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

Oct 2015
1,046
California
#42
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.
How far back do you want to go? I guess one can look at the migration patterns of humans to Europe over the last 48,000 years when the first Homo Sapiens out of Africa entering Europe drove the native European population known as Neanderthals to extinction. Somewhat of a reverse prehistoric colonialism in which dark skinned anatomically modern humans with better technology, presumably smarter than Neanderthals, out-competed the natives of Europe for resources. Since Neanderthals had been living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before the first Homo Sapiens arrived, Neanderthals had lighter skin and light colored hair and eyes, while the new arrivals from Africa which would later be called Cro Magnon had darker skin, taller and lankier. Of course some anthropologists have argued that the Neanderthals were already an endangered species even before the arrival of Homo Sapiens.


. chedarmanmjjjjj.jpg chedarmanmjjjjjff.jpg
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,691
SoCal
#45
How far back do you want to go? I guess one can look at the migration patterns of humans to Europe over the last 48,000 years when the first Homo Sapiens out of Africa entering Europe drove the native European population known as Neanderthals to extinction. Somewhat of a reverse prehistoric colonialism in which dark skinned anatomically modern humans with better technology, presumably smarter than Neanderthals, out-competed the natives of Europe for resources. Since Neanderthals had been living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before the first Homo Sapiens arrived, Neanderthals had lighter skin and light colored hair and eyes, while the new arrivals from Africa which would later be called Cro Magnon had darker skin, taller and lankier. Of course some anthropologists have argued that the Neanderthals were already an endangered species even before the arrival of Homo Sapiens.


. View attachment 17634 View attachment 17635
Evolving light skin afterwards must have been one hell of a challenge, no?
 
Oct 2015
1,046
California
#46
Evolving light skin afterwards must have been one hell of a challenge, no?
Well modern Europeans did not inherit their light skin tone from Neanderthals but developed it on their own through a genetic mutation 19,000 years ago. So yes evolving light skin tone took a very long time
Anyway DNA records of Neanderthal DNA suggests red hair was common in their population, and of course light skin tone:

Europeans did not inherit pale skins from Neanderthals
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,691
SoCal
#47
Yeah, I can imagine. I could likewise imagine that it would be extremely long and difficult for Black Africans nowadays to evolve light skin.

Evolving a higher intelligence is so much easier since everyone has some intelligence--just in different amounts. In contrast, if one excludes albinos, there simply doesn't appear to be much skin variety in Black Africa.
 
#48
How far back do you want to go? I guess one can look at the migration patterns of humans to Europe over the last 48,000 years when the first Homo Sapiens out of Africa entering Europe drove the native European population known as Neanderthals to extinction. Somewhat of a reverse prehistoric colonialism in which dark skinned anatomically modern humans with better technology, presumably smarter than Neanderthals, out-competed the natives of Europe for resources. Since Neanderthals had been living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before the first Homo Sapiens arrived, Neanderthals had lighter skin and light colored hair and eyes, while the new arrivals from Africa which would later be called Cro Magnon had darker skin, taller and lankier. Of course some anthropologists have argued that the Neanderthals were already an endangered species even before the arrival of Homo Sapiens.


. View attachment 17634 View attachment 17635


Well indeed, its really about timescale and what you consider "a country" or "a group". Ie. who is moving, and where are they moving and how the receiving community and the newcomers interact.

There are many modern states that have been formed through conscious, organised and planned immigration (in the strictest sense of a group of people permanently moving to another country or land) that has supplanted the native population that is either an ethnic minority or doesn't exist at all.

Outside the obvious settler-colonial countries of the New World, Israel and Singapore are examples that can be found outside the Americas. In theory, if you recognize North Cyprus as an independent country and not occupied by Turkey then that too.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
739
Upland, Sweden
#49
That wouldn't work in the long(er)-run if the descendants of these immigrants are going to have Swedish citizenship, though. It's like with the naive libertarians who are advocating in favor of open borders and also advocating denying access to welfare for immigrants. It sounds great, but with birthright citizenship here in the US, the children of immigrants are going to be US citizens and thus are going to be eligible for welfare. Also, if some groups of immigrants are underperformers, it's perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that most of their children are likewise going to be underperformers. This is relevant because I'm presuming that underperformers are going to be more dependent on welfare than other people are.
That depends on how restrictive your citizenship laws are. I like how citizenship worked here before (you need two-three recommendations from natives, residence for 10-15 years, no criminal record, you can support yourself - as well as being accepted and sworn in by your local government. In the Swedish case I also think language requirements etc are in order. Ideally citizenship laws are something that should only be decided by referenda if you ask me, I don't trust my elected representatives with it... but that's another question...

The idea is that they getting of welfare is an incentive to leave the country, not that they should somehow stay. The Swedish labourmarket is not like the American one: there are no minimum wage jobs, in the US sense. 50 years of "solidaric-wage-policy" has pused wages higher yes, but they have also destroyed all unproductive businesses (and therefore very many small ones).


Who'd you strip of citizenship? Personally, I am very wary of stripping people of citizenship after they get it. They'd need to do something truly horrendous for this. Of course, the same criteria should probably apply to natural-born citizens.
In principle I agree with you that you should be mindful of robbing people of citizenship, but we have essentially been handing out citizenships like confetti for the past 15 years if not more (all it takes is having been a resident in Sweden for 4 years, with no real requirement that you can support yourself or even speak Swedish). What is easily handed out can be easily taken away, according to the universal laws of nature... It is not legitimate that in a system where we pay half of our income in taxes people who have no loyalty to the country, no sense of ties and who have not contributed should be treated the same as the natives (or the welladjusted migrants who want to assimilate for that matter) and suddenly be afforded all those privileges.

