Migration Megathread

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be encouraged and incentivised to have fewer children. Many of the problems we face as a species, from property prices all the way up to some of the wars, can be traced back to the fact that there are more and more people competing for the same limited amount of resources and space to live in.

It's simple maths. A chocolate bar divided between three people gives each individual more chocolate than the same bar divided between four. The world has reached a point in which exponential population growth is guarantee to cause falling and eventually plummeting quality of life due to this. If we went future generations to actually enjoy living on this planet, we need to seriously reign in population growth so that they have enough space and resources to go around without seeing their quality of life evaporate.

So we ve had 'the evil ones', 'the Muslims', 'the blacks', what else?

Mark Steyn, really? What rock did he crawl out from? Its amazing to see this kind of recycled Nazi nonsense coming up again. This kind of racism (yes I am using racism as Muslims are being treated as a race by Steyn and his ilk) is being used by the far right to radicalize people, and we have already seen such nonsense inspire far right terrorism in the Europe, the US and Canada.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure where they're getting the "nobody knows" bit. The demographic situation in Europe, and its implications for migration, are widely discussed. Have these people been living under a rock?

Perhaps its a reference to the relative level of discussion to the importance of the discussion. 500 years from now, when scholars look at contemporary events, will the age be defined by A) Brexit, or mass immigration into Europe? Clearly the latter is the much more significant event of our time, but Brexit has a dedicated thread onto its third iteration, so a minimum of 28,000 posts whereas the latter, if it is raised at all is diminished and dismissed.

I think in some ways it's similar to climate change. People may accept its happening, but its not discussed to the level it ought to be. Brexit fits into short term political and media horizons which only extend to the next election. Climate change, and demographic change on the other hand is perceived as being almost irrelevant by comparison. It will be someone else's problem, and lets face it there is a certain level of wilful denial, funded by corporations and NGOs in both cases.

The article is absurdly oversimplified. It states without evidence or argument the the population of Europe is composed entirely of Muslims and post-Christian secularists. (Really? There are no other groups? Like, you know, actual Christians?) It assumes that there will be no intermarriage between migrants and the indigenous population, which is very much contrary to the European experience to date. It assumes that fertility rates will not change either in the migrant group or the indigenous group during the next two generations, despite the fact that in both groups they have changed significantly in the past two generations and, indeed, in much shorter time frames than that.

I think we need to differentiate between the article, which is by a guy called Pete Baklinski, and the video which the article describes. Steyn is the author of the video. The criticism seems to be treating each as being one and the same. All the other linked stories on that site reference Catholic or Christian topics so I think the focus on Christianity in this topic is Baklinski. Steyn doesn't dwell on it bar two passing references in a 25 minute video. The closest I can match Baklinkski's summary to Steyn's views is that he compares the family sizes of incoming Muslim immigrants to 30% of German women being childless at 12:42. The 10% vs.90% figures (which you mention below) is stated by Steyn (around 13:04 continuing) as being about the Muslim population of France (not Europe).

And I don't consider it an unusual flaw to base projections on current trends.

On these rather improbable assumptions, the author calculates that there will be a Muslim majority in Western Europe within two generations, starting from a current Muslim population of 10%. The Muslim population of the EU is in fact 3.8% but, since that fact is inconvenient, the author simply substitutes an "alternative fact" of his own, which will result in his calculation producing the answer that he has decided in advance that he wants.

He doesn't say a majority. He says on current trends of family size, the 90% will have 38 grand children. And the 10% will have 32 grand children. Not a majority, but rapid demographic shifts all the same.

Now you are dismissing this as alarmist, but lets cast our mind back some years. In 1960 the USA was 88.6% white. In 1965, the US passed a new immigration act which opened migration from the world. Americans were assured nothing significant would occur as a result. 51 years later, perhaps two generations to white Americans who increasingly have children later white American children are a minority in the USA. . That is massive, massive demographic change in just two generations. While Hollywood still portrays this idyllic small town white middle America to foreigners, its increasingly not the present and it is certainly not the future. The increasingly political polarisation and racial identity politics which produced Trump are just a symptom of this demographic change which nobody in 1965 America asked for.

As for the highlighted piece, I think its you who is shuffling the numbers to more convenient truths. The 3.8% figure for EU population is disingenuous. The Muslim (and wider migrant) population is not evenly distributed across the EU. It is heavily focused in Western Europe and even in particular regions within Western Europe where the population % is a lot higher than 3.8%, or even 10%. It is not alarmist to note that these demographics are going one way when indigenous Europeans are older and have less children. Pew Research is projecting under *current* migration numbers (no increase required), Sweden will be 30% Muslim by 2050. And that is just Muslim migrants. With non-Muslim migrants, the indigenous Swedes are going to be approaching minority status within their own homeland unless they close the open door policy.

