White Britons to become minority by 2066

[cowcommander]

Source: Telegraph

White Britons will be outnumbered by 2066 if the rate of immigration continues, researchers have claimed. Foreign workers will "change national identity" according to a population expert, unless the flow of immigration is dealt with. Foreign workers will "change national identity" according to a population expert, unless the flow of immigration is dealt with.

The white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens) will fall to less than half of the overall population in just over 50 years. The warning from Professor David Coleman, from Oxford University, comes ahead of an announcement today by the Migration Advisory Board of its recommendation for the proposed immigration cap for people outside the EU.

Writing in Prospect magazine, Prof Coleman wrote: "On those assumptions the 'white British' population would decline to 45 million by 2051. "Were the assumptions to hold, the 'white British' population of Britain would become the minority after about 2066. It's a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age groups."

He said this would "represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious".


Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8142176/White-Britons-to-become-minority-by-2066.html

[marmar]

1. "The warning"

Warning? WTF?

[Lifelong Protester]

2. A thousand years after the Battle of Hastings and the Norman

Invasion. Seems about right.

[eShirl]

5. and before that the Angles,Saxons,Jutes,Vikings

and before them the Romans
etc

[texastoast]

3. 45,000,000 folks is enough

Of any color.

[DonCoquixote]

4. Soon to happen here

And sorry to say, while there are good european americans, this latino will NOT mind seeing that day!

[Matariki]

6. Big deal.

Anyway, by 2066 most of the planet will probably be a lovely shade of cafe au lait.

[madmax]

8. But, we'll still need sunscreen.

:evilgrin:

[tabatha]

7. Yep, after they pushed majorities in many colonies

into lower class status.

Karma.

[Javaman]

9. meh, if things keep going the way they are, humans will be the minority in 2066. nt

[Poll_Blind]

10. I'd like to believe that in 2066 those Britons would be judged by the content of their character.

Not the color of their skin.

I have little doubt that whatever the genetic makeup of the population of Britain in 2066 they will be, inevitably, as British as ever.

PB

[Matariki]

19. "they will be, inevitably, as British as ever"

excellent post!

[awoke_in_2003]

28. every point you made...

is excellent, but I am sure you have heard that before :hi:

[Poll_Blind]

31. .

Ha! Well, sometimes it's chicken and sometimes it's feathers but I thank you for the compliment!

:)

PB

[awoke_in_2003]

33. I just read your comment in...

your profile- very wise words.

[T_i_B]

36. The RW media in the UK.....

...wil never judge people by the content of their character. Race baiting is very much the norm with papers like the Daily Fail, Diana Express, Murdoch rags etc.

And this article is testament to that.

[LeftishBrit]

39. +1000

[bemildred]

11. Well, I guess they will have to assimilate with the majority then. nt

[Turborama]

12. I thought this was going to be an article from the BNP

I just had a look to see how they're spinning it and this is the headline they're using on their homepage: "Ethnically Cleansed Britain: 40,000 BC — 2066 AD RIP"

I won't post a live link but here is something the curious can copy and paste: bnp.org.uk

[burnsei sensei]

18. And that's exactly how the BNP would frame it.

They are a genuinely racist organization-- class and all else be damned.

[Drale]

13. 2066 is also the year that the UK will become the first country

to avoid invasion for 1000 years, pending any developments at least.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. That's an interesting fact.

[Drale]

16. Thank you

I love facts lol

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Except for the "minority " invasion that they are now complaing about.

[happyslug]

27. Yes, when the Dutch Fleet carried King William and Queen Mary that was NOT an invasion

When the Dauphin of France drove King John from London, that was not an invasion for he had assistance from British Barons (The Dauphin was the leading military leader when King John Signed the Magna Carta).

When King William and Queen Mary sailed to England in a DUTCH FLEET in 1688, that was NOT an invasion, even through the fleet was twice as large as the Spanish Armada that threaten England under Queen Elizabeth.

When King James II invaded Ireland to try to regain his throne in the 1690s, that was NOT an invasion.

When the French provided troops to Bonnie Prince Charlie and were the best equipped force in his army at the battle of Culloden in 1745, that was NOT an invasion.

European forces have fought in the British Isles at various times over the last 1000 years. Even today it is rare to have a full scale invasion of a Country without some support from within the Country (Look at the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, both opposed our invasions but we did find some people to support us).

Just pointing out that 1000 years of no invasion does not mean foreign forces have NOT fought in Britain NOR failed to take over the Country (The Dutch support for William and Mary was crucial for they over throwing the replacing King James II). It is NOT considered an invasion for the invaders won and wrote it up as an internal revolt more then an invasion, but it was clearly both. Just reminds me of the old saying "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"

[awoke_in_2003]

30. and how did they do it?...

by banding together, which Britons (not white, yellow, or brown Britons, but Britons) will continue to do as needed.

[Yupster]

32. If you don't count the Channel Islands

which Germany occupied during WWII.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. I think the Battle of Britain was an invasion

It wasn't a land invasion a la William the Conqueror, but it was definitely an air invasion by the Luftwaffe.

[T_i_B]

35. It wasn't a successful invasion.

That's the difference. The Normans in 1066 got William the Bastard on the throne. No invader has managed that since.

[applegrove]

14. Natural blonds will be gone in 200 years.

[Mosaic]

17. Fascinating

Karma indeed for so, so much. K&R.

[Turborama]

21. "white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens)"????

What about English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens who have parents from Asian and African countries? How are they "defined"? I mean, that's what we're talking about here isn't it? They're "OK" if they're born to Polish parents (for example) but not if one or both of them are from Asian and African countries? What. The. Fuck?

I'm white and half English. I am married to an Indonesian lady. When we have kids, what will they be "defined" as?

[Prophet 451]

22. I'm a Brit

And I don't care. Why should I care? Britain is, was and always has been a mongrel nation. Virtually nothing we think of as "British" was actually invented by us: Golf is Scottish, roast beef is Roman, tea is Chinese. Even the most popular meal (chicken tikka masala) is an Anglisisation of an Indian dish. The only things we think of as British that were actually born here are cricket, football hooliganism and punk rock.

And Britain's "national identity" has changed dozens of times. It changed when the Romans invaded, when the Vikings came, when the Angles, Beakers and Jutes came. It's always changing. More to the point, who gives a shit if the Brits of the future are black, white, brown, yellow or Hulk Hogan orange? There's nothing sacred about being caucasian, no real reason to think whiteness is especially worthy of preservation.

[Hardrada]

24. Your royals even. German.

And their in-laws. Had to change a few names,i.e. Battenberg to Mountbatten.

[happyslug]

29. From :Black Adder Goes Forth

Captain Black Adder "You are a German Spy".
Captain Darling tied up and gagged "I am as British as Queen Victoria!!!!"
Captain Black Adder "So you are 3/4 German and married a German"

[happyslug]

23. Same old errors keep creeping around to produce crap like this

The two biggest errors are simple, both of these errors are common in such fear articles:

1. Such Calculations refuse to take into consideration that many immigrants move back home. Even in the late 1800s into the US, something like 50% of the Immigrants made money and when returned home. German, Norse and Swedish immigrants were an exception, but they moved onto farm land i.e. purchased farms near relatives in areas opened up to farming starting in the 1850s. Other immigrants, came to the US and then broke into two groups, one group stayed in the US, the other group returned home. Some indications that something like 75% of such immigrants returned home (With some then coming back to the US to stay and even such two time immigrants also went back home). Movements back home occurred more often during bad times (such as now) then when jobs are plentiful. Thus such calculations NEVER account for people going back home with their children and staying permanently at home.