What I'd like is a system where people who got here somewhere in the last 15 years and who still either 1) can't support themselves 2) can't speak Swedish 3) have commited crimes or 4) got their Citizenship or residency permits on seriously false pretenses (observe the caveat, a strict interpretation of this policy would entail 90% of everyone getting here for the past 20 years should probably leave, as we have not even been applying our own laws...) - should have their citizenships removed. Since they're no longer eligible for welfare (in this theoretical system), they'd have no choice but to leave essentially or resort to crime/ work in the grey economy. If the government clamps down on those things sufficiently, these people will try their luck elsewhere.

Either these people (i.e. the unassimilated/ unassimilable migrants) leave or the only other solution - that will not lead to breakdown in a few decades - is some really nasty socially stratified system where Swedes and a few assimilated migrants are treated as a "ruling class" similar to ancient Greece and their view of citizenship, or the way the Gulf states treat their guest workers today. Contrary to my screen-name I'd rather not have that, as I like my Scandinavian equality. :)

I don't think that paying people to leave would work very well. AFAIK, Germany tried getting its Turks to leave in the 1980s by paying them and very few Turks actually took Germany up on this offer. People like living in the First World and thus are probably going to be very disinclined to leave it--and Turkey is actually one of the better-off Muslim countries (at least out of those without significant natural resources).
The reason it didn't work was partially because the Germans didn't follow through on their logic. Of course people are not going to take the offer if they can stay with impunity, and keep either having access to welfare, or working in the grey/ black economy. Carrots without sticks won't work here. Also, the Germans didn't pay people enough.

There is also the case that the Swedish labour market is a bit different from the German one. We have very high degrees of ethnic segregation between native born residents and migrants, the highest in the entire OECD together with Norway and the other Scandinavian countries. Many of the people I'm talking about here literally won't have anything else to do if they're taken off welfare. If I was in that situation and was given a lot of money to leave - provided I knew the government meant business, and weren't going to just pussyfoot around the issue like they've done for the past decades... then I'd probably leave.

Formality reasons such as overstaying their visas?
Yes, exactly. Our bureaucracy can be very inhuman really - but I suppose that's true of all bureaucracies...


Yeah, I mean, Canada has a cognitive elitist immigration policy and it appears to be doing better than, say, Sweden is. Of course, such an immigration policy would also have a negative effect by stripping the Third World of a lot of its smart people--thus very possibly making it even harder for those countries to develop, prosper, and thrive. :(
Yes, and it also hurts the native working class, and it can hurt social cohesion more generally. A high IQ =/= doing good things for society. Interests and self-perception are also important, not just ability - but you are right, I too would prefer the Canadian model over what we have...

And yes the impact of these policies on the Third World (or what used to be called the Third World) is often very perverse. Could be said about a lot of things...


Frankly, it really does look like Sweden chose the wrong places to get most of its migrants from. India, China, the rest of East Asia, and southeast Asia would have probably been better sources of migrants, IMHO. For instance, in regards to Indians, even the Indians in the UK (where I'm presuming there was less selection than among US Indians) perform almost as well as White British people do on academic/achievement tests.
Yeah, you're probably right about that at least for the last few decades. I mean our Jugoslavs and Southern/ Eastern Europeans were pretty nice additions, as were some of the Turks, Assyrians, Iranians and Lebanese who arrived in the 70s... those groups were generally if not educated then at least aspirational. The slight increase in crime could have been compensated with in time. Much of it is just a matter of scale.

It's also a matter of geographic distance. Asia is far away...


Those Latin Americans might have been some of Chile's cognitive elite, no?
Most probably were. On the other hand they were also communist, so you loose some you gain some...


Intetersting. Yeah I'd rather not comment... I would't say it's too suprising.

In their defence: Scandinavia is probably one of the hardest places in the world to migrate too. We are literally cultural opposites from each other. Not that I excuse criminal behaviour on behalf of these people, but it's not really rocket science that this is what would happen when you put so different people together in a context like the one we have in Scandinavia.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
739
Upland, Sweden
#50
Yes, it's not that low, but AFAIK it's still lower than for your immigrants and you could nevertheless be doing much better like the Israeli Jews are doing. Of course, the same is also true for us Americans (though demographic changes in the US appear to be less troubling than those in, say, Sweden).
You are right. To be fair though, the Israeli Jews have a spiritual advantage, but yes that would be nice, I agree. That coupled with high rates of intermarriage among the succesful migrants would be the rosy scenario...


You mean like Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese? Also, are you considering other Europeans as ethnic minorities here?
Partially yes - those groups are commonly represented in that (but there are not that many of them). I wouldn't be surprised if there were more adopted Asians or daughters to Swedish men who "went to Thailand" then there are ethnic East Asians in Sweden. I was mostly thinking of Persians, other Europeans (they are ethnic minorities yes - but they obviously often have an easier time blending and fitting in...) and some other more assimilated Middle Eastern groups (Christian Lebanese for example). But yes it is true with the ones you mention as well.



Yep, Eastern European migrants can certainly help replenish Sweden's population. Of course, this isn't going to be very good for these countries themselves since some of them--such as Ukraine--are already experiencing chronic population decline. :(
True. :confused:


Haha, yes! Are you going to hold me to it? :p
 
Last edited: