Foreign-born population now 10 million

Something we frequently hear in discussions of population change, especially from immigration enthusiasts, is a distinction being made between current (first generation) immigration and the demographic effects of earlier immigration. This graphic from the link in the OP is typical.



Here we see that clear distinction being made between the effects of current net immigration (since the last census) and ‘natural growth’ in the population over the same period. But what is this ‘growth’ and what does it consist of? Unfortunately at this point, the ONS does not provide any further detail; perhaps it may in due course.

However, in the meantime , we can do a little sleuthing on our own, in an effort to learn just what is behind that ‘growth’ number given as 1.5 million. What we need to find are birth and death statistics by ethnicity, if possible for the entire ten-year census period. Easier said than done, there are no such datasets for the complete period, and those that do exist are not completely compatible with each other. It’s almost as if ‘they’ don’t want us to connect the dots.

Anyway, here’s the result of my own sleuthing: live births, deaths and natural growth statistics by ethnicity for the eight-year period 2012 to 2019. Note that since the deaths dataset does not separate White British and White Other I have had to combine these categories for births too.



So what’s the bottom line? Well for the years in question it seems obvious that ‘natural growth’ in the population is almost entirely within the non-white population, that is, earlier immigrants. I’ll hazard a guess that once the official census figures for ethnicity are disclosed we will see that 100% (or more) of the natural growth was due to immigration. It just depends whether the White British population has continued on its slow decline began around 2000.

I haven't checked but think you may be adrift of the reality.

OK, so it seems that on average white people in the UK tend to be older than non white people and hence currently a higher proportion of white people die. 

It also probably therefore right to assume that we spend far more on pensions and healthcare per head on white people than non-white people.  

I presume the attached graph will be updated soon for latest figures.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest#age-profile-by-ethnicity

In all European countries the birth-rates are well below the replacement-rate of 2.1. Have been for years.

Ireland and France are the closest and even they aren't anywhere near the 2.1 mark.

In some countries there are more deaths than births. Especially in the former eastern bloc countries. When you add to that the large scale emigration from those countries their population has plummeted within a generation.

What he said was
"It also probably therefore right to assume that we spend far more on pensions and healthcare per head on white people than non-white peeople"
Per head on white people indicates all white people.

However if we take your view that 50% are over 65 and these will be mostly white people, then 50% are under 65 and comprise all groups in the proportions referred to. If ethnic minorities are 5 times more likely to develop diabetes then if they comprise 20% of the population below 65 then for every 100 white people with diabetes there should be 20% of 500 ethnic minorities with diabetes. Which means half of all people below 65 with diabetes will be ethnic minorities. Not sure if my maths is right in, and no doubt I will be corrected in this, but what it indicates is that the problem is not as simple as some would have us believe and that immigration as well as bringing benefits brings some pretty severe disadvantages.

So what?