Posted on 01/15/2015 10:16:47 PM PST by Steelfish
Immigration Adds A City A Year To Britain’s Population New official study charts how population growth from immigration has surged twelvefold in a generation
209,000 people moved to Britain in 2013. By John Bingham 15 Jan 2015 Immigration used to add the equivalent of a couple of villages to the population of Britain a year - but now it adds a city, according to an official study charting the scale of the transformation of the country over the last 30 years.
Growth in the UK population as a direct result of new arrivals has increased by more than 1,200 per cent since 1983, a rate on course to rise further.
The report by the Office for National Statistics charts how Britain entered the 1980s as a net exporter of people, with more Britons leaving for a new life abroad than new arrivals moving in. And by 1983 net migration stood at just 17,000, roughly the equivalent of two thriving villages.
But by 2013, the last full year for which figures are available, it had increased more than twelvefold on that level to 209,000 – the equivalent of the population of Portsmouth.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
They’re going to win because they believe in their cause and we don’t.
Evil is taking over simply because no one is stopping them - be it Obamaism or Islamic conquest.
Now, the Brits have to worry about a population of raging Muzzies who want to kill them. Smart move!
In Sacramento California there are 175,000 immigrants from Russia and Ukraine. They are Christian and have lots of babies. The UK needs more immigrants like that.
Britain is like the United States, it doesn’t need more immigrants from anywhere, it just needs to be left alone for a few generations to see what they can salvage of their national identity and traditional culture.
About 200,000, half are women, maybe half the men are military age...
Five divisions.
Britain has always taken in migrants: pre WW1, it was the French Protestants, the Irish, Jews from E Europe, even in port cities some Arabs, HK Chinese and blacks. Between the wars, it was Italians and those fleeing both Hitler and Stalin.
Post WW2, starting in 1948, there was large black Caribbean migration, as we needed men esp to fill losses from WW2 in civilian life. In the 50’s and 60’s, there was large scale migration from SE Asia: Indians, Pakistanis, of all three major faiths there, mostly to the industrial towns of middle England and London, to work in the textile trade. Some more middle class and professional, as doctors. Add to that a large HK Chinese 50’s influx (thank god!) and also Poles who couldn’t return. In the 60’s, black and Asian influx slowed but continued.
In 1972, we took in 35000 Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin. In the 90’s, we took in refugees from the Bosnian wars and also Somalia.
In this century, the big influx has been white: from Poland and E Europe, as EU travel rules were relaxed. SO this rise is actually mainly from E Europe and the EU, though some from outside.
In 2014, 92% of the UK is white, 96% is NON Muslim. Scotland, NI and Wales all have small ethnic populations. 1-2% or less. England is 85-90% white.
Its wrong to think the rise is all Muslim. The UK Muslim community mostly dates from the 50’s/60’s influx. Some Somali muslim migration as 90s refugees, some between then and now. But people assume all recent UK immigration is Muslim or ethnic. Actually the biggest by far in the last 15 yrs has been the (white Christian) Poles and E Europeans.
“They are Christian and have lots of babies”
AND they don’t want to kill you because you are not like THEM!
That would be true if the population level was otherwise stable. But isn't it the case that the British population growth, absent immigration, is net negative (like most all of the EU, ie Italy)?
If so, the statement that the UK is “adding a city a year” is misleading.
Sub-replacement fertility
Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that (if sustained) leads to each new generation being less populous than the previous one in a given area. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman...
Replacement level fertility in terms of the net reproduction rate (NRR) is exactly one, because the NRR takes both mortality rates and sex ratios at birth into account.
As of 2010, about 48% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, and many others. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan, Ukraine and Lithuania. Only a few countries have low enough or sustained sub-replacement fertility (sometimes combined with other population factors like emigration) to have population decline, such as Japan, Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine.
Quick look on the web states the British replacement rate is at 1.9
How does this change anything I said?
First step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one.
It dosent, I am merely educating Freepers on UK immigration history.
And did I say we didn’t?. Again, telling freepers the facts of the history of UK immigration, so they have a clearer picture.
So you’re just talking to hear yourself talk?
Okay.
Nope, the fact is that most Americans and Freepers wont know the history of UK immigration. So I am posting the history.
I bet most people here think Muslims came over in the 90’s/00’s, not the 50’s/60’s. I have been told here in all seriousness that the UK ‘is 25% Muslim’. That’s the nonsense I am least trying to correct, with the facts.
....so the UK won’t fall to Islam because so much Muslim immigration came in during the 50s? Is that your argument?
Okay - it’s not that big a deal because the UK used to be an Empire encompassing the global (i.e. most citizens of the empire were non white).
So as you can see - there is no way Shariah law will ever take root in England (because it already was in other parts of the empire).
No!.
I am just trying to place UK immigration in time and context!.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.