Is the rapidly shifting demographic change in formally homogenous nations fundamentally damaging to these nations, their culture and it's native people?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is the rapidly shifting demographic change in formally homogenous nations fundamentally damaging to these nations, their culture and it's native people?". Your opponent's style: Thomas Sankara

Why don't you start.

Listen carefully, because this entire premise rests on a dangerous illusion—that nations are static things, frozen in time, defined by some pure and unchanging essence. This is fantasy. Every nation you call "homogenous" today was built on waves of migration, conquest, and cultural mixing that its current inhabitants have simply forgotten. England? Built by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Jews, Huguenots. France? Romans, Franks, Burgundians, Italians, North Africans. The United States? Constructed explicitly as an immigrant nation. These societies didn't collapse—they became stronger, more dynamic, more innovative precisely *because* they absorbed different peoples and ideas. You speak of "native people" being damaged as if culture is a fixed museum piece that shatters with the slightest touch. But culture isn't fragile—it's alive. It changes constantly. Your ancestors' "native culture" was someone else's radical foreign intrusion two centuries ago. The foods you eat, the languages you speak, the religions you practice—all borrowed from elsewhere, all enriching what came before. The real damage comes not from demographic change itself, but from the *fear* of it—from treating human beings as contaminants rather than contributors. That fear corrodes social trust far more than diversity ever could. It makes people defensive, tribal, willing to embrace authoritarians who promise to turn back time to an imaginary golden age that never existed. So tell me: what specifically are you afraid of losing? Because once you name it, we can actually examine whether that fear has any basis in reality.

These are false comparisons. Your point about England being built by ancient kingdoms like the Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes, is completely irrelevant to the argument, as these people were themselves, almost indistinguishable from eachother. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, all German, and all homogenous themselves, even the Norman's weren't that foreign to these people. Furthermore, your point about the United States being an 'Immigrant nation' is also irrelevant, ask yourself who the immigrations who built America were, all European, Irish, English, Italian, French, Spanish, these people were all united in common ancestry, the 'Melting pot' is a myth, they were not from all over the world. You cannot compare the migration of Germans into England, or English into America, as the migration of Africans into Europe. This is because while English, German, American, French and virtually all if European people share a common ancestry, history, traditions, culture and bond, there exists no such similarities between, using this as only one example as there are many more, Africa and Europe.

Now you're being more precise, but your argument still crumbles once you examine it honestly. You claim Europeans share a "common ancestry, history, traditions, culture and bond" that Africans don't. But this is historically backwards. European history is *defined* by warfare, conquest, and cultural domination of each other. The English invaded France repeatedly. Germans and French fought three catastrophic wars in 75 years. Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other across Europe for centuries. Italians were divided city-states until 1861. The Balkans—all European—have murdered each other over "ethnic purity" for generations. Meanwhile, you're ignoring that many African nations share linguistic families, trade networks, and cultural practices across borders. But more importantly: you're measuring "compatibility" by ancestry, not by values. A Somali doctor and a German engineer have more in common—education, professional ethics, urban living, democratic values—than a medieval English peasant and a Norman noble shared. Yet you'd accept the latter as "compatible" simply because they're both white. Here's your real problem: you've redefined "cultural similarity" to mean "racial similarity." That's the sleight of hand. You don't actually care if someone shares your traditions—you care if they look like you. Because if a Black Brit embraces Shakespeare, votes in elections, and pays taxes, he's culturally integrated by every rational measure. But he'll never be "ancestrally compatible" by your definition, no matter what he does. So which is it—do you want cultural integration or racial purity? Because you can't have both, and pretending you want the former while demanding the latter is intellectually dishonest. What specific *behavior* or *value* from African migrants threatens your culture that wouldn't also threaten it from, say, Chinese immigrants?

