quarter of u.k. babies born to immigrants

you’ve seen these sorts of numbers before, but … just a reminder. from the daily mail:

“A quarter of all babies born in the UK are the children of immigrants as mothers from Poland, India and Pakistan give birth in record numbers”

“Almost a quarter of babies born in the UK are children of immigrants, according to latest statistics.

“There were 808,000 births in the UK last year, of which 196,000 were to non-UK born mothers – or 24 per cent….

“Polish women who live in the UK gave birth to around 23,000 children last year.

“Women from Pakistan had 19,200 babies in the same period and Indian women gave birth to 15,500 children.

“Four in 10 children born to immigrant mothers were born in London.

“Half were born in other parts of England, and one in 10 were born in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland combined.

“The ONS said fertility rates for non-UK born women are higher than those born in the UK….”

here’s the money quote chart — general fertility rate (gfr)=“the annual number of live births per 1,000 women of childbearing age”:

and, of course, all these data are only tracking immigrant women BORN abroad — there are also plenty of pakistani, polish, etc., women in the u.k. that were born IN the u.k. now having babies as well.

see also hail’s post: France Reaches 30% Diversity Among Newborns

(note: comments do not require an email. too many people.)

17 Comments

  1. @laura – “I’d really like to know some of your thoughts on the matter!”

    hi, laura! maybe i’m being a bit slow, but i couldn’t see how to leave a comment on your blog(?), so i’m responding to you here.

    i think the u.k.’s new visa rules — from what little i know about them (i.e. what i read in your post) — sound fine. if anything, they don’t go far enough. from what i can tell from where i’m sitting (not in the u.k.), it sounds like you guys have enough immigrants to last you a lifetime. probably two or three lifetimes! to be honest, i think that immigration to the u.k. (and the u.s.) should just be shut down for now. too much, too quickly. the immigrants we’ve got need to be assimilated … and perhaps even (kindly and gently) encouraged to go home.

    in your post you said: “…it can be argued that Article 8 [the right to a family life] is a fundamental human right and even though she [theresa may] argues otherwise – should not have limitations….”

    i suppose one could argue that having a family is a fundamental human right, but what is not obvious at all … nor arguable, i think … is that everyone out there ought to have the right to do that in the u.k. (or the u.s.). plenty of people are having families in pakistan and nigeria and mexico … nothing is stopping would-be immigrants from those places having families in those nations. they don’t need to do that in the u.k. or the u.s.

    Reply

  2. There’s a big difference between Polish and German (7th on the list) immigrants, and Pakistani and Nigerian immigrants. ;)

    But yeah, the UK isn’t in a nice position. If it continues on this path, it will continue to Third Worldize. If it shuts of immigration, its population will start to plummet because emigration is also very high.

    Reply

  3. There were 808,000 births in the UK last year, of which 196,000 were to non-UK born mothers

    This increasingly cannot be used as a proxy for race — many Nonwhite new mothers will not have been born in the UK. MG of Those Who Can See points to this map, which shows “share of new mothers identifying as White-British“: The problem is, again — this is not a proxy for race, because (a) A baby born do a French or Dutch or German mother is essentially of the same racial-stock as native-White-British; and (b) This counts only race-of-mother, and some portion of the births will have Nonwhite fathers.

    Reply

  4. @anatoly – “There’s a big difference between Polish and German (7th on the list) immigrants, and Pakistani and Nigerian immigrants. ;)”

    sure! but, even tho i (and, perhaps, the brits?) love kolaczkis and gołąbki — not to mention actual polish people themselves — filling britain with tens of thousands of poles will change the nature of britain, too. not so much as immigrants from farther afield, but still.

    why can’t we just have an england made up of mostly english people? (and poland of poles, and germany of germans, etc., etc….)

    Reply

  5. @hail – “This increasingly cannot be used as a proxy for race — many Nonwhite new mothers will not have been born in the UK.”

    i agree. absolutely! (i did mention that briefly in the post.)

    @hail – “(a) A baby born do a French or Dutch or German mother is essentially of the same racial-stock as native-White-British….”

    true, but see my response to anatoly above.

