Is It Time To Remove Race From The Census??

Steodonn

Gnobe wrote: »

They don't in most european countries. Infact collecting information on race is completely banned in France, nobody knows exactly how many black people there are, or muslims etc.

Muslims aren't a race

keith16

Gnobe wrote: »

Ok lets run through some of them:

Australia - Just 20 million 'white' people. About 70% of their immigrants nowadays come from Asia. Expect an Asian majority by 2050 onwards or so.

USA - non-hispanic white population is set to fall below 50% by 2042. 90% of the USA incoming immigrants are not white (or not from Europe, one of the two).

Canada - Majority of immigrants are not white.

Brazil - White population fell below 50% for the first time recently. Mix Race/black people will become the majority shortly.

Many other european nations, e.g. Germany, Scandinavia, Holland, and countries like Spain and Italy (even Ireland) are changing. Baring Ireland, some of these countries have really low birth rates, whereas their minorites will not.

Globalisation is worldwide phenomenon now, nothing to do with France and Britain just 'saying' so. It affects lots of countries.



Yeah because it was these trends which gave me the idea of which the way the world is going, and I can see it within 50 years time and that now we do not need it. Obama's election was also a turning point for me. Globalisation is in full swing now and I suspect there will be more Obama's shortly. But yes I used those to prove a point because the terms are becoming out dated now IMO in the context of miscegenation and humanity which is set to become the norm.



Uh yeah obviously. The birth rates of the poorer nations (those nations that are doing the emigrating) are much higher.

Are you trolling? You are telling us to disregard these terms and yet you continue to use them yourself. In Australia there will be Asian majority? So what happened to all the beige people? Just because race patterns change in a country does not render use of ethnic labels redundant.

Are you seriously telling me that because of the dynamics of birth rates and immigration are currently pointing in one direction that they will continue to do so? And that being the case that intermarriage will happen to such a degree to produce a racially homogenous planet this century?

Do immigrant communities interbreed and integrate with the population seemlessly?

Honest opinion

Ellis Dee wrote: »

One of the first things that was drilled into my head when I studied anthropology at uni was that there is actually only one human race.:)

If the purpose of the census is to compile information that will assist in the planning of infrastructure and services, I fail to see what people's skin colour has to do with anything.

In fact, I wonder do we need a census at all. Many of the more efficiently governed countries in Europe haven't had censuses for decades. Instead, statistical compilation is an ongoing, almost real-time activity, and government planners have much better and more up-to-date figures at their disposal than is the case in Ireland.:)

Can you post a Link to back that up? id imagine all countries in europe take a Census

conor.hogan.2

Of course there is only one human race.

The majority of modern science agrees as do the major religions.

That is a huge consensus.

Scanlas The 2nd

What's your opinion OP on the red and grey squirrel? Should we pretend there is no difference?

dxhound2005

Ellis Dee wrote: »

One of the first things that was drilled into my head when I studied anthropology at uni was that there is actually only one human race.:)

If the purpose of the census is to compile information that will assist in the planning of infrastructure and services, I fail to see what people's skin colour has to do with anything.

In fact, I wonder do we need a census at all. Many of the more efficiently governed countries in Europe haven't had censuses for decades. Instead, statistical compilation is an ongoing, almost real-time activity, and government planners have much better and more up-to-date figures at their disposal than is the case in Ireland.:)

Nobody mentioned ethnology when you were studying?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethnology

ballsymchugh

it may have something to do with epidemiology, certain diseases can be more prominent in certain races, like sickle cell anaemia or tay sach's disease.
the NHS in the uk collect all this kind of info, and the software i was using at work there used to have all the races in alphabetical order, starting with bangladeshi, then black african, black caribbean.. etc.
it was a pain in the arse checking the right one every time, so there may have been a spike in the number of bangladeshis living in white home county england for a few months last year before the software updated to having white british as default..

Mike 1972

Honest opinion wrote: »

id imagine all countries in europe take a Census

The UK are giving serious consideration to not having any more

2011 could be the last one.

SharpshooterTom

keith16 wrote: »

You are telling us to disregard these terms and yet you continue to use them yourself.

