Immigration Study shows that 31,5% of newborns in France in 2010 have non-european parents...

[luis77]

Since 2000, Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease (SCD) in France has been performed at national level for all newborns defined as being "at risk" for SCD based on ethnic origin.

A new study posted in 2012 about "Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease (SCD) in France" shows that 31.5% of newborns in metropolitan France (253,466 out of 805,958) in 2010 have their both parents from a region defined at risk for SCD (mainly Africa and Overseas departments and territories of France, see Table 1 below) and were screened.

In Greater Paris (about 11.8 millions of inhabitants), this percentage reaches 60% in 2010 (110,000 newborns out of 183,000). The second largest number of at-risk is in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (Marseille-Nice region) at 43.2% and the lowest number is in Brittany at 5.5%. (This national percentage was 19% in 2000 and increased by 65% in ten years).

Note also that these numbers do not include newborns of East-Asian origin (China, VietNam ... as this is not a region at risk for SCd) ... and do not include neither newborns of mixed origin.


"Le dépistage néonatal de la drépanocytose en France", J Bardakdjian-Michau, 2012 : http://www.invs.sante.fr/pmb/invs/(id)/PMB_10831 . Download: http://opac.invs.sante.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=8316


1) Percentage of the target population (newborns with both parents from a region defined at risk) in metropolitan France in 2010 per region.

2) Criterias for targetting newborns at risk for Sickle Cell in Metropolitan France (both parents from a region defined at risk)

 

[JFWR]

Europe, quite simply, is killing itself. And it is doing it primarily through two ways:

First, white Europeans refuse to have children. Every single birth rate in Europe is below replenishment.

Second, Europe has bought the idea of unfettered, unmitigated immigration.

The former must be rectified with favourable social policies, the second by a complete moratorium on immigration. If these steps are not taken Europe will cease to exist in 50 years.

 

[LeBrok]

More precisely, Europe as we know it, will cease to exist. It still will be Europe, just somewhat different. It happened many times in history of Europe, after IE invasions, after agricultural revolution, and big one when Homo Sapience expansion. There were also internal shifts with Germanic and Slavic dominance. Let's not forget huge cultural shifts when Christianity finished off other ancient religions. I'm sure our forefathers were crying that the world was coming to an end too.

I don't really care how Europeans look like as long as they adhere to our freedoms, equality, tolerance and democracy. So far, unfortunately, it doesn't look like most emigrants care for these values. This part really scares me.

 

[Taranis]

Europe, quite simply, is killing itself. And it is doing it primarily through two ways:

First, white Europeans refuse to have children. Every single birth rate in Europe is below replenishment.

Second, Europe has bought the idea of unfettered, unmitigated immigration.

The former must be rectified with favourable social policies, the second by a complete moratorium on immigration. If these steps are not taken Europe will cease to exist in 50 years.

Honestly, without the intention to offend you, I think that you, as well as the original poster, are falling to alarmism.

But, I'll walk you through this.

I personally find that the study itself makes quite a stretch: it is basically proposing rates for sickle cell disease that are highly unrealistic. For a comparison, I would check the frequencies of sickle cell disease in malaria-infested regions in Africa, or, for instance, the frequency of SCD amongst African-Americans (an ethnic group that is known to have high frequencies of SCD occurance). It turns out that the frequencies that the study proposes for the Paris region are vastly in excess of those, which, frankly, I find hard to buy (if that was the case, then speaking for the French state, I'd first and foremost worry about a gigantic healthcare problem in the future before anything else).

The second stretch is made by the author of the first post in this thread: that the figures of the study can be 1:1 be applied to the ethnic situation in France. I doubt this. In particular, it would be interesting to see what rates of sickle cell disease are common elsewhere. In particular, there are regions of Europe (principally Italy and the Balkans) where SCD is more common than elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that even native French, Germans or Swedes have a certain likelihood of being carriers of the sickle cell genes.

The final stretch is the assumption that somehow an immigration population must be somehow an invariable threat. In that context, let me remind you certain a certain nation on the other side of the Atlantic, that is, the United States of America, are basically built on immigration and have been trying to lecture us on the other side of the Atlantic for decades how to be successful immigrant nations. The vast bulk of Americans on this board (or, Canadians, for that matter) are of some type of immigrant background, so in my opinion that puts you folks in a very awkward position to have an anti-immigrant stance. Likewise, why the ad-hoc assumption that somebody of sub-saharan or North African background cannot be a decent, responsible French citizen?