    @hail – “(b) This counts only race-of-mother, and some portion of the births will have Nonwhite fathers.”

    very good point! i hadn’t thought of that.

    all of these birth, death, immigration, education stats from all sorts of government agencies are really dodgy — they are really trying to conceal a LOT of stuff. this “bad counting” is no accident.

    Reply

  6. HBD-Chick,
    [The following is tangential, but I feel important:]

    There is also the much-more-tricky business of subcultural, or even subracial, birth differences within the population of totally-White-British-stock.

    We all know that Britain has had many racial influences over the millennia; ~all of it has been Caucasoid, but then there is a wide variation within the Caucasoid spectrum.

    Various Neolithic and Mesolithic seaborne colonists of Western-Europe left their legacy: One wave seems to have introduced a probably-proto-Semitic Mediterranean racial strain. (The culture that built Stonehenge was probably of Mediterranean racial-stock, according to the literature). The Semitic strain either heavily influenced or evolved into the old Pictish language (according to one theory). That is why men like Gerry Adams can be mistaken, in the wrong lighting, for Arab or Jewish. (Note his facial similarity to Jewish journalist Daniel Pipes — Adams looks like a Cro-Magninized [‘Europeanized’] Daniel Pipes). Incidentally, there is a term in racial-anthropology for “a Nordicized/Cro-Magnized Daniel Pipes”, and it is North Atlantid.

    Another distinct wave introduced a coarser-featured element (Dinarid), that after dozens of generations of mixing, gives rise to the present large-nosed “Keltic-Nordic“, seen as at-home in Britain, too. None of these influences was enough for total population replacement, but they were enough to significantly influence the British genepool. By the time of Caesar, the descendents of those groups had long since dissolved as distinct ethnocultural groups and married-in with the native Cro-Magnid (Paleolithic) Britons.

    Various waves of Nordics also entered the ‘White-British’ genepool at various times, becoming the aristocracy for a long while, and eventually affecting the racial dynamics of all British classes, to some extent. The Nordid strain, mixed with other strains, gives rise in the anthropology literature to an “Anglo-Saxon type” (a stable blend of Cro-Magnid elements and Nordid elements).

    As I allude to in the paragraph above, different subracial types tend to be associated with different classes of people, and with different temperaments. (The Dinaric is seen as most musically-gifted of European racial types, for example). So: Even given no Nonwhite presence at all, racial-stock can, and does, change over time. The German racial-anthropology literature shows the steady darkening, shortening, and coarsening of German facial types over the centuries of the second millennium AD, and even more markedly since the time of Arminius (though this is more speculative and less based on data, based more on Roman accounts of the Germanics). I think Dr. Guenther estimated Nordids proper to be only 6% of Germans in the 1920s, and estimated “Nordish” (light North-Europid types in general, including unaltered Cro-Magnids) types at 60-70% for German-speakers in the 1920s. (Short, darker-end Europeans are thus excluded from a “Nordish” count, as are coarser-featured European types, as are [obviously] Semites and Mediterraneans). Both of these figures are substantially lower than they were in the past, according to skeletal evidence from the middle ages cited by Guenther.

    Thus: Even if we had firm data on how many babies being born are of distant White-British ancestry on both sides, that would tell us only half the story, because there could be a change going on at the subracial level. (At the subcultural level, current selective pressures in White-Britain must favor those comfortable being what we Americans call “welfare mothers”, and the disgusting phenomenon of “Chavvery”, but that is a separate point). So “a White is not a White is not a White”, which I believe is your point in your comments above.

    At the same time, if Nordish elements from elsewhere in NW-Europe settled in Britain (as they have for a long time — more than a few Huguenots formed part of the British genepool, as one small example), there is no real problem — they are of the same racial-stock, and will not affect racial-dynamics. One could argue that there is no problem with that.

    I suppose the point of this meandering discussion is this: The National Question and the Racial Question are often quite different things, despite appearances. Nation-states, as we understand them today, have relatively short histories; racial groupings have long histories.

    Reply

  7. Heheh. As one of pre-war polish ministers said: “I love Danes. But if I would have three millions Danes in Poland, I would call it Danish problem”.