I have no choice I have to, since everyone else does. But I am hopeful the world will mix up enough for people to start ignoring the concept of race more so. Not only that but the terms are completely and scientifically wrong. Getting rid of the terms on census forms etc will help us become a less race conscious society in the long run IMO. More mixed marriages will ensure from this as race will not be barrier and will be forgotten in time etc. The concept of "interracial marriage" is utterly stupid from naming point of view.

keith16 wrote:

In Australia there will be Asian majority? So what happened to all the beige people? Just because race patterns change in a country does not render use of ethnic labels redundant.

They'll presumabley become 'beige' eventually. It's proven that generations of immigrants tend to marry interracially more than the immigrants themselves. A new Australia will a lot more 'mixed race' than it is now obviously. A lot more.

keith16 wrote:

Are you seriously telling me that because of the dynamics of birth rates and immigration are currently pointing in one direction that they will continue to do so? And that being the case that intermarriage will happen to such a degree to produce a racially homogenous planet this century?

Certain sections of this planet will be racially mixed yes, parts already are, (e.g. Brazil, South and Central America). Birth rates are likely to stay the same for the time being.

keith16 wrote:

Do immigrant communities interbreed and integrate with the population seemlessly?

Eventually if they're long enough over generations yep.

keith16

ballsymchugh wrote: »

it may have something to do with epidemiology, certain diseases can be more prominent in certain races, like sickle cell anaemia or tay sach's disease.
the NHS in the uk collect all this kind of info, and the software i was using at work there used to have all the races in alphabetical order, starting with bangladeshi, then black african, black caribbean.. etc.
it was a pain in the arse checking the right one every time, so there may have been a spike in the number of bangladeshis living in white home county england for a few months last year before the software updated to having white british as default..

This is an excellent point, not to mention the whole area of pharmacogenomics...how your genetic makeup influences how well you respond to certain drugs. Like it or not, there are genetic differences between the myriad of races and it's critical those genetic differences are taken into consideration during the development of drugs.

But hey, don't let science get in the way of the 'conventional wisdom' the OP is passing off as fact.

There is a mixed race president now and thats what we will all look like by 2100 :rolleyes:

dsmythy

Lefties shouldn't be trying to get rid of the question of race in the census or other records. How else are you going to be able to point out the social deprivation suffered by minorities?

saa

Everyone is mixed and its doesn't denote anything of significance but it should be an important place to record how people identify themselves along with sexuality and spiritual status.

Jesus Wept

Remove gender, in fact - just remove every question and just have a show of hands.

Kevin Duffy

The-Rigger wrote: »

Remove gender, in fact - just remove every question and just have a show of hands.

And what about the people with no hands? You manualist pig!

ballsymchugh

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

And what about the people with no hands? You manualist pig!

are those my feet?!

30Min

Gnobe wrote: »

Couple of things to point out, 22% of primary schoolchildren in England are not white.

Ethnic minorities have bigger birth rates than white Brits (around a quarter of all babies born in the UK at the moment are ethnic minorities).

So clearly demographics are changing within Europe and I think everyone knows this.

But that's not the point, the point is do we need actually record this crap anymore??
.

So you are trying to strengthen your argument for getting rid of questions such as race/religion etc from census records with...........stats and information that comes directly from government documents like, for example.......census records.

Johnny Foreigner

I wish that London-Irish was a race choice on the census.
We are an ethnic minority.

kowloon

I suppose the census would provide with information on what race/ethnicity people consider themselves. This is useful information and as long as everyone is treated the same it's not a problem.

If the information was being used to discriminate it would make sense to get rid of it. But in that case gender, marital status and all those other little details should be open to the same.

Mike 1972

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

I wish that London-Irish was a race choice on the census.
We are an ethnic minority.

As opposed to Birmingham Irish ?

ballsymchugh

Mike 1972 wrote: »

As opposed to Birmingham Irish ?

there is nothing but hatred on the pitch in the all-britain (ie champions of london v champions of birmingham) junior hurling final

SharpshooterTom

keith16 wrote:

This is an excellent point, not to mention the whole area of pharmacogenomics...how your genetic makeup influences how well you respond to certain drugs. Like it or not, there are genetic differences between the myriad of races and it's critical those genetic differences are taken into consideration during the development of drugs.