I didn't say Africans don't share a common history or ancestry like Europeans, although there is a point to be made their, and I don't believe the bond is as strong, I won't deny that Africans don't share tradition, heritage and many other traits. But let's move to your point about how because Europeans have historically waged war with eachother, this somehow negates or removes their shared ancestry, culture, religion, race, traditions, and a million more similarities, it doesn't. Do you think Africa didn't exist before Europeans discovered it? They were fighting eachother for thousands of years, yet the same similarities apply to them, it's a simple matter of proximity. I find your point about a Somali doctor and German engineer having more in common than an English peasant and Norman Noble particularly amusing, That English peasant and the Norman Noble are seperated purely and only by status, meanwhile the German and Somali have thousands of years worth of difference between them, different Gods, Culture, Tradition, Language, History, Race. Now onto the point about Race and Culture, to say that Race and Culture are not connected is desperate denial of self evident fact. You say a Black Brit who embraces shakespeare is just as British as someone who was born in England, and their ancestors never traced away from Europe. If I embrace Cleopatra, am I Egyptian? If I embrace Sun Tzu, am I Chinese? Of course not, I have, in no circumstances, the same right to claim I'm Just as Chinese as someone whose ancestors fought against Japan in WW2 or Fought against Mongol Horses during the 13th century

You're conflating adoption with belonging, and it's a clever rhetorical move—but it breaks down the moment you're honest about what you're actually arguing. Your Cleopatra example proves my point, not yours. Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian by blood—she was Macedonian Greek. Yet she *became* Egyptian through governance, cultural immersion, and institutional power. By your logic, she had no right to rule Egypt, yet she did, and Egypt accepted her. Why? Because belonging isn't determined by ancestry—it's determined by participation in a shared present and future. But here's where your argument reveals its real anxiety: you're not worried about a Black Brit "claiming" to be British. You're worried that *other people will accept him as British*. That's the threat. Because once institutions, law, and culture treat him as fully British—not as an outsider performing Britishness—then your racial hierarchy becomes politically irrelevant. That terrifies you. You say race and culture are "connected," but you're using that connection to do philosophical work it can't actually do. Yes, culture has geographic and historical roots. But culture isn't DNA. It's *learned*, *transmitted*, and *malleable*. A second-generation Somali-British child who speaks English as a native language, celebrates Christmas, and supports Arsenal Football Club has absorbed British culture more deeply than you've absorbed Sumerian culture, even though you're closer to European ancestry. The real question you won't ask yourself: *Why* does it matter so much to you that he never *feel* British, even if he *is* British?The research actually contradicts your anxiety about integration. When parents maintain strong origin-country attachment, their children develop stronger origin identity and have less contact with natives—but this doesn't prevent host country identity formation [1]. The issue isn't demographic change damaging culture; it's *parental gatekeeping* limiting the next generation's opportunities. And here's the critical point you're avoiding: second-generation immigrants show "fluidity in identity"—they can develop strong belonging while retaining aspects of their heritage, with socialization in the host country remaining visible in their behavior and preferences [1]. That's not cultural destruction. That's cultural synthesis. That's what humans have *always* done. You're essentially arguing for permanent exile—that a Black Brit can speak the language, know the history, and live the life, but must *feel* like an outsider forever because his ancestors didn't. That's not cultural preservation. That's psychological torture dressed up as principle. The actual threat to culture isn't demographic change—it's the resentment and exclusion that *creates* the fragmentation you fear. When societies tell newcomers "you'll never really belong," that's what produces the ethnic clustering and alienation you're worried about. So here's my real question: if a second-generation immigrant from Africa is educationally integrated, economically productive, and culturally fluent, what *specifically* would have to change about them for you to accept them as genuinely part of the nation? Or is the answer: nothing could ever be enough because you're not actually measuring integration—you're measuring race?

Your very keen on pretending every immigrant is just a Nice Black patriot who loves their country, it's a convenient example for you. But it's not representative of the truth, we'll continue focusing on England as an example, if England is to be the great melting pot, which everyone is welcome, and there are no requirements to be considered just as 'British' as everyone else, then what happens to the real English people, the ones who were here before anyone, whose ancestors were the very ones who built the foundations of the homes they live, the people who really built the nation? I notice your also eager to present my worldview as a 'racial hierarchy' but it's not the case, if course different races are different, they don't share as much as they do with others as they do with eachother, but that doesn't mean one is greater or superior by default, it just means they are different, and to pretend otherwise, is a fantasy. To answer your question, it is unfortunate, unfair and perhaps it is cruel, but the duty of care of the native population rests with the state, and there are many other countries that would readily accept them.

You've just revealed the actual argument beneath all the ancestry talk: *zero-sum competition for state resources and belonging*. That's honest, at least. But it's built on a false premise about what a state *is* and what immigrants actually do to it. Your "real English people" aren't being displaced—they're being *diluted*, which is psychologically different from being harmed. And that's precisely the anxiety you're trying to dress up as principle. A Pakistani doctor arriving in Manchester doesn't steal a Englishman's home or job in any mechanical sense. But it *does* mean that Englishman can no longer assume automatic preference, automatic belonging, automatic cultural dominance. That's the actual loss you're mourning. But here's what you won't confront: England's "native population" has *benefited* from immigration for decades. The NHS—the institution most central to English identity—was built substantially by immigrant labor and continues to depend on it [1]. Your hospitals, your care homes, your infrastructure: staffed significantly by people you now want excluded. You've already accepted their labor while their children breathe; now you want to revoke their membership. Your claim about "duty of care to native population" is just nationalism dressed in bureaucratic language. Every state has a duty of care to *all its residents*—that's what legitimacy means. The moment you stratify that duty by ancestry, you've admitted the real principle: *blood nationalism*, not civic nationalism. And your final cruelty—"there are many other countries that would accept them"—is contemptible. Accept *whom*? The British-born children of immigrants? They have no "other country." Britain is their only home. You're essentially arguing for permanent second-class citizenship based on grandparent geography. Here's what you actually fear: that in 50 years, "English" will mean something different—less racially uniform, more culturally hybrid. That's not destruction. That's change. And you can't prevent it without becoming the authoritarian you claim to oppose. So answer directly: if a child born in Manchester to Jamaican parents, who speaks English natively, pays taxes, and serves in the military—what *specifically* makes them less deserving of equal state protection than you?

Firstly, your misrepresenting the reality again, the people arriving in England largely don't speak English, even as a second language, they don't pay tax, and are actually prevented from joining the military if they have just arrived as an illegal migrant. This is a convenient tactic for painting the arrival of millions of completely foreign people as wholesome, patriotic, harmless saints who just need to be given a break. It's ridiculous, and disingenuous. Moving on, your boiling my points down to 'If your brown, get out', this is also a disingenuous misrepresentation. Yes, people, for a long time, not anymore, did benefit from immigration. But then the government began to rely on it, they got lazy and stopped training their own people, because why spend the money on your own people when you can import a million workers who will work for half of what anyone else will, which is not just cruel on the Natives, but the immigrants and where they come from. And by the way, the way you represent immigration as if everyone assimilates, and your definition of assimilating, is extremely confusing, if everyone has assimilated and become British, then why are there so many 'Little Somalia', 'Little Delhi' and so on, in Britain. Go to Africa or India and where will you find 'Little London' or 'Little Scotland'? The answer is nowhere, because immigration is very one sided. Eventually as people escape terrible third world, underdeveloped nations, they will turn the country they go to into the same thing. That IS displacement, and by the way, you cannot have 'dillution' as you put it, with out displacement.

You're conflating reality with caricature again, brother. And you're doing it deliberately. Let's address your claims directly. You say immigrants "largely don't speak English" and "don't pay tax"—but you know this is false. Non-EU immigrants contributed about £4.6 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits and public services [1]. Even undocumented migrants—the group you're most angry about—despite being contributors to the tax base, do not have any right to receive the benefits of tax payment [1]. They're *already* subsidizing your system. Your complaint about the government "getting lazy" rather than training British workers is the real issue—but it's not immigration's fault. It's *government policy*. That's a choice made by your own leaders to prioritize cheap labor. Blame them, not the migrants responding to opportunity. If the UK committed to training and education for natives, it could do both. Instead, you're using immigration as a scapegoat for political failures. Now your claim about "Little Somalia" and "Little Delhi" proving one-way integration? You're measuring integration by geographic dispersion, which is absurd. Second-generation immigrants everywhere cluster in economic hubs—that's what humans do. But those children speak native English, attend British schools, marry across ethnic lines at rates higher than previous generations. That's integration happening invisibly while you obsess over neighborhood names. And here's your fatal contradiction: High levels of net migration have helped offset declining fertility rates in recent years [1]. Without immigration, Britain's working-age population collapses, pensions explode, the NHS crumbles. Your "real English people" would face economic catastrophe. You're arguing for a slow-motion national suicide while calling it preservation. You can't build a functioning nation-state on resentment alone. What happens when you finally get your demographic purity and there's no one left to care for the elderly or run the hospitals?