Besides, if I think about my own country, Germany, even before the modern period, it was a hodge-podge of ethnic groups that lived, came and stayed here (Celts, Germanics, Romans, Huns, Slavs, Vikings, Ashkenazi Jews, Huguenots, ...) one way or another. It was like this for the past 2000 years, why should that be any different for the next 2000 years?

 

[luis77]

Honestly, without the intention to offend you, I think that you, as well as the original poster, are falling to alarmism.

But, I'll walk you through this.

I personally find that the study itself makes quite a stretch: it is basically proposing rates for sickle cell disease that are highly unrealistic. For a comparison, I would check the frequencies of sickle cell disease in malaria-infested regions in Africa, or, for instance, the frequency of SCD amongst African-Americans (an ethnic group that is known to have high frequencies of SCD occurance). It turns out that the frequencies that the study proposes for the Paris region are vastly in excess of those, which, frankly, I find hard to buy (if that was the case, then speaking for the French state, I'd first and foremost worry about a gigantic healthcare problem in the future before anything else).

The second stretch is made by the author of the first post in this thread: that the figures of the study can be 1:1 be applied to the ethnic situation in France. I doubt this. In particular, it would be interesting to see what rates of sickle cell disease are common elsewhere. In particular, there are regions of Europe (principally Italy and the Balkans) where SCD is more common than elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that even native French, Germans or Swedes have a certain likelihood of being carriers of the sickle cell genes.

The final stretch is the assumption that somehow an immigration population must be somehow an invariable threat. In that context, let me remind you certain a certain nation on the other side of the Atlantic, that is, the United States of America, are basically built on immigration and have been trying to lecture us on the other side of the Atlantic for decades how to be successful immigrant nations. The vast bulk of Americans on this board (or, Canadians, for that matter) are of some type of immigrant background, so in my opinion that puts you folks in a very awkward position to have an anti-immigrant stance. Likewise, why the ad-hoc assumption that somebody of sub-saharan or North African background cannot be a decent, responsible French citizen?

Besides, if I think about my own country, Germany, even before the modern period, it was a hodge-podge of ethnic groups that lived, came and stayed here (Celts, Germanics, Romans, Huns, Slavs, Vikings, Ashkenazi Jews, Huguenots, ...) one way or another. It was like this for the past 2000 years, why should that be any different for the next 2000 years?

I think you misunderstood the post. What the study says is that 253,466 out of 805,958 (31,5%) newborns in France in 2010 have parents originated from a region defined at risk for SCD (mainly Africa, Maghreb, Antilles and MiddleEast) and therefore were screened (In Greater Paris this rate is 60% due to more important immigration). But it does NOT mean that these newborns carry the SCD.

As written in the study, among these 253,466 "at-risk" newborns tested, only 341 had the disease which gives birth prevalence of 1/2,354 (Cystic fibrosis is at 1/5,014). So even if SCD is now the main genetic disease in France, it is not enormous.

But the main interest of the study here is not only about Sickle Cell itself but to give some kind of ethnic statistics about immigration and its impact on natality (as contrary to other countries "ethnic statistics" are not very common in France).

For the rest I fully agree with you. Immigration population should not be considered as a threat.

 

[Vallicanus]

For the rest I fully agree with you. Immigration population should not be considered as a threat.

Really?

No threat from ethnic replacement.

Remarkable head in the sand ostrich-like attitude.

 

[Knovas]

¿May I remind that the user who created this thread t.r.o.l.l.e.d many times here and also 23andme?

To start with, he is not Portuguese and no doubt all information listed in the profile it's false. We talked about this (maybe some of you can remember)...it seems to me he is some kind of North-Afro centrist (sorry, I know it xd). Even when he's not fooling (least of the time), the way he uses information obviously reflects the mentioned agenda. Well, just a reminder, you'd better keep this in mind.

 

[JFWR]

More precisely, Europe as we know it, will cease to exist. It still will be Europe, just somewhat different. It happened many times in history of Europe, after IE invasions, after agricultural revolution, and big one when Homo Sapience expansion. There were also internal shifts with Germanic and Slavic dominance. Let's not forget huge cultural shifts when Christianity finished off other ancient religions. I'm sure our forefathers were crying that the world was coming to an end too.

And did this end well for the defeated people? What happened when Rome fell to world civilization?

