02127-25 Hilson v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Daniel Hilson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “I won't be cheering 'drop' in migrants. There are still 1,180 people arriving every day”, published on 23 May 2025.

2. The article appeared beneath the name, and a photograph of, its author. It reported on current immigration figures – “The latest figures published on Thursday may look better in comparison, but they still mean that 100,000 more people arrived here last year than in 2016.” It went on to report: “In fact – and this won’t come as a surprise to anyone who doesn’t live in Westminster’s ivory towers — most immigrants aren’t billionaire entrepreneurs. Instead they are low-wage, low-skilled workers who bring their families with them and end up costing more to the nation’s coffers than they contribute.”

3. A version of the article also appeared online, under the title of the author, and the headline: “’Drop’ in migrant numbers Is nothing to celebrate… there are still 1,180 people arriving in the UK every day.”

4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 where it reported that immigrants are “low-wage”, “low-skilled”, and cost more to the “nation’s coffers than they contribute”. He commented that the use of the term “they” in the statement under dispute attributed the writer’s claims to the majority of immigrants, and that the three claims were factually inaccurate.

5. Regarding the claim that immigrants are “low-wage”, he stated that the latest Government statistics from HMRC, on payrolled employees, showed that the median wage for EU and non-EU nationals was higher than the median wage of UK nationals.

6. Regarding the claim that immigrants are “low-skilled”, the complainant stated that “job skills” were difficult to measure – but that 2021 census data found that a larger percentage of adults born outside of the UK held a higher education qualification, compared to UK residents. He also stated that non-UK qualifications may not always be recognised by UK employers, and so the types of jobs immigrants were employed in may not be indicative of their skill level. He added that data from the Migration Observatory think tank in 2022 found that 51% of non-EU migrant workers worked in “highly skilled” jobs.

7. Further, regarding the claim that immigrants cost more to the country than they contribute, the complainant stated that this claim was not supported by the official Government statistics. He pointed to data from the Migration Advisory Committee 2024 annual report, which he said demonstrated that the average migrant on a Skilled Worker visa had a positive net fiscal impact of £16,300, compared to the average UK born adult who had a positive net fiscal impact of £800.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It disputed that any significant inaccuracy arose from its reporting – it commented that there was insufficient evidence to support the complainant’s position, or demonstrates its article to be inaccurate or misleading. It also commented that the terms “low wage” and “low skilled” were inherently subjective.

9. The publication said that the majority of immigrants do not arrive on Skilled Worker visas. In any event, it said the largest group in the Skilled Visa cohort were care workers, whose average wages were £20,000 to £25,000: below the national living wage for a 40-hour week. Further, the publication said that, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, Highly Skilled Visas were issued at a threshold of £26,200 - below the median gross annual pay for full time employees in the UK. It said that this supported the reported statement that the migrants were “low wage” – particularly given this only applied to ‘high skilled’ migrants.

10. Moreover, regarding the claim that immigrants cost more to the country than they contribute, the publication stated that in 2022/23, the majority of households in the UK were net taxpayers, and the rest are net recipients. It said given that most skilled migrants earn below average wages, they were net recipients, not net taxpayers. It also pointed to analysis from the Centre for Migration Control, from 2024, which, it said, had shown that: “70.6% of long-term migrants who arrived in the UK in 2023 via a Certificate of Sponsorship earned less than the £38,000 needed for them to make a positive economic contribution”.

11. The publication supplied IPSO with a survey from the Oxford Migration Observatory which demonstrated that a majority of studies found that “non-EU migration is a net fiscal negative”. The webpage included a table of multiple studies conducted into the overall fiscal impact of immigrants in the UK. The studies displayed mixed results; the majority suggesting the net fiscal impact is negative.

12. The publication also pointed to a Government white paper on immigration, published in June 2025, which commented that: “For those that come on the Family Partner route, evidence published in Spring 2024 estimated that their average employment rate was around 44% and average earnings were around £27,200 per year”.

13. In response, the complainant commented that the claims in the article were presented as uncontroversial, uncontested facts. He said the article did not mitigate the claims by mentioning any uncertainty or controversy surrounding their accuracy.