　
Well in that case the government can keep track of such statistics, but they don't have to release them, what good is it to let the public know?
　

saa wrote:

Everyone is mixed and its doesn't denote anything of significance but it should be an important place to record how people identify themselves along with sexuality and spiritual status.

　
No it is not. Why is it important? You giving credit that there is a such thing as race within humans.
Spirituality is fine, but you've just admitted we're all mixed so why allow people to identify incorrect/fake classifcations?
　

30Min wrote:

So you are trying to strengthen your argument for getting rid of questions such as race/religion etc from census records with...........stats and information that comes directly from government documents like, for example.......census records.

Like I say 10-20 years I wouldn't have so bothered. But in the age of globalisation and the strong increase in "ethnic minorities" which is taking place in many western nations (and continuing), based on those trends yes I do think in this day and age they're not necessary anymore. Mainly also because the rate at which miscegenation is occuring is occuring at such a great now. It's stupid.

Eric Cartman

in fairness, race is a characteristic that needs to be quantified on the census, as is nationality, it lets the government know what services are needed in specific areas, for instance an area with a high population of a certain religion, some land could be made available for a mosque/church etc... or more funding for non denominational schools (realistically all schools should be secular but anyway) or more staff at the dole office if theres a lot of people from a certain country, or more prisons to make the families of certain groups have a smaller distance to travel to see their relatives.

Indubitable

Ah shure, its not hurting anyone. I doubt the average person gives a fúck to be honest.

keith16

Gnobe wrote: »

Mainly also because the rate at which miscegenation is occuring is occuring at such a great now. It's stupid.

WHAT?

It's been demonstrated repeatedly why recording this info is important. You continue to quote statistics of race which completely contradicts your very argument. You also continue to use ethnic terms and say that you have to because everyone else does, which displays a laughable, almost childlike comprehension of your own argument.

Your apparent lack of understanding of the topic being discussed is particularly evident in the text I have quoted - it would make more sense if you just mashed the keyboard.

Finally, the poll results have answered your question in overwhelming fashion. So please stop trolling now.

keith16

Gnobe wrote: »

　
Well in that case the government can keep track of such statistics,

In other words, no, no it is not time to remove race from the census.

Honest opinion

I Think the Poll voting trend realy answers this Question

There is no reason to remove Race from the census

Mike 1972

Eric Cartman wrote: »

, for instance an area with a high population of a certain religion, some land could be made available for a mosque/church etc...

Couldnt Shouldnt they just buy the land themselves ?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

or more funding for non denominational schools (realistically all schools should be secular but anyway) ...

Exactly all pulically funded schools SHOULD be secular and then there would be no "need" to ask such questions.

But as things stand they do ask the questions and there arent enough secular schools so the system isint working.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

or more staff at the dole office if theres a lot of people from a certain country...

Shouldnt the number of staff at the dole office be proportional only to the number of people unemployed (and one doesnt need census to find that out)

Eric Cartman wrote: »

or more prisons to make the families of certain groups have a smaller distance to travel to see their relatives.

By certain groups I presume you mean criminals.

Im suprised you feel there is any particularly pressing reason why this issue needs to be addressed quite frankly.

SharpshooterTom

keith16 wrote: »

In other words, no, no it is not time to remove race from the census.

Who says we should publish them? Why should the public know if most people don't acknowledge race exists?

I will keep using race statistics while they are there to prove my point that the world is becoming mixed race, and in this sense because of so, they are not needed anymore as we head for a full blown miscegnation in the world.

dxhound2005

Gnobe wrote: »

Who says we should publish them? Why should the public know if most people don't acknowledge race exists?

I will keep using race statistics while they are there to prove my point that the world is becoming mixed race, and in this sense because of so, they are not needed anymore as we head for a full blown miscegnation in the world.

If you're going to use big words at least spell them correctly. Miscegenation by definition acknowledges the existence of distinct races and it's practice over the centuries did not lead to their disappearance.

Hande hoche!

Seems to be quite a few race related topics being discussed tonight.

dxhound2005

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Seems to be quite a few race related topics being discussed tonight.

