NEW data released quietly by the Office for National Statistics confirms the trends that the British government has spent decades condemning as racist hysteria.
More than 40 per cent of babies born in England in 2024 had at least one foreign-born parent. The proportion is 35 per cent across England and Wales together.
The place of birth for these foreign-born parents matters. If the parents were born in South Africa or Canada or Australia, from British heritage, we would have little reason to expect difficulties of integration and assimilation.
But most of the foreign-heritage births are to parents from countries with cultures as different as possible from British values, from countries with little to no democratic tradition, from countries with little to no liberal tradition, usually from non-Christian cultures, mostly outside Europe, and entirely outside the Anglophone world.
The top ten countries of birth for mothers in the UK are (in descending order): India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Romania, Bangladesh, Poland, Ghana, Afghanistan, Albania and Iraq.
You might notice something else disturbing about most of these countries: they suffer from chronic political and ethnic violence. And most are mostly chronically poor per capita, with huge imbalances of wealth.
So Britain is importing new residents mostly from the least culturally, politically, and economically desirable places, and these new residents are having disproportionately more children.
The demographic will grow: a widening wedge of young Britons who (according to their heritage) are culturally, politically and economically riskiest.
These vectors are inter-related. Countries without our democratic and liberal traditions tend to be conflictual. And conflictual places tend to be poor.
Those are the facts globally. Britain cannot change those foreign cultures, politics and economics, whatever the idealistic claims made by the advocates for international aid.
What Britain can change is British tolerance of illegal immigration, which will always favour the least deserving: young, male, unsettled, violent, escapees from justice, warriors escaping a failing side, religious proselytisers, cultural imperialists, foreign spies, terrorists, and skivers intent on living off Britain’s generous welfare and benefits without repaying what they take.
An increasing population alone is a stress on legacy British culture, politics, and economics. Then you add the most stressful people.
Apologists for uncontrolled immigration like to present immigrants as the stressed, rather than the stressors. Apologists ignore the fact that few immigrants are refugees or asylum seekers. The high rate of asylum claims reflects the tolerance of fake claims more than genuine claims.
The apologists for uncontrolled immigration have no theoretical or empirical grounds, they’re just idealists. They ignore the fact that under uncontrolled immigration Britain has become crowded, poorer, expensive, violent, hostile, illiberal, selectively democratic and riddled with two-tier justice and internecine conflict.
The explosion in uncontrolled immigration is clearly correlated with Britain’s decline. The denialism is about causation, not correlation.
Deny the causation if you like. What apologists cannot deny is that Britain is being demographically transformed. Indeed, many of these nutcases welcome the overturn of the majority characteristics that have stood for more than a thousand years: white, Christian, unusually tolerant, peaceful, prosperous.
White Britons, according to Matt Goodwin, will become a minority by the year 2063. First-generation immigrants and their children will become a majority by 2079. By 2100, one-quarter of residents will be Muslim.
Wherever and whenever we’ve seen such trends, the states have become chronically internecine, less democratic, less liberal, and poorer. In short, those countries failed.
