Still xenophobic. And your source is very open that it has selection bias and aggregation methodological issues. Essentially, it describes how migration as an aggregate, all across the world seems to function, disregarding individual peculiarities, within the people they managed to access. Migration from India to the UK doesn’t function the same as migration from Lybia to France, or Mexico to the USA and most definitely not from Venezuela to the myriad of counties the diaspora has found themselves in.

Poor immigrants do not account in this data, as they weren’t interviewed, are the most likely to be undocumented, and thus avoid attention and refuse interviews the most. It also most definitely ignores the peculiarities of Venezuelan migration. It might inform some political decision makers on a very broad and vague way. But it is an extraordinarily narrow, incomplete and impractical understanding of the issue.