German people are welcome as well.

Yahew

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Every other country records these statictics. Why shouldn't we?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

The French don't.

Hande hoche!

dxhound2005 wrote: »

German people are welcome as well.

danke schön.

Yahew

keith16 wrote: »

There is a mixed race president now and thats what we will all look like by 2100 :rolleyes:

Um, no.

Even if a high X% of whites married high Y% of other races, etc, there would be white groups and (black, asian) groups who didnt beause they didnt want to.

Assuming race will disappear is like assuming class will disappear. My suspicion is that - despite the upper middle classes claim to be anti-racist - the lower to middle income groups will become mutl-racial and the lowest income groups - where ethic identity is stronger than class, and the upper middle income groups wlll be white.

dxhound2005

Yahew wrote: »

The French don't.

That was all discussed before. They are not recorded in the French census but it is not illegal for others to record them. For whatever reason different organisations have felt the need to record them and some of them claim from their results that their is racial discrimination in France.

SharpshooterTom

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you're going to use big words at least spell them correctly. Miscegenation by definition acknowledges the existence of distinct races and it's practice over the centuries did not lead to their disappearance.

I normally spell it correct, I just left it out by mistake.

But now with increased globalisation on a scale never seen before, it's very possible that something big is on the way.

I fully believe if we leave the borders open or have a very relaxed immigration control we will see this nation rocket with numbers of different backgrounds and hence because of the liberal mindset we have with race (e.g. the Obama election), the concept should be a shoe in. Most people are colourblind now.

Yahew

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That was all discussed before. They are not recorded in the French census but it is not illegal for others to record them. For whatever reason different organisations have felt the need to record them and some of them claim from their results that their is racial discrimination in France.

The topic is about the census. So - the French dont. Nothing else matters a sh*t.

dxhound2005

Gnobe wrote: »

I normally spell it correct, I just left it out by mistake.

But now with increased globalisation on a scale never seen before, it's very possible that something big is on the way.

I fully believe if we leave the borders open or have a very relaxed immigration control we will see this nation rocket with numbers of different backgrounds and hence because of the liberal mindset we have with race (e.g. the Obama election), the concept should be a shoe in. Most people are colourblind now.

As I said before this globalisation has not led to any great influx of white people into India, China or the African continent. So your coffee coloured world might only come to pass in Europe and North America.

Yahew

dxhound2005 wrote: »

As I said before this globalisation has not led to any great influx of white people into India, China or the African continent. So your coffee coloured world might only come to pass in Europe and North America.

Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of middle America, the Hebrides etc etc will be white too.

Coffee coloured in the Western cities -except for the poor and the rich - and white in the far suburbs and villages ( not necessarily because of racism but because immigrants dont migrate to villages).

Whiteness is secure. So is a nice coffee coloured city,

All good.

SharpshooterTom

dxhound2005 wrote: »

As I said before this globalisation has not led to any great influx of white people into India, China or the African continent. So your coffee coloured world might only come to pass in Europe and North America.

And Oceania

It's a start. Remember South and Central America is already mixed race. So if I am correct, which I think I am, most of the world will be mixed race, which IMO will be a great thing and I'm sure most europeans will be celebrating with me.

Yahew

Gnobe wrote: »

And Oceania

It's a start. Remember South and Central America is already mixed race. So if I am correct, which I think I am, most of the world will be mixed race, which IMO will be a great thing and I'm sure most europeans will be celebrating with me.

There is very little chance of China being mixed race. Or Japan. Or Korea. etc.

Nor would the loss of "whiteness" be a good thing. Because that would lose a beautiful phenotype.

But that's not going to happen. We will be mixed race in cities and blond haired kids will still be frolicking in the villages.

Unless this leads to conflict -and I hope it wont - that's the best of both worlds. However wanting the white race to disappear is a bit odd, and racist in itself.

( As for Omagh, where you come from. Its a bit optimistic to believe that race disappears in Northern Ireland unless it gets an influx of equally Catholic and Protestant non-whites).

dxhound2005

Gnobe wrote: »

And Oceania

It's a start. Remember South and Central America is already mixed race. So if I am correct, which I think I am, most of the world will be mixed race, which IMO will be a great thing and I'm sure most europeans will be celebrating with me.