14. The complainant also disputed the accuracy of the publication’s supporting evidence. In response to where the publication had cited the earnings threshold for the skilled worker visa of £26,200, the complainant noted that the figure merely referred to the minimum figure immigrant workers must earn in order to qualify for a skilled worker visa. He also stated that the research on Skilled Worker visas made an assumption that visa holders earn the median earnings for their occupation. He also disputed that individuals on a Skilled Worker visa could be described as “low skilled” – and commented that, while he accepted the majority of immigrants do not arrive on a skilled visas, it could not be assumed the remaining majority were unskilled, or low paid.

15. Regarding the “low-wage” claim, the complainant pointed to data from the Home Office which, he said, demonstrated that the median adjusted annual earnings of Health and Care worker visa main applicants was higher than the median earnings figure for all UK workers between 2023 and 2024.

16. The complainant also commented that “academic literature” supported his position immigrants are mostly a net fiscal positive – he pointed to a study which estimated the net fiscal contribution of immigrants to the UK as a group since 2000 to have been positive. In response to research from Oxford Migration Observatory, supplied by the publication, the complainant also noted that the same research page contained a graph attributed to the Office of Budget Responsibility. The graph suggested that “average wage migrants” are a net fiscally positive from their arrival in the UK until the age of 92.

17. The complainant also pointed to a further study which, he said, demonstrated that migrants who arrived in the UK between 2019 and 2023 will make a net contribution to British finances. He also pointed to research from the Office of National Statistics which, he said, indicated that the majority of non-retired individuals are net contributors to the British economy - where the majority of foreign-born individuals in the UK are of working age, he said it was reasonable to assume that most immigrants are net fiscal contributors to the economy.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

18. The Committee took into account, firstly, that the article was an opinion piece. It was not an in-depth breakdown on current immigration statistics, and while this did not absolve the publication of its obligations under the Editors’ Code, it was relevant context the Committee considered. It noted that the matters under complaint – particularly whether or not immigrants are a net fiscal negative – appeared to be a matter of substantial academic debate, which it was not, definitively, in a position to rule on. Its role was to consider whether the publication had fulfilled its obligations under the Editors’ Code.

19. The Committee began with the complainant’s concern regarding the reported claim that immigrants “end up costing more to the nation’s coffers than they contribute.” In the Committee’s view, while this appeared in an opinion piece, it was a statement of fact – it would be taken by a reader to mean that the net fiscal impact of immigrants to the British economy was, factually, negative. It therefore turned to whether the publication had put forward sufficient evidence in support of its position.

20. Amongst other studies, the publication had pointed to a research document by the Oxford Migration Observatory which, itself, compiled the research of a number of studies into the net fiscal impact of immigrants. The majority of these suggested that immigrants had a net negative fiscal impact – the Committee considered this a suitable source to which the publication could rely, given the research compiled results from a number of separate, individual studies.

21. The Committee appreciated that the complainant may have disputed both the methodology, and outcome, of the research the newspaper had pointed to – it also appreciated that the complainant had supplied evidence which contradicted the newspaper’s claim. However, publications are entitled to publish articles with a specific point of view on a topic, and defend their choice of data or statistics to support their point of view, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Where the publication had supplied sufficient evidence in support of its position, the Committee did not consider that either a lack of care, or a significant inaccuracy, arose from its reporting. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article had reported that the majority of immigrants were “low-wage”, and “low-skilled”. It recognised, firstly, that this was inherently subjective and noted that the article did not report that the majority of immigrants had a lower wage or lower skills or qualifications than the general UK population. Instead, the publication’s columnist was entitled to their own view as to what constituted a “skilled” profession, or a “low wage”.

23. In any event, the Committee again considered that the publication had sufficiently evidenced its position. It was not in dispute that the majority of immigrants do not arrive via a ”Skilled” visa – absent of direct evidence to the contrary, the Committee considered this a sufficient basis on which the publication could claim that the majority of immigrants were “low-skilled”.

24. The publication had also pointed to research from both the Migrant Advisory Committee that the average tax contribution of a UK-born working adult was estimated to be higher than the Skilled Worker visa average; and that, as per a Government white paper, that the average earnings for immigrants on the “Family Partner route” fell short of the average earnings for full-time UK employees. This provided a basis for the claim that the majority of immigrants were “low-wage”.

25. The Committee, again, recognised that the complainant had supplied contradictory evidence - such as HMRC payroll data suggesting the median wage for EU and non-EU nationals was higher than the median wage of UK nationals. Nevertheless, the Committee considered the evidence put forward by the publication sufficient to support its argument, particularly where, as noted above, the disputed claims were inherently subjective. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 26/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/11/2025