I don't really care how Europeans look like as long as they adhere to our freedoms, equality, tolerance and democracy. So far, unfortunately, it doesn't look like most emigrants care for these values. This part really scares me.

You care nothing for cultural continuity and ethnic identity whatsoever? You think it is utterly fine that these are being pushed into the ground for political reasons?

 

[JFWR]

Honestly, without the intention to offend you, I think that you, as well as the original poster, are falling to alarmism.

But, I'll walk you through this.

No offense taken. Thanks for your help here.

I personally find that the study itself makes quite a stretch: it is basically proposing rates for sickle cell disease that are highly unrealistic. For a comparison, I would check the frequencies of sickle cell disease in malaria-infested regions in Africa, or, for instance, the frequency of SCD amongst African-Americans (an ethnic group that is known to have high frequencies of SCD occurance). It turns out that the frequencies that the study proposes for the Paris region are vastly in excess of those, which, frankly, I find hard to buy (if that was the case, then speaking for the French state, I'd first and foremost worry about a gigantic healthcare problem in the future before anything else).

Okay. This study is not in isolate, though. We know the trends towards immigration in France and how that has previously resulted in massive rioting and other social problems. Some of these rates may be exaggerated, but it is not necessarily the case if immigration is from certain areas.

The second stretch is made by the author of the first post in this thread: that the figures of the study can be 1:1 be applied to the ethnic situation in France. I doubt this. In particular, it would be interesting to see what rates of sickle cell disease are common elsewhere. In particular, there are regions of Europe (principally Italy and the Balkans) where SCD is more common than elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that even native French, Germans or Swedes have a certain likelihood of being carriers of the sickle cell genes.

Very true. HOwever, the majority of SCD carriers are non-Europeans. We can associate this with the rate at which SC is found amongst world populations, and it also oddly fits where most immigrant populations tend to come from in Europe today.

The final stretch is the assumption that somehow an immigration population must be somehow an invariable threat. In that context, let me remind you certain a certain nation on the other side of the Atlantic, that is, the United States of America, are basically built on immigration and have been trying to lecture us on the other side of the Atlantic for decades how to be successful immigrant nations. The vast bulk of Americans on this board (or, Canadians, for that matter) are of some type of immigrant background, so in my opinion that puts you folks in a very awkward position to have an anti-immigrant stance. Likewise, why the ad-hoc assumption that somebody of sub-saharan or North African background cannot be a decent, responsible French citizen?

The degree to which the US took in immigrants was actually remarkably slow over the era of greatest expansion of immigrant populations. 8 million came through Ellis Island over a period of 35 years. This was a remarkable increase from previous eras, but actually represents a fairly small amount of immigration compared to today in the United States. There are currently 40 million foreign born people in the United States, although I am not sure if that includes or excludes the 10+ million (it could be as high as near 20) illegal immigrants. It is also notable that the US had long-eras of extremely restrictive immigration that gave time for the population to absorb the new comers and assimilate them. This is no longer the case and it is not good.

Another notable trend is that both in America and Europe (especially in Europe) the call for assimilation is far less today than previously. This is in part because newer immigrants are usually culturally further from the host country's culture, and part because political pressure now deemphasizes commonality and identities. Returning to the US alone: It was, for instance, fairly odd for German immigrants in the early 20th century to not learn English after a few years in the US. It is not at all uncommon for children of immigrants to now only speak Spanish or Chinese and for first-generation immigrants to not learn English at all.

I will gladly tell you that I am of immigrant stock myself. I am, however, about fourth generation average for all my family. I was born here, my father and mother were born here, and both my grandparents were born here. I am fully Americanized. I do not then have any reason to justify my anti-immmigration stance as a sort of exceptional "but not me!".

Also, as you will note, that even if I were a fresh immigrant, to oppose what one has benefitted from is not improper in argument. Arguments against the man (ad hominem) do not diminish the merit of an argument.

As for your last point: I do not think it is genetically impossible for Africans or Moslems to not be good French, German, Swedish, or whatever, citizens. However, I find it destructive for the host culture to change its ethnic, racial, and cultural makeup; accomodate the sensitivities of these new people, as by laws and customs; and to push for these immigrants for cheap labour, et cetera. This can invariably destroy a culture over a period and, paired with low birth-rate, utterly change its makeup.