To make it all work properly you will need a large influx of black people into China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Korea, and Vietnam.

Yahew

dxhound2005 wrote: »

To make it all work properly you will need a large influx of black people into China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Korea, and Vietnam.

Or whites, so these places become Eurasian.

Yahew

Gnobe wrote: »

Ok lets run through some of them:

Australia - Just 20 million 'white' people. About 70% of their immigrants nowadays come from Asia. Expect an Asian majority by 2050 onwards or so.

USA - non-hispanic white population is set to fall below 50% by 2042. 90% of the USA incoming immigrants are not white (or not from Europe, one of the two).

Canada - Majority of immigrants are not white.

Brazil - White population fell below 50% for the first time recently. Mix Race/black people will become the majority shortly.

Many other european nations, e.g. Germany, Scandinavia, Holland, and countries like Spain and Italy (even Ireland) are changing. Baring Ireland, some of these countries have really low birth rates, whereas their minorites will not.

Whats your feeling on Russia, Poland. Hungary, Lithuania, and white immigration to China, Turkey, Nigeria etc. turning the world brown?

Globalisation is worldwide phenomenon now, nothing to do with France and Britain just 'saying' so. It affects lots of countries./

No it isnt. Japan, China etc. We keep pointing this out, You keep ignoring it.

Yeah because it was these trends which gave me the idea of which the way the world is going, and I can see it within 50 years time and that now we do not need it. Obama's election was also a turning point for me. Globalisation is in full swing now and I suspect there will be more Obama's shortly. But yes I used those to prove a point because the terms are becoming out dated now IMO in the context of miscegenation and humanity which is set to become the norm.

Whats the trend on inter-white intermarriage in Omagh? Do you really think that people moving around the world always leads to intermarriage.

If whites dont intermarry in Omagh, what chance the brown race worldwide?

Uh yeah obviously. The birth rates of the poorer nations (those nations that are doing the emigrating) are much higher.

But that tells you nothing about the future. In America, for instance, Hispanic birth rates converge towards the norm but religious white groups are accelerating - Fundamentalists, Mormons and Amish - so the extrapolation is false.

Unless everybody inter-marries the world brown race is not going to happen.


I am not writing this in some kind of opposition to inter-marriage, its a good thing. Just this: I detest bad and statistically useless arguments.

SharpshooterTom

Yahew wrote: »

There is very little chance of China being mixed race. Or Japan. Or Korea. etc.

Nor would the loss of "whiteness" be a good thing. Because that would lose a beautiful phenotype.

But that's not going to happen. We will be mixed race in cities and blond haired kids will still be frolicking in the villages.

Unless this leads to conflict -and I hope it wont - that's the best of both worlds. However wanting the white race to disappear is a bit odd, and racist in itself.

( As for Omagh, where you come from. Its a bit optimistic to believe that race disappears in Northern Ireland unless it gets an influx of equally Catholic and Protestant non-whites).

How do you know that??

Mixed racing is very popular now. I travel a lot around the world and see mixed race couples everywhere. So I would expect to rise. Look at Brazil?? It worked there. Mixed race people are nearly the majority.

Btw, I live in Omagh, not from Omagh. I moved around a lot when I was child, lived in Brent London for 5 years and started school, the most ethnically diverse area in England. I have primary school photos of being one of the few white kids in that school at the time. Been there know what it's like.

[QUOTE-Yahew]Whats your feeling on Russia, Poland. Hungary, Lithuania, and white immigration to China, Turkey, Nigeria etc. turning the world brown?[/QUOTE]

They will eventually. Not in my lifetime. Eastern Europe's population is in massive decline.

Yahew wrote:

No it isnt. Japan, China etc. We keep pointing this out, You keep ignoring it

Other parts are first, it takes time. Japan may consider opening up its borders to accomodate an ageing population. It's an ongoing discussion. I recognise there are parts that may never go completely mixed race, e.g. but as long as we get most of it, it's pretty good.

Also I didn't say all of places like Britain will go mixed race, but most of it potentially (a majority say)

Yahew wrote:

Whats the trend on inter-white intermarriage in Omagh? Do you really think that people moving around the world always leads to intermarriage.