    Reply

  8. @szopen – “As one of pre-war polish ministers said: ‘I love Danes. But if I would have three millions Danes in Poland, I would call it Danish problem’.”

    well, exactly! gotta love the danes — fun people (they certainly do love their beer!) — but what would be the point of a poland full of danes? the danes have a country of their own (more-or-less) — so do the poles (for now) — and so should the english.

    in fact, i’m starting to think ’cause the english are so special (and, perhaps, the dutch) with their relatively extreme outbreeding (compared to most everybody else) that they should really be protected — the way we protect unique little tribes in the amazon rainforest. (i’m only half-kidding, btw!)

    szopen — do you recall who said that about a potential “danish problem”? great quote!

    Reply

  9. @hail – “At the same time, if Nordish elements from elsewhere in NW-Europe settled in Britain (as they have for a long time — more than a few Huguenots formed part of the British genepool, as one small example), there is no real problem — they are of the same racial-stock, and will not affect racial-dynamics.”

    one of the main messages i’d like to get across on the hbd chick blog is that there’s more to human biodiversity than race (or iq). MUCH more.

    as i’ve been babbling about for (good god!) over a year now, not only are different populations around the world different when it comes to their histories of inbreeding/outbreeding and, therefore, (i think) different in some of their social behaviors, so, too, are different european populations different in this regard.

    the english (and, perhaps, the dutch) appear to have had the longest history of outbreeding amongst the european populations and, so, (i think) are the most individualistic (see here and here and here, and the “mating patterns in europe series” below ↓ in the left-hand column, esp. the section on the english). (recall that human evolution did not stop in the neolithic, a la The 10,000 Year Explosion.) the case of the english is quite special — and awesome, imho (i’m such an anglophile!) — that i think it would be nice to hang on to it as long as possible (nothing lasts forever, of course, i know). so i think that bringing too many eastern or southern europeans (see the sections on eastern europeans and italians in the “mating patterns in europe series,” for example) into the british mix is also a problem — not as much of one as bringing in too many pakistanis or nigerians — but still a problem.

    thanks, btw, for your thoughtful comments. tangential is always good! (^_^)

    Reply

  10. @hbdchick
    First time I read it in paper book, so it’s hard to find. google finds “gen.Składkowski”, prime minister since 1936, and it gives the quote differently : either I read a paraphrase, or I remembered it wrong.

    “Personally I do really like Danes, but if I would have them 3 millions in Poland, I would ask God to take them away from here, as fast as it is possible.”

    ” Osobiście bardzo lubię Duńczyków, ale gdybym miał ich w Polsce trzy miliony, to bym Boga prosił, żeby ich najprędzej stąd zabrał.”

    Reply

  11. “Quarter of U.K. babies born to immigrants”.

    I have only one comment for this: It’s sad. Terribly, terribly sad.

    Reply

  12. @hbd chick,

    why can’t we just have an england made up of mostly english people? (and poland of poles, and germany of germans, etc., etc….)

    Ideally, sure, why not. Problem is though that native Brits are leaving the UK at a rate of about 400,000, with 600,000 coming in.

    Remove that 600,000, and the population starts to plummet by 150,000 a year.

    For whatever reason a lot of Anglos seem to be just giving up on Britain (probably some combination of foreigners, high taxes, and the easy accessibility of fellow Anglo nations with better climate and economies). I know tons who decamped to places like Australia and the US.

    Reply

  13. @a.k. – “Problem is though that native Brits are leaving the UK at a rate of about 400,000, with 600,000 coming in.”

    the emigration of british citizens (not exactly british people, i know, but it’s the closest the gubment statisticians will let me get) out of the u.k. closely tracks immigration into the u.k. — particularly in the last decade, but pretty much since the 1980s. not surprising. if you were english, why would you want to live here, a place which bears almost no resemblance to anything english whatsoever?

    besides, you’re talking as though british people and polish/pakistanis/nigerians/whatever population are interchangeable, which of course they’re not. (~_^)

    Reply

  14. The more pakistanis you have, the more your country will be like…

    Pakistan.

    Can you just hardly wait!

    Reply

  15. Where are the environmentalists on this issue? Great Britain is a tiny island and is approaching 60 million? Why the need to import millions of foreigners? Insane. Their PC silence speaks volumes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s