Besides, if I think about my own country, Germany, even before the modern period, it was a hodge-podge of ethnic groups that lived, came and stayed here (Celts, Germanics, Romans, Huns, Slavs, Vikings, Ashkenazi Jews, Huguenots, ...) one way or another. It was like this for the past 2000 years, why should that be any different for the next 2000 years?

Most of these changes were inevitable as they came by force. COnsidering the fate of previous populations, why ought a country to sanction its own dissolution?

Moreover, the past does not change the distinctiveness of German culture and its continuity. There is a unique character of Germany that is not found in any other nation. There is no good reason why Germany shoul dismiss this to accept others and ruin what they have.

 

[LeBrok]

And did this end well for the defeated people? What happened when Rome fell to world civilization?

Rome fell, Europe kept mixing, languages kept evolving, also local cultures and customs changed, many new countries and national identities popped to existence. At the end from all that mixing we have Europe that finally gave high standard of living to its citizens. It looks like that all that mixing was beneficial for Europe.
Rome fell, and we have Italy in its core now. They were defeated many times, but they are still proud Italians loving their country, though it is so much different than Latin Rome. Rome fell, and yet we have strong continuity of some elements like language and architecture, not mentioning all the stories.
Are you saying that Latin Rome culture was superior to today's Italian, because today's Italians are mixed too much?

Mixing and mingling is practically only status quo in human history, it might be a law of nature as well. Culture and language on other hand change rather quickly, is it worth dying for then?

You care nothing for cultural continuity and ethnic identity whatsoever? You think it is utterly fine that these are being pushed into the ground for political reasons?

"Whatsoever" is a stretch, though I never put much emphasis for these things. Human character and intellect means much more than what language he/she speaks, how people dress, or what they eat. I'm more interested if new emigrants adhere to laws and freedoms of Canada, I'm more interested if they want to work hard and fit the character of the country, than what is their skin color, religion or not. I'm an emigrant myself, and I like what Canada stands for, that's why I'm here. So of course I don't want Canada to change, at least much. In this regard, I wish we had smarter emigration policy.
For example, a man with two wives in burka comes to Canada. What is he looking for, freedoms, equality, democracy? Obviously not for his wives, lol.

 

[JFWR]

Rome fell, Europe kept mixing, languages kept evolving, also local cultures and customs changed, many new countries and national identities popped to existence. At the end from all that mixing we have Europe that finally gave high standard of living to its citizens. It looks like that all that mixing was beneficial for Europe.

European standards of living took 1,000 years to reach the standard set by Rome. Your contention that a thousand years of degression is somehow justified by the fact that the modern era followed 400 years after parity holds little water.

Rome fell, and we have Italy in its core now. They were defeated many times, but they are still proud Italians loving their country, though it is so much different than Latin Rome. Rome fell, and yet we have strong continuity of some elements like language and architecture, not mentioning all the stories.
Are you saying that Latin Rome culture was superior to today's Italian, because today's Italians are mixed too much?

I would argue that ancient Roman culture is superior to modern Italian culture. But that isn't the point: World civilization diminished with the fall of Rome. That being said, I think that modern Italian culture is completely worthy of preservation, and they ought to not willfully dissolve it.

Mixing and mingling is practically only status quo in human history, it might be a law of nature as well. Culture and language on other hand change rather quickly, is it worth dying for then?

It's more "invasion and destruction" than "mixing and mingling". Few cultures willingly abandon hegemony over an area that other people may inherit their land. The result of those outside the new rulers are always negative, and a valuable cultural tradition is lost to history.

There is no gain from diminishing oneself.

"Whatsoever" is a stretch, though I never put much emphasis for these things. Human character and intellect means much more than what language he/she speaks, how people dress, or what they eat. I'm more interested if new emigrants adhere to laws and freedoms of Canada, I'm more interested if they want to work hard and fit the character of the country, than what is their skin color, religion or not. I'm an emigrant myself, and I like what Canada stands for, that's why I'm here. So of course I don't want Canada to change, at least much. In this regard, I wish we had smarter emigration policy.
For example, a man with two wives in burka comes to Canada. What is he looking for, freedoms, equality, democracy? Obviously not for his wives, lol.

So while simultaneously not caring about keeping the culture that produced those beliefs, you also want to erradicate the cultures that hold different ones? You can't have it both ways. If you want to let these people in, you must accept that they will inevitably change Canada by virtue of the fact that they are bringing with them a tradition that they hold valuable. People do not willy-nilly dismiss what they have when they move to another country, and it is highly unlikely when immigration is motivated by political gain on both sides, that they care to give up what they believe for values which are highly culturally relative.

