Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Article Types

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

The Folly of Using Immigrants as Baby Substitutes

by Frank Hilliard

Three white babies dressed as bunnies

Demographic studies

Does Canada need immigrants to counter the demographic shift caused by low Canadian fertility? There is something quite appealing in the idea of bringing in young immigrants to make up for the lack of Canadian babies; we help the Third World and the Third World helps us. The problem is that this idea is illusory. Immigrant women, and their children, quickly adopt native birthrates. German demographics expert Reiner Klingholz recently told Maximilian Popp of Spiegel Online that:
It is true that immigrants tend to be between the ages of 20 and 30 when they arrive and they tend to have slightly more children on average than natives — they make the entire population younger. But they get older too, and the birthrate among immigrant groups tends to drop to the low rate present here within one generation.
What is true in Germany is also true in America. Here is a second source, a report from the Center for Immigration Studies entitled Immigration in an Aging Society: Workers, Birth Rates, and Social Security. A summary:
It has become common in public discussion to assert that immigration can reverse the aging trends in American society and infuse the Social Security system with new revenue. A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds this is not the case. The study, based on an analysis of Census Bureau and Social Security Administration data, finds that the age and fertility differences with natives, though real, simply are not large enough to significantly change the nation's age structure, either now or in the future.
The German expert and the American study say the same thing, but to grasp why they do so you have to dig into the numbers. Fortunately, this has been done in another study, this one by the C.D. Howe Institute. The study title lets the cat out of the bag: No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young:
In thinking about this challenge, many Canadians look to immigration. Obviously, higher immigration can replace higher fertility to raise population numbers. But can higher immigration also replace higher fertility to halt or alleviate population aging? Demographic research has shown that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations; in fact, it may in the long term actually contribute to population aging (Schmertmann 1992). Nevertheless, because immigration is easier to control than fertility, its appeal as an elixir of youth is obvious.
Initial appeal yes, but not when the idea is fully undressed. For example, the institute says:
In the baseline scenario, with about 230,000 immigrants annually and an age structure similar to that of the recent past, old-age dependency rises rapidly until about 2030. The rate of increase then slows down, but the ratio keeps rising, reaching 46 percent in 2050.
Other scenarios detailed by the Institute are even worse. To keep a ratio of over 65 year old's at 20 percent would require as many as seven million immigrants annually!
The first of these further scenarios, scenario 5, looks at the level of immigration required to keep the old-age dependency ratio at 20 percent if immigrants have their current age distribution. The required increase is immediate and colossal: immigration would rise to 2.5 percent of the population by 2010, 4.4 percent of the population by 2012 and 4.7 percent by 2020 (at which point Canada's population would be 56.6 million and immigration 2.6 million). After 2020, the dynamics of reproduction and aging among the newly arrived immigrants reduce the required inflow to about 2 percent of the population in 2040; then it rises again, surpassing 4 percent of the population by 2050. In this scenario, Canada's population in 2050 would stand at 165.4 million and immigration would be above 7 million a year.
Even to the layman it is obvious this level of growth would create horrifying dislocation and economic stress for native-born Canadians. With this level of immigration, the Canada we know today would be forever lost. This fundamental error in adding up the numbers is not the only one, and may not even be the most important. There are other issues along the way if immigration is used to replace native births.

Issue of integration

For example, while a country may be successful at assimilating most of its intake, it may be unsuccessful at assimilating part of its immigrant population. If so, that population will maintain the high birthrate of its native land and create a self-replicating, ghettoized, society.

This has already happened in a number of European countries, notably France and Sweden. Both countries have ghettos of unassimilated African and Middle Eastern residents that native-born citizens are advised to avoid. In France these are called Sensitive Urban Zones (ZUS) and maps are provided for easy reference. In Sweden, police admitted they have ceded control over 55 "no-go zones" in a report released Oct. 24, 2014. Again there are maps to show where you should not go. Not all countries have these problems, but any failure to assimilate a particular group of immigrants can have major social consequences. The possibility of this happening has to be weighed against any potential demographic issues inside the native-born community.

Now let us look at the other side of that same scenario; the bulk of immigrants who are successfully integrated. The contemporary fact is that in the Industrialized West the majority of the population is white and most of the immigrant intake is non-white from the Third World, notably Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Since social norms create culture and culture creates law (norms=culture=law), the social norms of large, integrated non-white immigrant groups will invariably find themselves into Western laws. Attempts will be made by the majority population to stem this transition, but it is remorseless. Where immigrant groups have the numbers, they will attempt to exercise their power economically and politically. The advance of Halal food and Sharia law in Britain are cases in point.

Issue of race

Further than that is the simple issue of race. Do we in the West really want to reduce whites to a marginalized minority in their own homelands? To understand the importance of this point, imagine a family of four with their own habits, house rules and goals. Now add six more individuals from a different race with a different language and a different culture living in the same home. However they eventually manage to get along, if in fact they ever do, the central ethos, the physical appearance, the hereditary line is changed forever. Is this a goal you would want for your family? No? Well, then, neither should it be a goal for your country.

Elite interests

There is another downside apart from assimilation or non-assimilation. This is the issue of globalization of the elites. When elites spring from a uni-cultural society, such as Japan or China, they tend to think of business strategies that promote their society as well as their individual companies. Thus the elites are a net asset to the society they come from. On the other hand, if elites come from other societies, as is the case with the business-class of immigrant, they have no visceral connection with their host country. Instead of acting in the interests of their hosts, they frequently act either in the interests of their birth country or of themselves.

You can tell this is true by the cavalier way international businessmen close factories in the West and re-open them in the East, garnering their companies enormous profits from low labour costs while impoverishing their former employees. Unfortunately, these are the same elites who most influence our political class, skewing decisions in favour of employees elsewhere who do not pay taxes in the West.

Situation in the developing world

From this brief review, you would think the West is locked into a no-win situation unique to itself. In fact, declining birthrates is not exclusive to the developed world. If you look at this chart of comparative birthrates, you will see Indian rates have been in a much steeper decline than those in Canada or the United States because they started at a higher base. Despite this late start, India has now almost caught up to North America and is approaching the self-replicating level of 2.1 children per woman. India is not alone. Iran, to take another example, now has a birthrate of 1.92 having declined from 6.93 in 1962.

Life expectancy and active work-life

This means declining birthrates are a universal fact. In the long run we cannot count on the third world for mass immigration because it too will be grappling with the same issue as it industrializes and modernizes. Maybe we do not have to fight it. Maybe in a profoundly sympathetic response to the impact mankind is having on the natural world, womankind is cutting back its fertility for a reason. Let us face it: we have been so committed to growth for so long we have forgotten that quality of life is the real goal we seek, not endless growth. That is a philosophical answer to the question of low fertility.

The hard nosed financial answer I have saved for the last. Adair Turner is the former chairman of the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority, former member of the UK's Financial Policy Committee, and Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and at the Center for Financial Studies in Frankfurt. Writing on Project Syndicate he says our fear of economic stress caused by declining birthrates is wrong:
Rising life expectancy is the welcome product of medical and economic progress, and additional increases are almost certain. Indeed, the average life expectancy for children born in prosperous countries could soon exceed 100. That implies an ever-rising ratio of those over 65 to younger cohorts. But as long as average retirement ages rise to keep stable the proportions of life spent in work and in retirement, the fact that working and retirement years are growing at equal rates has no adverse economic effect. There is, moreover, strong evidence that rising longevity can mean more years of healthy active life, not unhealthy dependency. Only bad policies, such as the recent German commitment to reduce retirement ages, can turn longer lives into an economic problem.


In this brief review of the literature and public commentary by experts we find a strong similarity of view. Immigration by and of itself cannot resolve the 'crisis' of declining birthrates in Western countries, and may, potentially, lead to other problems of social discord as we have seen in France and Sweden. On the other hand, where immigrant assimilation is successful, its very success erodes the racial and cultural composition of the host state.

However, on the brighter side, a top financial expert has said we may be worrying about a false problem; proper adjustments to pension plans, retirement age and other measures can eliminate the dependency issue so feared by governments.

I should add, although few demographers are willing to do so, that Canada had 64,641 abortions in 2010. This brings the total number of "reported" abortions that have taken place between 1974 and 2010 in Canada to 3,191,362. It should be obvious that if Canada really wants to do something about the fertility rate it should try and nurture the babies who would like to be born here but who, like some failed refugees, are turned away.


  1. "To keep a ratio of over 65 year old's at 20 percent would require as many as seven million immigrants annually" The assumption here is that egalitarian multiracialism operates on a rational basis. The problem of falling birthrates, so long ignored by the establishment, was merely a much-needed pretense for mass immigration and 'diversity' which had been underway long before any concrete benefit was offered the public.

    "This means declining birthrates are a universal fact." I would not place too much hope in this fact. Firstly, the Third World isn't going to run out of excess population willing to emigrate any time soon. As for the "universality" of falling birthrates, you would really need to look at the world as a whole, and not just a few cases. India, despite its internal underdevelopment, is a world economic superpower, aided by a largely beneficial British colonial heritage. Iran also, prior to the Islamic revolution, was among the more developed, and certainly culturally rich, nations of the Mideast. Neither of these are Africa, whose fertility rates per mother remain the highest. Also in the case of India, the unprecedentedly high population density may have caused population growth to hit a ceiling. My guess is that the number of Third World immigrants available to Western countries will remain limited only by their willingness to accept them for the foreseeable future.

    "Maybe in a profoundly sympathetic response to the impact mankind is having on the natural world, womankind is cutting back its fertility for a reason." Again, it's only White Western women and those that have assimilated into the careerist, materialistic ethos of the contemporary West who are "cutting back on their fertility". Meanwhile, the womankind of Africa and the Mestizo and Arab south are content to continue gracing the world with their progeny. F. Roger Devlin has written a number of highly interesting and insightful articles on the matter of Whites' failure to rear children, tracing the problems to the feminist-sparked 'sexual revolution', and the subsequent breakdown of relations between the sexes. Here he analyzes the psychology and consequences of the sexual revolution: Here he comments on the breakdown of monogamy and the rise of the divorce industry and its effect on men: and In another series he writes about the importance of traditional gender roles in family life and the consequences of their collapse (first part here: I do recommend these writings to everyone as they are highly insightful, well-written and persuasive.

  2. I stand by my statement about declining birthrates, including in Africa, Latin America and Arabia. Look at the numbers. Mexico has gone from 6.77 in 1962 to 2.22 in 2012. Kenya has gone from 8.0 to 4.46. Saudi Arabia has gone from 7.24 to 2.70. Indonesia has gone from 5.64 to 2.37. Malaysia has gone from 6.21 to 1.98 (below replacement). China has gone from 5.60 to 1.66 (below replacement). India has gone from 5.84 to 2.50.

    I'd say that's pretty convincing; the numbers are dropping everywhere, most dramatically where modernization has taken hold. Look at South Korea, down from 5.79 to 1.30. Anyone who thinks they're going to see immigrants from South Korea can think again.

  3. Granted industrial modernization tends to lower extremely high birthrates, mostly by drawing women into the workplace. This is especially true in the absence of a firm religious culture placing emphasis on procreation (such as in China and Korea). However it is being unduly optimistic to say that the birthrates in developing countries will ever fall to or below replacement level. Humans, ordinarily speaking, like all other species, tend to produce as many offspring as they need to survive. Previously, in countries with (comparatively to the West) poor conditions, a higher number of offspring was needed to be born in order to ensure that enough would survive into adulthood. The advent of ever more new Western medicines, and the humanitarian support for Third World countries, has artificially lowered the infant mortality rate in many of them.

    Now the inability for Whites to procreate at replacement level, indeed the unprecedented difficulty and risk involved in raising a family in the West, cannot be explained simply by modern comforts, and is almost certainly related to a breakdown in monogamy and sexual norms on such as scale that has not occurred outside the West. As you mentioned, the current paradigm of our civilization is one of perpetual growth, which is unsustainable. The same however, applies to the Third World societies that we in the West have artificially propped up into modernity. The constant crises of the Third World are the result of societies struggling with levels of technology and population density that they are not internally prepared for. They are unnatural creations and doomed to failure as well. The Ebola epidemic in Western Africa is a good example. Who can doubt that birthrates there will skyrocket in response to this situation? Such an event would not have been possible prior to modernization due to low population densities. As I said, for the time being, the Third World will still has a great deal of unwanted people to offer the West.

  4. Following upon Hilliard's observation that declining and/or low fertility rates are a widespread phenomenon in the world (though not yet in sub-Sahara Africa and some poor Muslim nations), we ask ourselves why the leaders of advanced economies in Asia are not frightening their native peoples with doom scenarios about how everyone will face a contracting economy with an aging population losing their pensions for lack of a rising young population, brainwashing their people that they need to import hordes of immigrants to maintain a high standard of living?

    Take South Korea and England (minus Scotland): both countries are similar in size and populations, 50 and 53 million respectively, with South Korea having a lower fertility rate at 1.2, and England at 1.8. But while England opened its borders to mass immigration, South Korea consciously rejected the acceptance of large numbers of immigrants on the grounds that it would disrupt the racial integrity of the nation; they even have laws restricting admission of temporary foreign workers. While some leftists like to point out that there has been a noticeable increased of "immigrants" in South Korea in the last two decades, the fact remains that "the largest numbers of foreign residents are ethnic Koreans from China" (32.5 percent), while the others are genetically close East Asians, and many foreign residents are in South Korea illegally and will not get citizenship.

    Is there a hidden ideological agenda in the West that goes beyond economics? A recent issue of the Socialist Worker unabashedly declares: "Socialist Worker supports unlimited immigration even if there was no financial benefit to the British economy",

  5. "I should add, although few demographers are willing to do so, that Canada had 64,641 abortions in 2010.
    This brings the total number of "reported" abortions that have taken
    place between 1974 and 2010 in Canada to 3,191,362. It should be obvious
    that if Canada really wants to do something about the fertility rate it
    should try and nurture the babies who would like to be born here but
    who, like some failed refugees, are turned away."

    The last paragraph describes the cultural shift away from having large families. This same cultural shift will happen with the offspring of immigrants, as they embrace the decadence of liberalism; this is another reason why more immigrants will not keep society younger.

  6. Re: "Socialist Workers"

    Notice how their attack always involves the same old boring tactics of hurling labels. These people are truly demented.


    And the population keeps growing for 40 or 50 years after the total fertility rate stabilizes at replacement. It's called demographic momentum and it's a very big deal when you are talking about a place that's already hideously overpopulated, like Cairo is.

  8. The world's fertility rates (number of children per woman) are indeed joining those of industrialized countries, except for one region: sub-Saharan Africa.

    Sub-Saharan African birthrates are only expected to join those of other regions near the end of this century. Which means that it will remain for the decades to come to main part of the world to still produce surplus population ready to be imported by low-fertility richer nations.

    As the fertility of most of the Third World joins that of Europe and Colonies, the multiculturalists will turn to the last strongholds of high fertility and surplus population productions, which will be sub-Saharan African.

  9. There's 8 billion people on the planet, and counting.

    It wouldn't hurt at all for overall human population to drop, and by a few billion, at that.

    The only ones it would hurt would be businessmen, and it's about time we stopped listening to their whining about "growth", and tell them to grow the hell up.


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Facebook Our Twitter Our Gab Our Google + Our Youtube Our RSS feed