Well, yes, not a surprise

More than 80 per cent of the rise in Britain’s population between 2001 and 2016 was because of migration, a new analysis has found.

Migration Watch UK said that 3.1million migrants had come to the UK over that period and 2.5million children had at least one parent who was born abroad.

When adjusted for migrants who had died, the figures suggest that 5.4million of the 6.6million increase in the UK’s population over that period.

All of the rich nations – absent migration – have fertility rates below replacement level.

Not exactly a great surprise.

22 comments on “Well, yes, not a surprise

  1. And those rich nstions have been worrying for past three decades over their demographic ‘timebomb’. The fact is we some positive level of net immigration. (lights blue touch paper and walks away)

  2. Replacement level? Why do we need to replace? What is the ideal number for our population? If it must increase annually merely because of the number of ponzi schemes which require it, we really ought to do something about that. I prefer the 50mil I was brought up with to the 66+mil today? Let’s find a way to get by without importing people who don’t give a toss about our country or culture, just money. Is that the definition of an immigrant? Or an economist?

  3. Yes, the UK will benefit from high-value, high IQ, temporary immigrants, who return to their countries of origin after a few years. We don’t need low-value, low IQ immigrants at all. (Average sub-saharan IQs are in the 60-80 range – A border collie dog has an IQ of c.54.) Nor do we need cultural incompatibles, such as (most) muslims.

    Business needs to weaned off the drug of cheap labour from abroad and be encouraged to recruit locally and/or to automate.

    More generally, we need to recognise that race is not a social construct, but that our society is a racial construct….See, for example:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

  4. We’ve tried nothing to improve birth rates and we’re all out of ideas! Welp… better turn our country over to acid-flinging rapists whose parents were first cousins!

    >Lights the pink touch paper and minces off ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  5. Well, actually *is* a surprise, since the net increase in UK residents born outside the UK between the 2001 and 2011 censuses was 3.1 million – and that ignores net migration between 2011 and 2016. So adding 1.2m for that and the 2.5m born to recent immigrants we get 6.8m which is 107%, not 80%.

  6. Oh, do I count? My dad was born in British India. My siblings were born in what is now Pakistan. Are their kids counted? And the lady across the road whose parents were war-exiled Poles?

  7. Rhoda Klapp

    That appernetly makes you an acid-throwing rapist whose parents were first cousins. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

  8. Rhoda Klapp–If you arrived since 1/1/1997–and/or the lady across the road–you would lose the vote for 100 years in my book.

    Assuming that your folks were not British in British India as part of the Raj.

    The left have been importing voters. Time to sink that and the People’s Antisemite with it.

  9. @ Rhoda
    Did you move into the Uk between 2001-16, having been born abroad? – I cannot tell that from the information that you have provided.
    One of my ancestors came over from Hanover when the Elector of Hanover was also, as a side-effect King of England; OTOH a lot of them came over before Julius Caesar. Do you want to count me as well?
    The issue is about the housing problem, of which the primary cause is the Attlee Town and Country Planning Act 1948 and thne NIMBYS blocking reform, and the secondary cause is the increased demand since 1997 due to unrestricted immigration.
    60 years ago my best friend was the son of immigrants who had to flee Hitler, another friend was the son a Polish RAF pilot. They are not in question.

  10. Replacement level? Why do we need to replace?

    Societies which don’t procreate at the ‘replacement level’ end up with skewed demographics towards the older generations. You end up with fewer younger working people supporting more elderly and retired. Combine that with said older generations voting for more and more welfare (and retiring earlier) and you have a real problem.

    Not that mass immigration is the answer.

  11. @ Mr Ecks
    Your stupidity is brilliantly exampled by your postulate that a Polish couple exiled by the 1939 joint invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin would have a child or bring her to England after 1997. It was *theoretically* possible for Poles to go to Sweden but they were not made welcome as they were in Britain. 99% of Polish war exiles arrived in Britain before I was born (and quite a lot of them died in the Battle of Britain)

  12. @ Rob
    I wish more people read Asimov rather than Marx. Automation permits a smaller working population to support a larger non-working population.
    Dr Asimov was *rather* more intelligent than Karl Marx but few lefty pseudo-intellectuals will admit that.

  13. My folks were both English. My dad was born in Hyderabad because HIS dad was in the Army. When he had kids in Rawalpindi during his army service, then British India now Pakistan, they were then British. Only cockups with the laws to keep brown people out meant they were subjects not citizens, there being no way to register them back before the law changed. There are thousands of us, still fighting bureaucracy for being army brats. Meanwhile genuine Pakistanis or Windrush folks get looked after. (I was on the Windrush, shipping out to Singapore in 1951 as a kid, but lucky enough top have been born during a UK posting.

    Anyhow, that’s how one of my parents was born abroad. As I say, thousands of us now counted in with the immigrants.

  14. Rob, yes it’s a problem if you see it that way. It is also an opportunity (how’s that for management speak) if we would actually think about what we need to happen in the future and overcome that demographic hurdle rather than paper it over with imported dross. (Mixed metaphors a speciality.)

  15. @ Rhoda Klapp
    You are firstly not an immigrant at all and secondly your siblings are not the immigrants being discussed in Tim’s reference.
    As I keep saying: all British people are immigrants or descended from immigrants – we have a trivial amount of Neanderthal DNA.

  16. things were ok in the 50s- If immigration was necessary why did our leaders not pick and choose.
    The ones they chose seemed almost deliberately designed to disrupt these born British. Hence the Hate crime laws I guess.
    Really- are there not enough educated people in Europe that could have been poached.

  17. John 77–WTF are you blathering about above?

    A Polish couple here since 1939 have a kid who doesn’t get here until after 1/1/97? Then she don’t get a vote –or HER kids until 2097. Too complicated for you? Any ethnicity is what I said–so as to give the race-baiters nothing.

  18. @ Mr Ecks
    A Polish couple arrive here in 1939 and have a child 58 years later? (Perhaps 51 years later – they might have been able to return to Poland in 1990).
    Yes, you’re an idiot.

  19. Pointing out your incoherent shite makes me the idiot? For wasting time on you that might be right.

    Who mentioned Poles and 1939 apart from you? What the fuck do folk arriving in 1939 have to do with a 100 year rule coming in retro-dated to 1/1/97 and applying to those who arrive on or after that date or after?

  20. @ Mr Ecks
    You – yes you yourself – referred to the lady across the road from Rhoda Klapp. Maybe you’re senile as well if you cannot remember that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.