Migration debates rely on numbers that sound precise and are often incompatible. Asylum applications, net migration, irregular border crossings and visa issuance measure different things over different periods.
A frequently shared claim adds border encounters to asylum claims, double counting people who appear in both datasets. The resulting total overstates arrivals substantially.
A common counter-claim understates pressure by citing net migration alone, which nets out departures and obscures the service demands created by arrivals in specific towns.
Both official series are published with methodology notes. Reading them is less satisfying than quoting them, and considerably more accurate.