If whites dont intermarry in Omagh, what chance the brown race worldwide?

Yes I do. Especially with the western worlds liberal attitudes on race.

Is Omagh the representative of the entire world? I'd be happy if Belfast went first, as it is starting to become more multiracial.

Yahew wrote:

But that tells you nothing about the future. In America, for instance, Hispanic birth rates converge towards the norm but religious white groups are accelerating - Fundamentalists, Mormons and Amish - so the extrapolation is false.

Unless everybody inter-marries the world brown race is not going to happen.

Hispanic birth rates are still above 2.1, and remember, 90% of America's immigration as of 2009, comes from outside europe.

Also, yes I recognise that the US white fertility rate is higher than most other white populations in the world, it's still below 2.1 (around 1.7-1.8), which would imply a population decline.

The world is becoming more non whiter, since no white population has a fertility rate above 2 (well apart from Argentina) and most other places in the world are above 2. It will keep on continuing.

Father Damo

Is it an offense to lie about your race or gender on a census form? Like the way people put down Jedi Warrior or pretend they arent a catholic because they think they are rebellious against non existant church oppression.

Yahew

Gnobe wrote: »

The world is becoming more non whiter, since no white population has a fertility rate above 2 (well apart from Argentina) and most other places in the world are above 2. It will keep on continuing.

Its interesting that both the anti-racists, and the white racists are obsessed, specifically, with white demographics . In fact most of the rest of the world is converging on the European rates - with the exception of some parts of Africa, and some parts of the Muslim world. Eventually we ail will be in decline, estimated by 2050. Except mormons. On which, more later.

I should also point out that a declining population does not say anything about intermarriage. Either people immigrate to Russia - to pick an example of a country which will stay white, or they dont. If they do, then the Russians have to want to intermarry - a moot point since despite the fact that Russia's population is declining, it doesnt get much immigration.

So -• blunder 1. Immigration is not universal in white countries.
• Blunder 2: A declining population is not necessarily related to intermarriage.
• Blunder 3: not everybody inter-marries even in places with high immigration ( or high historical immigration). You live in Omagh. Work out if there are impediments, greater than race, to intermarriage ( Hint: religion). Of course racism is another one - from either side.
• Blunder 4: even in white countries with large immigrant populations immigrants dont go to certain cities, villages, or areas.
• Blunder 5. A rate of total fertility amongst whites ( or any group) which is below replacement does not mean that all sub-groups with in that group are below replacement. Over time the groups with above average fertility will dominate within their group, and push the average of the group up.

So while hispanic fertility rates are declining white religious Americans are not. Secular whites are. There will be some movement to secularisation from some people born to religious families, but the trend is for the white population to start growing in the US eventually, predominantly the religious. Israel is another example. A once tiny orthodox sect is now 20% or more of the population.

Blunder 6: A declining West will actually not be attractive to non-Westerners. If Brazil and Mexico's's long term economic growth is higher than the US, they will catch up, and immigration stops of reverses. China will be, per capita, as rich as the West in 20-30 years. Long before that it will be richer than any Western country, and immigration will trend there not aging Europe.

SharpshooterTom

Yahew wrote: »

Its interesting that both the anti-racists, and the white racists are obsessed, specifically, with white demographics . In fact most of the rest of the world is converging on the European rates - with the exception of some parts of Africa, and some parts of the Muslim world. Eventually we ail will be in decline, estimated by 2050. Except mormons. On which, more later.

This is not strictly true, a lot of people aren't too sure what will happen with the human race. Currently however, the world is growing at a rate of 1 billion every 12 years. It just past 7 billion last year. The white population is not part of ANY of this growth you may have noticed.

The white population of the world is declining. In 1960 whites were over 25% of the population, now they are only around 14%. There's about 1 billion whites but will decline. White America has a fertility around 1.8, which is less than the 2.1 needed for replacement, and so will go into decline like I said. Hispanics are at 3, and all other minorities are above 2. America has a lot of immigration from Africa, a continent with a massive birth rate so will keep supplying blacks into America for the time being. Infact predictions suggest that the Black population will nearly double in 2050, holding/slightly increasing their percentage at 15% of the population (despite Hispanic growth). Whites will be in decline.