2. As people live in a new country, they slowly adopt the ways of that country, including having the same number of children as the native born population. Thus the number of children of such immigrants do NOT stay anywhere near the number of the first generation. The Calculations always assumes each generation will have the same number of Children as the first, and that never happens. Soon the new immigrants have the same number of children as the "Native Born" and their number become stable. For example, In the American South about 20% of the Population were African-American Slaves at the time of the Revolution. By the time of the Civil War that had dropped to 10% and that is with massive efforts to increase the number of African-American Slaves, most Immigrants going to the American North and the high murder rates of Southern White males. Thus slaves had to be imported up till the (and even during) the Civil War. The same with any new Migrant group, the present generation huge growth via birth will end with this generation

3. Sooner or later the "Push" to immigrant ends, do to the fact to many native born have left and thus wages increase (and thus less incentive to leave). With Globalization sooner or later wages will be about the same world wide and in such a situation why move? With no push to immigrant, immigration will end and things will return to normal.

[Hardrada]

25. I think you are correct and there is a European push-back now.

I can't see Scandinavia turning into a northern Cape Town for instance. It is interesting but not surprising that the countries which had empires have such a polyglot population. Sweden and Norway never were imperial powers and thus had no far-flung "subjects" to take in once empire ceased.

[Turborama]

26. Another thing, Britain is not some sort of heaven on earth that everyone wants to move to

Asia is where all the growth is happening and there are a lot of expats moving out here.

[T_i_B]

37. Anton Vowl smacks this bullshit down

http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/11/18/race-and-racism-a-white-briton-writes/

I don't know if I'll really care, if I make it to 91, whether there are more slightly darker faces than mine walking around; or whether I'll care very much if there are more pink faces belonging to people who didn't grow up in Britain, either. Maybe that's just me, but I don't see what the big fuss is about. I really don't, and I can say this as a 'white Briton': I don't care.

People say it's a taboo to talk about immigration, but of course that's not the case. I say it's a taboo to talk positively of immigration, as if it's something that isn't a great deluge to be feared. And 'white' does not equal 'British'; 'British' does not equal 'white'. If white Britons do get 'outnumbered', that might not be a tremendously bad thing. These islands do not belong to whites, the same way that they don't belong to anyone. White people happen to have lived here since the Ice Age, but a lot of things have changed since then.

Human beings are migratory animals in a lot of ways, and now we have aircraft and all sorts of technological advances to speed up that process; you can't see a nation state as being composed of a particular ethnic group. Increasingly, it doesn't work that way. Britain is more of a cultural than a racial identity, I think, and that identity is more multicultural the more immigration we have - and do you know what, I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

These articles do, as ever, come with the same old agenda - the agenda that there are 'Brits' and there are others - it's the them and us thing all over again. I don't see it that way; I see it as us and us. So there are other races than white coming over to this country and living here? Good for them. So it might mean that white people - the 'indigenous population' so beloved of dog-whistle racists everywhere - are not in the absolute overall majority in fifty or so years' time? Well, so what. This is where I struggle to find a problem, where I struggle to find the fear.

[LeftishBrit]

38. Please note that Migration Watch is an organization with a strong anti-immigration agenda

There are lots of wrong assumptions in that article. Happyslug has pointed out several of them.

There is crucially a difference between 'foreign workers' and long-term immigrants. Many people come and work here and then go back home. As Happyslug says, with globalization, the incentives for short-term and long-term economic migration may become less strong. And the economic downturn makes Britain less of a place 'paved with gold' for those seeking to better themselves; people may be increasingly likely to seek opportunities for example in Australia or the Far East.

"represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious".


Does it? We are already a very mixed nation. Just look at those who rule us! The Queen is of predominantly German and Danish ancestry; her husband is Greek. Of our three main party leaders, two are of recent Europaean immigrant descent. And we have been a multi-ethnic nation from our early origins: Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman, etc. all in a rich mix.

London has been a destination for many waves of immigrants over the last century - Irish; Jews; Afro-Caribbaeans; Chinese; Indians; Pakistanis; and East Europaeans. The same is true of many other cities.

All nations undergo cultural, political, economic and religious changes over time, in any case. And a good thing too.

But, if immigration is an old British tradition, so, sadly, is bigotry; and the British RW press is very good at whipping it up, with the help of such outfits as Migration Watch.

Who cares if the 'white British' become a minority anyway? (incidentally, most current immigrants are white East Europaeans). There is nothing sacred about being 'white British'.


(From a Brit - and second-generation immigrant.)
.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Excellent.