Our future – of interest?
Demografic analysis on EU – concisely
It is not that we assume you are incapable of simple mathematics, it is only that we are not sure that you recently have done the following calculation.
You should, however, do it. So, please, do correct and comment ours – i.e., give us the benefit of your views.
This is based on the newest statistics from EU’s statistical office (figures in bracketts are from other sources, such as Fischer Almanach 2002-2004), supposedly produced in the pauses between the successful embezzlement of our tax payers’ money. This press on their schedule may explain that these data are not free from contradictions, but totally free from any reasonable clues. We have to add conclusions ourselves. Here our humble contribution. (To my (Michael Koch:) knowledge, hitherto only Morten Rasmussen December 1st. 2003, Kristeligt Dagblad in Denmark, and some more Danish population scientists like P. C. Matthiessen and private persons (Ebbe Vig et al.) have taken notice of this issue – for some years – which should be of interest to every European citizen.)
1.1. 2002 EU’s 15 countries had a population of 377.710.000
1.1. 2003 this population increased to ca. 379.000.000
That means an increase of 1.290.000
Of these were immigrants 988.600
(of these estimated illegal immigrants/
asylants ca. 600.000)
(of these to Northern Europe –
DK, N, S, SF, ISL ca. 60.000)
(All the time, however, some Nostradami, all the same, shout: ‘We need a major labour force immigration – we are soon extinct!’)
Thus, immigration is the direct source of 76,6% of the total population increase.
(So it has been, in rough figures, for many years. Ten years ago, the illegal immigration to the EU was estimated to be around 400.000, to the Northern countries ca. 40.000.)
That means, only 23,4% of the growth (301.400) are not immigrants, but the outcome of the natural reproduction: births minus death cases, i.e. the resulting nativity excess for the total population – native and newcomers. How are these 301.400 to be distributed into the two latter categories?
The original (native) European population has for many years had no birth excess at all, but shrinks slowly, more markedly for the last decade. During 2002 this birth deficit was in average – 0,7% (- 2,3 million) for the EU countries, a figure which in my opinion the reactions seem to have been exaggerated . In fact, there is incessantly also a tiny stream of emigrants. Other would say Europe is already overpopulated.
Immigrants/asylants are throughout the EU between 5% and 12% of the registered population. Together with naturalized immigrants and the next generation of immigrants, this figure increases to about 10-22% (maximun in Switzerland and Sweden). Furthermore, one has to add illegal and hidden immigrants – for Sweden alone another 20.000. The majority of these immigrants come from regions with markedly higher birth rates (e.g. African and Middle East countries) and they continue to show their reproduction characteristics even in Europe.
It is often said that non-European immigrants rapidly adopt to the birth rates of their new home country, but recent studies have shown that this is a myth. On the contrary, even Third World families increase their birth rates by the order of 1,0, when their living conditions improve. In Northern countries, where the social network of public support is strong (in Sweden, it gives 13 times the financial support of Poland!), a family with many children can live comfortably on this ‘income’. Adopting a changing behaviour is a matter of generations. In general, the immigrants’ reproduction rate is more than the double of the native population. Today, the immigrants and their offspring in Sweden, 10 resp. 22% of the population, produce 25-35% of the younger school children and 15-25% of the conscripts – a situation which presumably is mirrored throughout Western Europe.
If we assume, that about 12% of Europe’s population today are immigrants or of recent immigrants’ decent (a rather conservative estimate), we can calculate that the birth excess for this subpopulation of ‘new-Europeans’ (45,3 million) should be about 2,6 million. Only this would explain a growth with 300.000, though the indigenous population produces a deficit of 2,3 million. In this case, however, the immigrants’ birth excess would be 5.7%, which is obviously too much, but we have to consider that younger people are clearly over-representative. Given the basic data are correct, mistakes ought to be looked for in the two parameters ‘birth deficit of native Europeans’ and ‘actual percentage of new-Europeans’ – otherwise the number of illegal and total immigrants must – necessarily – be much higher than assumed (1.29 million). These three figures are, by the way, interconnected, because they add to certain sums which we can assert. These ‘weak’ figures officially available give us an idea of the vage state of our knowledge – many figures are just educated guesses. As a minimum, however, we must assume that much more than the actual birth excess of 300.000 is of immigrants’ descent.
That means that not only 76,6%, but considerably more than 200% of EU’s population growth is due to immigration.
Is that good or bad? We will leave this aside here, but we should be aware of what is going on. We should have a careful look at the world and the cultures they come from. USA’s history shows that they take a lot of their heritage with them.
The total number of muslims in Europe was recently presumed to be about 32,5 million, not including recent asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, naturalized immigrants and their offspring, but including some non-EU regions on the Balkan and in Russia. Their total could soon approach 40 million, 25 million within the EU, which necessarily is to regard as an important source of population growth.
It is crucial to transfer these calculations continuously through the next century. Future generations will have no understanding if we let them down by our negligence. They have no chance to repair the outcome of our slow cerebration. (Or, with other words: What do you think turks or jemenites would do, if Norwegians would begin to expand within their countries?) Remember: Japan accepted 3 (three!) of the Vietnamese ‘boat people’, USA some millions and Niedersachsen – in the highly overpopulated Western Germany – some 40.000 of them. And if you want to meet African Indians, by Idi Amin expelled from Uganda, please come to Mariestad, a little Swedish town of 16.000 inhabitants at the Lake Vänern.
(Stanislaw Lem: Some omissions are followed by a terrible lack of consequences)
Michael Koch & Joern E. Vig
‘if your heart is filled use your brain’