Now maybe you think this is a good thing. Maybe you think it is a bad thing. But its disingenuous to pretend its a conspiracy theory.

All this is explained when we get about two-thirds of the way into the article and we discover that it's a puff-piece for speech of Donald Trump's in which, with astonishing hypocrisy, he calls for "the defense of Christianity that underpins all of Western Civilization". Right, so. We're dealing with Trumpery here.

You want opinions about this article? My opinions is that it's nonsense. Trumpish nonsense.

See above. Diminish and dismiss is the typical approach, but it is very obvious and clearly acknowledged that if a European country stops having children, and import hundreds of thousands of non-European migrants every year who are having children...in 100 years it wont be a European country in more than the geographical sense. Ask the Aboriginals in the now Australia. Ask the Native Americans in the now USA. Ask the First Peoples in the now Canada.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's people up north have the same fear about Catholics.

Yes, and that demonstrates how deep and damaging demographic divisions can go. We have two populations, both Christian, both white (so indistinguishable from each other) and even drawn from the same Gaelic heritage if you go back far enough. And still intensely bitter hatreds and political division that has endured for 400 years and could endure for another 400. Why would you want to repeat this experience across western Europe?

Are you really betting and European and non-European groups who have much greater differences are going to get on better? The history of the former Yugoslavia doesn't bode well, let alone current events where suicide bombings and truck rampages are now a thing in Europe that requires tens of thousands of soldiers patrolling city streets. Where-ever you find diversity, you find conflict and atrocities.

The fact is populations change over time. We all live on the same planet, if Ireland becomes a Muslim majority country, that's nature at work.

This is not nature. This is policy. Look at the US 1965 Immigration Act. That was a political choice, it was not a natural occurrence. The US was actually *more* white in 1965 than the USA was throughout the 19th century. After the 1965 act that has collapsed in just 50 years. That was a choice. Many western European governments are also making or have made choices, but you don't see it discussed openly in political manifestos. If you want to see this sort of demographic change, then seek a mandate for it openly. Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining.

There was a time we had no Catholics in Ireland. This all revolves back to protectionism. How things are now for me are fine. Any equality or change in that is seen as a threat and it's understandable people become fearful of change. As borne out in the like of the US where we actually have the descendants of conquers and immigrants campaigning against immigrants and fearful of being conquered. The Aboriginals, First nations and Palestinians would have been right to be fearful on their 'settlers' from abroad. Maybe the great white west is fearful it might get a taste of it's own medicine.

So is this demographic change supposed to be a positive or a punishment?

Lets look at how it goes for whites in America. They are passing into minority status, and for the past 70 years their fellow citizens have been told that whites have undue power and wealth, that they cheated and stole it, and that they have misused it to oppress others. Lets see how that situation develops and see if they do indeed get a taste of their own medicine as you put it. Preferably from a distance.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If that is a pop at me or the other mods, we have no intention of closing this thread. I'm not going to discuss moderation here so please don't respond to that. I just wanted to make that clear.

Was absolutely *not* having a pop at moderation of this forum. It's exceptionally well facilitated and moderated and has always been an excellent space on boards. I hope it's okay to clarify that.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

With respect, "Immigration good" as you so put it is a very vague statement. I think that it is a good thing but it needs to be managed. If white people in Western Europe and the US are having fewer children then I think that it is fair to wonder why.

Here in the UK, it simply isn't affordable for the working class and often people in the middle class to have children. Social housing has been largely sold off, Rents are through the roof, the jobs for life some of our parents enjoyed are gone and insecure "McJobs" are a pretty strong disincentive to enduring the financial burden that even a single child would represent. I live in Zone 4 and a 2-bed flat in my area would cost well over ten times my net income. I could leave but then I'd struggle to find work that would pay enough for me to support a child. Many people are in this situation. Manufacturing and many low skilled jobs have either emigrated or become automated. Unless things change for people on lower incomes, you're going to see the size of certain demographics shrink.

I believe managed immigration is absolutely necessary for successful open economies. I am suspicious of many of the over simplified arguments against it over the past half decade. As you illustrate we're experiencing a perfect storm of a near decade of savage austerity allied to an incredibly soft and unimpactful recovery outside of London allied to the Syrian refugee crisis allied to nefarious political opportunists looking to capitalize upon that situation for other reasons. But we still need to talk about all of this. Some elements of the political spectrum have tried to stigmatize raising this discussion.

The ultimate answer here may very well be a simple case of resetting expectations downwards for certain sectors of the population in the West. You will be poorer than your parents, you will have less opportunities and you need to invest more time, effort and money into the ones that are made available to you. No politician is willing to say that yet, but we certainly can't pretend there isn't a problem. People aren't imagining that they're doing worse than their parents. I'm much more highly educated, mobile and remunerated than my Dad was at this age and securing an equivalent quality of home is an impossibility.

Am I conflating multiple things by saying that? Yes. Is it possible to keep these issues in separate compartments? I don't believe so.

Skin colour is an incredibly trivial thing. But often (not always of course) it is underpinned by very distinct cultural behaviours, expectations and histories. As such, 'white people are doing less well' can mean 'people from specific areas are doing less well'; 'people from specific socio economic leanings are doing less well'; 'people traditionally employed in these sectors are getting hammered' etc, etc, etc.

Being fretful about any of this because of petty issues with skin colour or religious persuasion is obviously nonsense. But asking the question about the other things (while being deliberately inclusive on the trivial differentiation points) is not. I accept that it's hard to sort between those doing the latter and not the former.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem with resetting expectations is twofold. The first is that we now see widening inequality with billionaires and corporations paying next to no tax. The second is that attempting to set lukewarm expectations on what the next government can achieve opens the door for populists who will promise the world. It is also the reason why separating issues of migration, equality, housing supplying and prices, etc is impossible.

I personally believe Corbyn and #forthemanynotthefew resonated to a surprising degree last year for precisely these reasons. The center may very well be dead, because it isn't translating to everyone in society the way it did two decades ago.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here in the UK, it simply isn't affordable for the working class and often people in the middle class to have children.

Would you not agree that part of this is due to population growth throughout the 20th century?

Seems obvious to me that, for example, Dublin's housing crisis is directly related to more people wanting to live here and therefore the city requiring a higher density of housing - which almost certainly means a reduction, however slight, in the quality of life of each citizen (smaller units, less open green space, longer commutes, whatever really) - would it not be fair to say that something similar is happening in the UK?

The fact that the world's population literally increased by several billion people in the 20th century just cannot possible have no knock on effects towards property prices. Land is an inherently finite resource, of course land value will increase if there's more demand for it from a larger number of people than before.

I know I keep saying this, but it astounds me that this isn't discussed as a mainstream economic and political factor, and that we don't actively incentivise people to limit population growth. Indeed, we actually do the opposite in a lot of ways - parents with kids are prioritised for state resources and social welfare in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) which surely must be incentivising people to have kids in and of itself?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

With respect, "Immigration good" as you so put it is a very vague statement. I think that it is a good thing but it needs to be managed. If white people in Western Europe and the US are having fewer children then I think that it is fair to wonder why.

Here in the UK, it simply isn't affordable for the working class and often people in the middle class to have children. Social housing has been largely sold off, Rents are through the roof, the jobs for life some of our parents enjoyed are gone and insecure "McJobs" are a pretty strong disincentive to enduring the financial burden that even a single child would represent. I live in Zone 4 and a 2-bed flat in my area would cost well over ten times my net income. I could leave but then I'd struggle to find work that would pay enough for me to support a child. Many people are in this situation. Manufacturing and many low skilled jobs have either emigrated or become automated. Unless things change for people on lower incomes, you're going to see the size of certain demographics shrink.

I think its very fair to wonder why a people fail to reproduce themselves. I think its a damning indictment of economic, cultural and political 'advances' since the second world war that progressive Europe simply lacks the drive to sustain itself. Can a society be considered successful if it ceases having children? Is that not people voting with their feet in the most total fashion?

I think you could have an extensive discussion purely on that topic alone. I don't think there are clear answers. Sure, economic insecurity is a factor but how significant? Poverty is associated with high fertility throughout the world, so does it also explain low fertility? Africa is going through a population boom despite being much poorer than Europe and far more economically insecure.

The conventional 3-bed semi detached is growing ever smaller and less suited for raising a family. That could be a factor, but even 2-3 generations ago, large families were raised in small houses and bunk beds are still a thing.

I think there is cultural reasons as well: women have entered the workforce, men have not exited it so raising a family has to come second to careers, especially through peoples 20s and early 30s when each is seeking to get those critical promotions [Disclaimer - I am not saying the solution is patriarchy!]. And despite both working, people are actually relatively less wealthy than their parents or grandparents were at the same point in the lives. The aforementioned 3 bed is increasingly out of young peoples reach.

Again, my view of all these factors is that they are not natural, it is not an act of god, or simply the way of the world over which we are powerless. It is a result of policies. Governments enact policies. We have, or should have, power over governments. We need governments to enact better policies.

There also seems to be a persistent message that not having children is a good thing. Noble even. A sacrifice made for the good of the world. I don't think this is a significant factor in most peoples decision making, but it cant be without some effect that progressive people are telling other progressive people that its better for the environment to be childless.

I mention this aspect because I dont think the solution is entirely about offering grants and handouts. Japan has tried this with little effect. There is no simple solution to a complex problem.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to add to what ACD says, if "people in Western Europe and the US are having fewer children", then that in itself is a factor which tends to suggest that immigration will be good. The continuing health of society and economy in Western Europe and the US requires future generations of workers, and if fertility does not supply this then migration will. To that extent, immigration isn't so much a threat to "western civilisation" as a necessary condition for its survival. That is, if we take "civilisation" to be dependent on a strong and healthy economy.

ACD raises some good questions about why our birthrate is so low. If he is right in thinking that social and economic insecurity discourages people from having children, then we should expect migrants who move into the same insecure housing, employment etc conditions not to sustain high birth rates; their birth rates will fall in response to the same incentives that have led to the fall already observed in the indigenous population.

So European countries are simply economic units, and if the factors of production that live in them fail to meet economic demands, then the economy simply import other factors of production from abroad?

That's your vision of the society you live in? That is incredibly sad.

And you're not seeing that your solution is not a solution at all. Europeans are failing to have sufficient children. Rather than addressing that admittedly difficult problem, you side step it by importing people from abroad. You then expect these people to converge on the European norm: i.e. cease having children. So then you have to import *more* people. And the cycle continues, without ever solving the actual problem. It is just papering over the cracks. The only result is the indigenous Europeans become a tiny minority in their homeland as more and more migrants move in to lend their fertility to a society that wont have children themselves.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

America has been undergoing massive demographic change since the 18th century. All of these "white" people you mention are themselves immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. I don't know what skin colour has to do with it.

Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

America was surprisingly stable in its demographics throughout the 20th century and indeed the 19th century. It was 80% white in 1790. It grew to 88% white in 1900, and stabilised at 88-89% white for the next 70 years. So for 180 years the USA was at least 80% white and for the majority of that time higher again. Over just the past 40-50 years, those demographics have rapidly changed. This was accomplished with no discussion, and no democratic mandate. The only comparable event I can think of over the same period is the demographic shifts between Arabs and Israelis in the territory of Israel. The British Mandate in 1920 was 80% Arab/Muslim. By 1948 this fell to 68% as Jewish people migrated into the territory. Today it is 50/50 in the former territory overall, and within the territory of Israel itself less than 20% are Arab/Muslim.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but nothing signficant has occurred. America is just as American, and Americans are just as American, as they were in 1960. White American children may be a minority (if we classify children of Latino heritage as "not white"), but so what? Skin colour is an incredibly trivial thing.

Nothing significant? Have you not noticed that a drivelling moron is sitting in the White House? He was propelled there by the racial turmoil and angst which has been set in motion by these demographic changes. That turmoil is not going to get better - its going to get worse.

Already, there is very clear voting blocs by race in America. Blacks gave an 80% preference to Dems in 2016. Latinos gave a 36% lead to Dems in 2016. Whites gave at 21% lead to Reps in 2016.

And this cant even be excused by education (Trump won white voters with a college degree, 49% vs 45%), nor by misogyny (Trump won white women (against a woman candidate!) by 52% vs 43%.). What pushed Trump over the line though was his performance amongst whites without a college degree. He simply swept up in a way not before seen. They came out and voted in droves for a "Republican" candidate who swapped the dog-whistle for a megaphone turned up to 11.

The Democrats are the party of the African and Latin Americans, and the Republicans are the party of white Americans in the same way as SF and the DUP divide up Catholic and Protestant votes with a similarly debilitating effect on society as a whole. NI has fallen into distrustful paralysis secured by ever more and ever higher "peace" walls between communities, and the US struggles to pass a budget where compromise with the other side is seen as treachery.

In the era of racially charged identity politics which now define the US, those links of party and race are going to get stronger and stronger. So you might consider all this trivial, but it's happening even if you don't approve of it.

My only question is why would you want to repeat this division and turmoil in Europe? What is to be gained?