1.3 Contested Definitions of Immigrants
In academia, there was also debate over classifications — how to define an individual as an immigrant (Anderson & Blinder, 2015). Different datasets used different definitions, be it country of birth, nationality, or length of stay. Would all who were born in Britain be considered natives, even if their parents were of non-British heritage? Would an individual whose great-grandparents were non-British, but whose subsequent generations were British be considered an immigrant or local? Should migrants be defined by their intention to settle long-term in the new country, or also include those who were staying temporarily? In some usage, internal movement of people within national boundaries could be termed as immigration as well.
In public discourse, the lines continued to blur. Research showed that many people in UK had a perception of a higher proportion of immigrants being asylum seekers — a group perceived as a drain on the country’s limited resources — than it actually was; asylum seekers made up just 4% of immigrants in 2009, while students were the largest group, at 37% (Migration Observatory, 2011). This created a problem, as it made them exhibit a more anti-immigrant stance — in 2013, 56% of UK people wanted a large reduction of immigration, while 77% wanted it reduced “a little” or “a lot; these compared to 39% and 63% in 1995 (Ford & Heath, 2014). This translated into more stringent requirements for accepting immigrants across the board, including students (Rhoden-Paul, 2015) and skilled labor (Katz & Campbell, 2016). It did not help matters that media reports used terms such as “asylum seekers”, “ethnic minorities”, “refugees”, and “immigrants” interchangeably, especially in UK tabloid discussions about asylum.
Therefore when comparing data across data sets, it would be important to take note about how the authors defined the terms used to ensure consistent comparisons.