Yahew wrote: »

I should also point out that a declining population does not say anything about intermarriage. Either people immigrate to Russia - to pick an example of a country which will stay white, or they dont. If they do, then the Russians have to want to intermarry - a moot point since despite the fact that Russia's population is declining, it doesnt get much immigration.

Who knows how much immigration Russia will get? That may change in a few decades. If the third world population keeps on growing, into the billions, they all have to go somewhere.

It was laughable that at some point Ireland would get immigration, or Spain or Italy. All these countries have significant minority populations now, infact Italy's got around 5 million foreigners all of a sudden in the last decade, a lot from sub-saharan/northern Africa, which is still ongoing. I say Russia could still change yet.

Yahew wrote:

So -• blunder 1. Immigration is not universal in white countries.

Nearly all white countries are rich so they have the potential to atract migrants from third world countries.

Yahew wrote:

• Blunder 2: A declining population is not necessarily related to intermarriage.

I didn't say it did, but it certainly opens the door for it.

Yahew wrote:

• Blunder 3: not everybody inter-marries even in places with high immigration ( or high historical immigration). You live in Omagh. Work out if there are impediments, greater than race, to intermarriage ( Hint: religion). Of course racism is another one - from either side.

Perhaps its changing, mixed marriages are as high as they've ever been and with peace for only over 10-15 years, this will certainly increase and will become less of an issue. It's only mostly an issue in dopey working class flag waving estates.

Yahew wrote:

So while hispanic fertility rates are declining white religious Americans are not. Secular whites are. There will be some movement to secularisation from some people born to religious families, but the trend is for the white population to start growing in the US eventually, predominantly the religious. Israel is another example. A once tiny orthodox sect is now 20% or more of the population.

The white population is still below 2.1, the religious movement is only maybe cancelling out liberal/secular America's birth rate, but it's not reversing it overall, at least for now. When it ever gets significantly above 2.1, then we'll talk, but for the moment it's not looking like it from what I can see. Also Hispanics are also still at 3 as I said earlier, way above the replacement level, even if they are decline from their high levels, its still significantly higher than the white population and there's not chance of them being overtaken by the white population anytime in the next 10-20 years.

Yahew wrote:

Blunder 6: A declining West will actually not be attractive to non-Westerners. If Brazil and Mexico's's long term economic growth is higher than the US, they will catch up, and immigration stops of reverses. China will be, per capita, as rich as the West in 20-30 years. Long before that it will be richer than any Western country, and immigration will trend there not aging Europe.

The average wage in China is utterly shit, it's got a long long way to go before the living standards across the country are like western europe, same for India and Brazil. China btw already has a low birth rate, as does Japan and Korea. But it's being cancelled by birth rates from Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma etc. So the east asian population isnt going anywhere.

later12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM

smallBiscuit

Why not include race in the census, or 'ethnic source'?

It doesn't have to be used for ethnic discrimination, but it is useful information for many reasons, such as medical.
I'm not an anthropologist, but I did do some of the teaching company courses for fun. An interesting point raised was in the US, 'African Americans' have a much higher rate of high blood pressure than non African Americans. The cause of that is a large number of them were taken as slaves from an area of Africa with a very low level of salt. As a result their bodies aren't able to process salt as well as other nationalities, so they suffer more in area's of high salt, which is most modern food.
That's not racism, that's a medical fact, caused by race.

Now tie the race questions in with some of the other questions (This is an example, I have no idea of actual figures).
Let's say 100,000 people enter in that they are Black Africans. They also fill in data on where they live and what sort of work they do.
When the Census is examined, it is found that 98% of Black Africans live around Dublin and work in Manual Labour. Further, those 100,000 people have children, In the next census it is fond their children also live around Dublin have not gone to college and work in Manual Labour, now you know there is a problem around African immigrants, which needs to be addressed, helping them out of a cycle of low education and low paying jobs.


Anyway, let's remove race from the census, out of racial discrimination fears. But we will also have to remove sex (Sexual discrimination), age (ageism), etc etc

In fact we will have to stop the census all together.