It seems this pathway no longer exists?

I would say "having roughly similar migration as several other rich countries" does mean not "open borders", as I think few people would claim that open borders is currently the state of entrance into most rich countries. (Certainly, as an immigrant in the UK, it has not been my experience.)

In answer to those points:

About one in four UK tourist visas is refused, which does not seem that easy. The UK has a relatively small number of migrants that arrive by sea, compared to other European countries with a long coastline. About half of asylum applications are denied. Most denied asylum seekers then leave the country.

So I stand by "open borders seems like quite the exaggeration".

Update: I have edited, and added a footnote saying you corrected me, linking to this comment, and noting that I offered you a bug bounty.

You're correct that I accidentally used the 2023 work visa total instead of 2024 work visa total.

I'll edit. As per my bug bounty policy, I'll also donate $10 to a charity of your choice: https://www.laurenpolicy.com/p/announcing-a-bug-bounty-for-this

That being said, I am relatively unconcerned about the fiscal effects of this given 1) dependents are allowed to work in the UK (unlike in the US), 2) cohort wages look decent through 2023, and 3) labor force participation for non-UK born remains higher than for the UK born (through 2025). 

So was I, tbh! It is also possible that there are more studies but they are in French and I cannot read them.

Responded on Substack!

1. I am not sure how to prove to you that people need income in the United States.
2. As I say below, they say: "We found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime".  That is, refugees were not any likelier than Germans to commit crimes against Germans.  I said: "In Germany, refugees were not particularly likely to commit crimes against Germans".  I have accurately reported their results.
3. I discuss below why simple descriptive statistics are insufficient to tell you if a group commits more crime than other groups.

They say: "We found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime".  That is, refugees were not any likelier than Germans to commit crimes against Germans.

I said: "In Germany, refugees were not particularly likely to commit crimes against Germans".  I have accurately reported their results.

Furthermore, in a post I am working on now, I will discuss why such charts - I look at one simply comparing the % of of a given ethnicity in prison to the % in a population - do not tell you all that much:

"We might overestimate the rate of immigrant crime because:

• Immigrant and native-born populations differ.  Crime is disproportionately committed by young men (under 30 years old).  If the immigrant population contains a lot of young men, and the native population skews older, one could end up with immigrants overrepresented in the prison system even if natives and immigrants are equally likely to commit crimes over their lifetime.
• Racial or ethnic bias in the justice system could lead to more convictions for immigrants than the native-born, even if they are committing crimes at the same rate.
• The crimes immigrants may have committed could be immigration offenses.  In the US, 86% of undocumented people charged with a crime are charged not with a violent or property crime, but with being in the country without permission. The native-born cannot commit immigration offenses in their home country, so mechanically, immigrants commit more immigration offenses than the native born.

I’m also fairly certain this isn’t the kind of crime most people worry about when they worry about immigrants and crime.

On the other hand, this graph might underestimate immigrant crime if:

• Criminal immigrants are deported and thus don’t appear in the prison statistics.
• Immigrants commit crimes against other immigrants.  There is data suggesting that immigrants are less likely to report crimes to law enforcement; this might allow criminals who target this population to get away with more."

1. From Portes and Stepnick 1985: "The federal government's refusal to grant either group political asylum deprived them of benefits under the new 1980 Refugee Act. Although subsequent congressional action alleviated this situation, emergency aid was limited and most of it lapsed by 1983. Lacking either jobs or government assistance, many refugees were compelled to rely on private charity or to invent jobs in a burgeoning "informal" economy in Miami."  So technically, they received some aid - I'll edit accordingly, thanks for the flag - but considerably less than most refugees.
2. To quote Billy and Packard 2020, "Our results are at least – in part driven by negative selection of Cubans... a segment of this group even held felony records by US standards"  Some of these negatively selected migrants were eventually deported in 2017!
3. That's their... headline result?  "We do not find, however, any evidence for a systematic link between the scale of refugee immigration (and neither the type of refugee accommodation or refugee sex ratios) and the risk of Germans to become victims of a crime in which refugees are suspects" (pg. 3), "refugee inflows do not exert a statistically significant effect on the crime rate" (pg. 21), "we found no impact on the overall likelihood of Germans to be victimized in a crime" (pg. 31), "our results hence do not support the view that Germans were victimized in greater numbers by refugees" (pg. 34).

I haven't seen a lot of evidence on other kinds of peacekeepers, so I don't know that I can say with confidence how effective they are!  I would guess it depends on how much they are seen as a neutral third party.