 

[Maciamo]

Europe, quite simply, is killing itself. And it is doing it primarily through two ways:

First, white Europeans refuse to have children. Every single birth rate in Europe is below replenishment.

Second, Europe has bought the idea of unfettered, unmitigated immigration.

The former must be rectified with favourable social policies, the second by a complete moratorium on immigration. If these steps are not taken Europe will cease to exist in 50 years.

I agree. This is very worrisome indeed.

The figures posted above seem correct. The birth statistics for 2010 from the Insee (French national institute of statistics) state that 37% of newborns have at least one parent born outside France. For 832,799 births in France in 2010, there were 91,658 babies with both parents born outside France, including 81,726 whose parents were both born outside the EU. There were 134,891 newborn with one parent born outside France, including 114,814 born outside the EU. So in total, that is 196,540 children born with at least one parent from outside the EU, or 23.5% of all births. This, however, does not include a very sizeable number of third and fourth generation immigrants, whose parents are non-European but already born in France. So the true figure may be closer to 40% of newborn babies in France today who have at least one non-European parent. Since over 80% of non-European foreigners in France are of African origin (including Maghreb), we can estimate that roughly 35% of all babies born in France are partly African.

From 1998 to 2010, the number of births from parents both born outside the EU has soared from 62,129 to 81,726 - an increase of nearly 30% in 12 years. Those with one parent born outside the EU (often married to a France-born immigrant from the same country or region) passed from 79,423 to 114,814 - a 44.5% increase. In 2022, if the trend remains unchanged, births from both non-European parents should reach around 106,000, and those from one non-EU born parents (but generally with both parents also non-European) would attain 165,000.

In contrast, the number of babies born from French parents or other European parents has been stable during the same 12 year period. Consequently, the total number of annual births will pass to 907,000, with a proportion of non-European births exploding to 30% of all children. We might not notice this in official statistics though as more and more Africans having children nowadays are already children or grandchildren of immigrants born in France. French law unfortunately prohibits statistics based on race or ethnicity, so a pure Moroccan born in France will end up in the same statistical category as a European French citizen. Therefore in just 10 years' time, the number of children born of African parents in France may already be close to 50%.

Even if the birthrate of non-European immigrant were to freeze, instead of increasing as it does, it would only take 40 years for half of the French population to be of partial or full African descent. At the current rate, though, 20 to 30 years is more realistic. In other words, most of us will live to see France become an ethnically Berber/Arabic and Black country, probably with a predominantly Muslim population. At present already 35% of the population of the Parisian region is of Maghrebian or Black African descent. With 60% of locally born babies being African, the majority of Parisians will be African in 10 to 15 years from now. Amazing. Can you remember the world 10 years ago ? That was just after 9/11. Time flies. African Paris will be there much sooner than you think. Then the same will happen for most other French cities, and neighbouring countries...

The question is: what will happen in a democracy where over half of the electorate is Muslim ? They can easily take over the government and turn it into an Islamic state. It wouldn't be the first time that democracy is hijacked to the profit of a totalitarian or extremist regime. Hitler did just that.

The above calculation does not include additional immigration from Africa. The African population is set to double in the next 38 years (from 1 billion to 2 billion, according to the UN), and a lot of them will want to migrate to Europe. So Europe might become in majority African as soon as in 15 or 20 years if nothing is done to restore the balance of births and limit immigration.


If you believe I made a mistake in my calculations or my reasoning, make sure to point if out.

 

[Maciamo]

Rome fell, Europe kept mixing, languages kept evolving, also local cultures and customs changed, many new countries and national identities popped to existence. At the end from all that mixing we have Europe that finally gave high standard of living to its citizens. It looks like that all that mixing was beneficial for Europe.
Rome fell, and we have Italy in its core now. They were defeated many times, but they are still proud Italians loving their country, though it is so much different than Latin Rome. Rome fell, and yet we have strong continuity of some elements like language and architecture, not mentioning all the stories.
Are you saying that Latin Rome culture was superior to today's Italian, because today's Italians are mixed too much?

