Mosaic Math: The Ministry of Justice’s creative reporting

Author: Sæunn I. Marinósdóttir | December 31st, 2025

Photo: aimeeorleans via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) artwork by Bäst

When governments release formal reports, it is generally assumed that their foundation rests on professional methodology and reliable sources, even if the perspective, interpretation, and purpose are shaped by the policy or ideology of the ruling power. This is also the case with the recent Ministry of Justice report on residence permit trends in Iceland. Its content and headlines have been distributed rapidly and widely, generally accepted as truth and fact, which has already produced extensive support for burdensome policy changes. However, when the report is examined more closely, a different picture emerges. The bulk of its content relies on unprofessional and unethical use of data, and a complete lack of transparency regarding methodology, data sources, or guidelines for interpretation. Below is an analysis of just one small part of it, which serves as an indicator of the overall quality of the document.

At first glance, Figure 4 (Mynd 4) in the report appears simple and straight forward. A simple bar chart visualising trends in an accessible way. But when the data is investigated, it reveals clearly that the image is not the result of traditional statistical methods, but rather an exercise in creative mathematics. Tracking the origin of the numbers proved to be a difficult task, as it turns out that none of the numbers in this chart are correct.

Figure 4 from the Ministry's report: Innocent at first glance, but built on lies

The methodology: Mosaic math

At the time of report writing, and when this analysis was conducted, Statistics Iceland had not yet released detailed data of foreign residents’ numbers by citizenship at the start of 2025. Information was only available on the total population number, split by Icelandic or foreign citizenship. Instead of waiting for reviewed and validated data, publishing simpler information, or using older data in honour of the truth, the authors decided to piece together a fabricated picture of resident origins without any explanation or disclaimer.

Upon reverse-engineering the numbers of Figure 4, it became evident that in lieu of the standard methodological approach, a new method had been invented. Most effectively described as a creative mixing of different, incompatible datasets together into a mosaic math piece with astounding disregard to reality.

Simplified, the method is as follows:

1. Real numbers: The total number of foreigners is correct (consistent with Table 2), based on Hagstofan: MAN10001
2. False equivalence: For residents from countries outside the EEA, they did not use population data. Instead, they used the count of valid residence permits and beneficiaries of temporary protection, based on Eurostat: migr_resvas and Eurostat: migr_asytpsm
3. EEA fills the remaining gap: To balance the equation, the EEA group is simply calculated as the "leftover" number to reach the correct total population.

The formula used to fill in the blanks is this spectacularly dreadful calculation:

$Residents\;with\;EEA\;citizenship = Total\;foreign\;residents - Total\;valid\;residence\;permits$

*See Statistics Iceland’s methodology for population analysis

This approach distorts the picture significantly. Residence permits are not people, they are paper. They often outnumber actual residents (e.g., people who have emigrated but whose permits haven't expired), meaning the number of "Non-EEA" foreigners is inflated, and the EEA group is shrunk accordingly.

Britain and Ukraine

Two examples clearly demonstrate how misleading this "methodology" is:

The missing British residents: Before Brexit, British citizens belonged to the EEA. After Brexit, they moved to the "Non-EEA" group.

• Reality: The British population in Iceland increased by 41%, from 634 (end of 2016) to 896 (end of 2024).
• The Report: Since Brits didn't need residence permits in 2017, there were 0 British citizens with valid permits in Iceland at that time. By early 2025, there were 1,458 valid permits. In the report's calculations, this bureaucracy is transformed into 1,458 new residents by presenting permit numbers as population truth.
• The Result: The authors conjure nearly 1,500 "new residents" from non-EEA countries out of thin air.

Ukraine: As noted above, it can generally be assumed that the number of individuals permitted to reside is higher than the actual residents. At the time of this writing, the breakdown of population figures by citizenship has been published on the Statistics Iceland website. It is now clear that the report overestimates the Ukrainian population by 438 individuals. In early 2025, 3,582 individuals with Ukrainian citizenship were registered as domiciled here, while 4,020 held valid temporary protection based on the Parliament's decision to provide shelter quickly and securely.

Eurostat and other institutions do not view this group as traditional immigrants. It is a coordinated priority of most European states to handle this migration, administration, and paperwork differently than other refugees or general immigrants. It is assumed that most wish to return home at the first opportunity. Even though many will undoubtedly settle here permanently, this group deserves the respect of their emergency not being silently repackaged and branded in support of alarmist headlines and political power plays.

At the very least, authorities should have the decency not to use temporary protection figures without any explanation or disclaimer, as they otherwise create a steep spike in the data that is easily misinterpreted, or misrepresented, as a change in general immigration flows.

The latest numbers

About three weeks after the Ministry of Justice published its report, Statistics Iceland released the disaggregated figures providing the correct breakdown of residents’ citizenship. For comparison and correction of the report's presentation, they are shown in the following chart: