Additional cases of a group losing its majority in a country as a result of immigration?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,851
SoCal
#1
Here in the US, non-Hispanic Whites are gradually losing their majority as a result of large-scale non-White immigration to the US combined with higher non-White birth rates. (The higher non-White birthrates in themselves would not have been anywhere near enough to make the US majority non-White without large-scale non-White immigration to the US.) The same pattern appears to be going on in Canada, Australia, and possibly New Zealand and/or some Western European countries as well. These countries have become much more welcoming to non-White immigrants over the last several decades and thus accordingly saw a huge increase in their non-White populations as a result of large-scale non-White immigration and probably higher non-White birth rates.

My question is this--what additional realistic cases could there have been of a group losing its majority in a country as a result of immigration? For the record, I don't mean settler colonialism; settler colonialism involves the rule of one people by another people. In contrast, what I am talking about here are democratic countries where the people determine their own destiny nevertheless experiencing significant demographic changes as a result of large-scale immigration--up to the point of the dominant ethnic group in these countries losing its majority or even plurality.

What additional realistic cases of this could there have been? Also, please limit yourselves to scenarios that have a point of departure (from real life) in 1850 or later.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,851
SoCal
#2
BTW, what I don't want for the purposes of this scenario is for a country to annex additional territory and thus change its demographics that way (for instance, having Israel annex the Palestinian territories). Rather, what I want is for a country to change its demographics as a result of large-scale immigration to this country.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,815
Dispargum
#3
During the 19th century the Boers lost majority status in South Africa to British immigration. It may have happened twice. The first time the Boers trekked inland to establish their own republics. When the British immigrants followed them later, after gold and diamonds were discovered in the Boers lands, then two Boer Wars had to be fought.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
951
Upland, Sweden
#8
If one looks at the "Age of Migrations" - i.e. the late 4th to the 7th cdnturies in European history... in some cases this began as migration and became settler colonialism over time...

Also - weren't blacks/ mestizos the majority in some latin American countries - Brazil comes to mind - until the 19th century? European migration changed the demographics of that country considerably at least, from what I've understood.
 
Likes: Futurist

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,226
#9
The US, Canada, Australia, most of the west indies.

Before that , all of North Africa (if we consider North Africa arab, before the 7th century, it was not at all the case)

Turkey (was not even called that before the turks moved in)

I realize these do not fit the OP criteria.... But the problem is that there were not that many democratic countries until recently....

For the latter case, Sweden seems to be on that track
 
Likes: Futurist

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,520
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#10
You mean among SA's White population, correct? I would think that Blacks would've remained a majority of SA's total population even back then.
But they had separate Republics - Orange Free State and Transvaal. The area of SA was populated sparser than today, so they could have been the overall majority in those areas. One would have to check to make sure though.
 
Likes: Futurist