*Sigh*. Disappointing to see that Guardian, like many media orgs, continues to focus exclusively on the "numbers game" Q, which is a poor way to measure imm attitudes. 1/2 https://twitter.com/alexandreafonso/status/1320735350579437574

2/2 In the article, authors acknowledge "people had generally moved away from the belief that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits". That is a *better* measure of views to imm, but is dismissed because it doesn't fit alarmist framing of authors

We observe in survey data repeatedly that people default to saying they want "a little less" immigration *regardless* of immigration levels. It is just a default response pattern. It is informative in that it highlights that many ppl default to seeing imm as a negative thing

...and to favouring control, but it is *much less* informative than questions about the relative costs and benefits of immigration in general, or specific forms of immigration.

Ironically, it seems to be the liberal left press who are repeatedly most eager to seek out and headline the most negative survey findings about immigration attitudes. They often seem fixated on the idea of monolithic anti-immigration public opinion which doesn't fit the evidence