study may focus on one outcome (e.g., welfare uptake) while ignoring others (e.g., tax revenue, childcare support).
Pro tip: If the source is a press release from a lobbying group, print the paper and use it as toilet paper.
5. Beware of “Average” Without Distribution
The average immigrant income might be lower than the native-born average, but that hides huge variation: tech engineers, doctors, farm workers, and recent arrivals are all lumped together. Plus, which average? The mode, median, mean, harmonic mean, weight mean – you gotta know this stuff. And if you don't, read Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking by Stephen K. Cambell, which fired me up to write this article.
6. Watch for Cause-and-Effect Leaps
Correlation is the low-hanging fruit of bad immigration arguments.
- “Immigration went up, unemployment went up” doesn’t prove one caused the other.
- Other factors — automation, global recessions, housing policy — can explain trends.
7. Resist Emotional Cherry-Picking
Anecdotes (“I know a guy who…”) can be powerful but aren’t the same as population-level data. Your neighbour’s cousin’s roommate’s bad experience is not statistically significant — it’s just a story.
Final thought:
Thinking statistically isn’t about memorizing formulas. It’s about keeping curiosity alive long enough to ask: What’s missing? Who benefits from me believing this? and Where’s the full picture?
That’s not just good for immigration debates — it’s good for spotting BS in any policy conversation.
If you believe in research and writing that break down borders, foster cross-cultural understanding, and inspire people to live unbound, consider becoming a paid subscriber to Born Without Borders.
All my work is published on Ghost, a decentralized, non-profit, and carbon-neutral platform—free from VC funding and the grip of technofeudal lords.
I don’t use algorithms to hijack your attention.
My work can only exist if you share and support it.
Want to Live a Life Unbound?
Whether you're a digital nomad, educator, aid worker, or simply navigating life across borders, my classes help you thrive on the move:
English Without Borders
Learn practical, real-world English rooted in global citizenship and cultural respect—because language is more than grammar; it’s connection.
Cultural Competence Coaching
Gain the skills to work, lead, and collaborate across cultures. Perfect for travellers, cross-border professionals, or anyone ready to challenge assumptions and grow.
Fitness On the Move
Stay strong and grounded—physically and mentally—wherever you are. Minimal-equipment routines, mindset coaching, and structure for life in motion.
Please share this article with friends and colleagues.
Member discussion