The DNA of Italians hasn't not changed much since Roman times. We can say with enough confidence now that the Germanic, Slavic, or Arabic invaders had only a limited impact (less than 10% altogether nationwide) on the Italian gene pool. What France is experiencing now is close to a total population replacement within one or two centuries if the birth rates remain as they are today for each ethnic group. This isn't genocide because it isn't based on murder, but the effect will be identically the same.

 

[Goga]

Although I do agree that Muslims in Europe and Islam are very dangerous for France and the European values in general. I don't think that (native/white) European French politicians are that stupid and traitors of their own homeland.

According to me you folks are overreacting and that white French politicians calculated all possibilities and that everything is in control.

France is not 'lost' and it will never be lost. Europe or any European country is not lost, it won't happen.

 

[sparkey]

If you believe I made a mistake in my calculations or my reasoning, make sure to point if out.

I think there are two main mistakes, or at least jumps in logic that require more justification. The first is from this (which is possibly true):

Even if the birthrate of non-European immigrant were to freeze, instead of increasing as it does, it would only take 40 years for half of the French population to be of partial or full African descent.

...to this:

In other words, most of us will live to see France become an ethnically Berber/Arabic and Black country, probably with a predominantly Muslim population.

And from that to this...

They can easily take over the government and turn it into an Islamic state.

I think that one thing we've seen from the most detailed studies is that, although European Muslims often don't assimilate "totally," they tend to be a self-selected pro-Western group with more moderate views than their counterparts who stay home. Also, even partial assimilation means that much of French culture would get persisted even if there was a total genetic replacement (which obviously won't happen).

So there are a few questions that need to be answered to justify the first leap in your logic. How common are mixed marriages? How likely are the products of mixed marriages to identify as "ethnically Berber/Arabic"? And what are the rates of religious conversion to Christianity or nonreligion among 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation Muslims?

Your second leap is going to be more difficult to defend, because we know that Muslim immigrants to Europe are already less likely than their non-immigrant counterparts to support an Islamic state, and Islamic states in the Muslim world are contentious to begin with. So suppose you get a France with a majority Muslim population, which we aren't even certain is going to happen. Less than 50% of the Muslims are likely to rally behind an Islamic state, so you end up with less than 50% of 50%. Not to mention that those who are most likely to support it among that population are the least likely to vote, or have any influence in government. Altogether, the threat seems close to zilch to me.

 

[ebAmerican]

I've just recently started to follow genetic genealogy, and I've noticed a very disturbing trend in scientific papers and those who comment on them. The national agenda bias is corrupting true findings that could ultimately paint an accurate picture of pre-history. I know this isn't a new idea, and those in power have been trying to rewrite history from the beginning, but in this time of global modernization we shouldn't have to deal with this issue. People need to accept that nobody is indigenous. We have been a mobile people from day one. Immigration is a part of the human experience; we are all immigrants. What makes America great is it's diversity of all types of people and religion. Europe should an embrace a melting pot philosophy instead of this nationalistic attitude. I can trace my linage back to 1645 Heidelberg Germany, and I'm proud of my German heritage. Borders don't define who you are. I take offense to the comment that if Muslims were to dominate France it would be turned into a Islamic state. This is such a ignorant statement. If Muslims are migrating to France, than it's because their tired of the oppression in middle eastern countries, and would adopt a more democratic way of life. I would be more worried about the fascist attitudes and blatantly nationalistic racism than a Muslim take over.

 

[Vallicanus]

I've just recently started to follow genetic genealogy, and I've noticed a very disturbing trend in scientific papers and those who comment on them. The national agenda bias is corrupting true findings that could ultimately paint an accurate picture of pre-history. I know this isn't a new idea, and those in power have been trying to rewrite history from the beginning, but in this time of global modernization we shouldn't have to deal with this issue. People need to accept that nobody is indigenous. We have been a mobile people from day one. Immigration is a part of the human experience; we are all immigrants. What makes America great is it's diversity of all types of people and religion. Europe should an embrace a melting pot philosophy instead of this nationalistic attitude. I can trace my linage back to 1645 Heidelberg Germany, and I'm proud of my German heritage. Borders don't define who you are. I take offense to the comment that if Muslims were to dominate France it would be turned into a Islamic state. This is such a ignorant statement. If Muslims are migrating to France, than it's because their tired of the oppression in middle eastern countries, and would adopt a more democratic way of life. I would be more worried about the fascist attitudes and blatantly nationalistic racism than a Muslim take over.

You Americans are just one wave of recent immigrants upon another while our European roots are much deeper.

Why have a melting pot outlook when other cultures are no better than ours and we have massive youth unemployment and don't need this mass immigration?

 

[JFWR]

I agree. This is very worrisome indeed.

The figures posted above seem correct. The birth statistics for 2010 from the Insee (French national institute of statistics) state that 37% of newborns have at least one parent born outside France. For 832,799 births in France in 2010, there were 91,658 babies with both parents born outside France, including 81,726 whose parents were both born outside the EU. There were 134,891 newborn with one parent born outside France, including 114,814 born outside the EU. So in total, that is 196,540 children born with at least one parent from outside the EU, or 23.5% of all births. This, however, does not include a very sizeable number of third and fourth generation immigrants, whose parents are non-European but already born in France. So the true figure may be closer to 40% of newborn babies in France today who have at least one non-European parent. Since over 80% of non-European foreigners in France are of African origin (including Maghreb), we can estimate that roughly 35% of all babies born in France are partly African.

From 1998 to 2010, the number of births from parents both born outside the EU has soared from 62,129 to 81,726 - an increase of nearly 30% in 12 years. Those with one parent born outside the EU (often married to a France-born immigrant from the same country or region) passed from 79,423 to 114,814 - a 44.5% increase. In 2022, if the trend remains unchanged, births from both non-European parents should reach around 106,000, and those from one non-EU born parents (but generally with both parents also non-European) would attain 165,000.

In contrast, the number of babies born from French parents or other European parents has been stable during the same 12 year period. Consequently, the total number of annual births will pass to 907,000, with a proportion of non-European births exploding to 30% of all children. We might not notice this in official statistics though as more and more Africans having children nowadays are already children or grandchildren of immigrants born in France. French law unfortunately prohibits statistics based on race or ethnicity, so a pure Moroccan born in France will end up in the same statistical category as a European French citizen. Therefore in just 10 years' time, the number of children born of African parents in France may already be close to 50%.

Even if the birthrate of non-European immigrant were to freeze, instead of increasing as it does, it would only take 40 years for half of the French population to be of partial or full African descent. At the current rate, though, 20 to 30 years is more realistic. In other words, most of us will live to see France become an ethnically Berber/Arabic and Black country, probably with a predominantly Muslim population. At present already 35% of the population of the Parisian region is of Maghrebian or Black African descent. With 60% of locally born babies being African, the majority of Parisians will be African in 10 to 15 years from now. Amazing. Can you remember the world 10 years ago ? That was just after 9/11. Time flies. African Paris will be there much sooner than you think. Then the same will happen for most other French cities, and neighbouring countries...

The question is: what will happen in a democracy where over half of the electorate is Muslim ? They can easily take over the government and turn it into an Islamic state. It wouldn't be the first time that democracy is hijacked to the profit of a totalitarian or extremist regime. Hitler did just that.

The above calculation does not include additional immigration from Africa. The African population is set to double in the next 38 years (from 1 billion to 2 billion, according to the UN), and a lot of them will want to migrate to Europe. So Europe might become in majority African as soon as in 15 or 20 years if nothing is done to restore the balance of births and limit immigration.


If you believe I made a mistake in my calculations or my reasoning, make sure to point if out.

Brilliant post, Maciamo. The worrying POLITICAL problems, not just cultural, are perhaps even more pressing. Not to mention the counter-politics that will result from Europeans who won't sit and take this.

The 21st century could turn out to be worse than the 20th for Europe, as hard as that is to imagine. Ethnic, racial, and religious warfare could become a new way of life across the continent. Without a peaceful, reasonable solution now, a radical solution will emerge from both sides.

 

[JFWR]

You Americans are just one wave of recent immigrants upon another while our European roots are much deeper.

Why have a melting pot outlook when other cultures are no better than ours and we have massive youth unemployment and don't need this mass immigration?

America is far more diverse by nature than Europe, but our immigration was mostly of European whites that shared our same culture and values for the most part. Americans are just as upset as Europeans when they realize the potential for utter foreign people to take over our country.

We also share job concerns for immigration. America and Europe are a lot closer on this than you may realize.

 

[Vallicanus]

America is far more diverse by nature than Europe, but our immigration was mostly of European whites that shared our same culture and values for the most part. Americans are just as upset as Europeans when they realize the potential for utter foreign people to take over our country.

We also share job concerns for immigration. America and Europe are a lot closer on this than you may realize.

I share your misgivings.