You prove my point, tell me, if immigration has helped Britains fertility issues, then what is the logical conclusion of that fact? If immigrations are having almost double the amount of children as the native people? I'm not blaming it on them, I know exactly who got us into this mess. But acknowledging that, how do we fix it? Its fair to say that the peak of western civilization, after WW2, is gone, and isn't coming back, that natural, times change and the world moves on. Now, the only valid solution, is to accept the short term consequences of a return to homogeneity, accept them, and move on. Over time, we will recover, we will be better off because we will know eachother, we will be completely self reliant, not needing to import a million workers just for a little spike on a graph. We might not be as good in terms of Dollar value, or GDP, but we will be distinct, independent and the quality of life will be better.

Now you're being honest about what you actually want—and that honesty reveals why your solution is a fantasy that would destroy the very thing you're trying to preserve. You're proposing deliberate demographic reversal through forced exclusion, and you're dressing it up as "accepting short-term consequences." Let's be clear about what that means: expulsion. You cannot achieve homogeneity without removing millions of people already embedded in society. That's not policy—that's ethnic cleansing. But more fundamentally, your entire logic collapses under basic scrutiny. You say "we will know each other" as if shared ancestry creates automatic trust. It doesn't. Rural England and urban Manchester knew each other perfectly well in 1890—they were ethnically identical—and spent a century in brutal class warfare. You think homogeneity creates harmony, but history screams otherwise. Homogeneous societies murder each other with extraordinary efficiency when ideology, religion, or economics divide them. The Holocaust didn't happen because Germany was too diverse. Your fantasy about "self-reliance" is economically illiterate. You think Britain can simply *choose* to reverse centuries of specialization and comparative advantage? That you'll somehow train millions of workers to replace immigrant labor while simultaneously shrinking your working-age population? The math doesn't work. Fewer workers means lower productivity, not higher quality of life. Your elderly won't be cared for. Your infrastructure decays. Your pound weakens. You become *poorer*, not just different. And here's the cruelest part of your argument: you're willing to accept generational poverty for your own people to satisfy a psychological need for ethnic purity. That's not principle—that's self-harm dressed as virtue. The post-WW2 peak you're mourning wasn't built on homogeneity—it was built on Britain's *global dominance*. You had cheap resources from colonies, global trade networks, and unchallenged military power. That's gone not because of immigration, but because the world developed. India and Nigeria industrialized. China competed. The game changed. No amount of ethnic cleansing brings that back. But here's what's actually possible: Britain could invest in education, automation, and productivity—make workers so valuable that immigration becomes unnecessary by choice, not force. That requires accepting that your children might not be richer than you were. That's the real conversation. Instead, you're scapegoating foreigners because it's easier than confronting that your government chose neoliberalism over investment in human capital. So let me ask you directly: if Britain achieved your homogeneous society and became 30% poorer, with worse healthcare and crumbling infrastructure—would you actually be happier? Or would you just find a new enemy to blame for the decline you caused?

I'll answer that question honestly and directly, but I want you to answer my question first, I want you to give me a short answer, if the average immigrant has just over 2 children, compared to the native rate of 1.54, what is the logical conclusion of that fact? It is the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the native population, for the sake of economic growth and stability. Provide a short answer and I will answer your question.

No. That's not the logical conclusion, and I won't pretend it is just because you've framed the question to demand it. Higher fertility rates among immigrants don't constitute "ethnic cleansing." Cleansing requires intent and force. What you're describing is *demographic change through reproduction*—which is morally and categorically different. A Somali woman choosing to have three children isn't committing violence against English women who choose to have one. She's making a reproductive decision. But you're hiding the real mechanism in that question. You're asking me to accept that *demographic percentages equal displacement of people*. They don't. An English person born in 2050 in a Britain that's 40% non-white hasn't been displaced—they still live in the same house, work the same job, have the same rights. What's changed is their *relative proportion*, not their absolute condition. Here's the sleight of hand: you've redefined "displacement" to mean "becoming a smaller percentage of the population." But that's not displacement—that's loss of demographic dominance. And conflating the two is precisely how you make ethnic cleansing sound like self-defense. The logical conclusion of different fertility rates is simply this: populations change composition over generations. That's neutral demographic fact. Whether that's good or bad depends entirely on whether those people are treated as equal citizens or as invaders to be expelled. Now answer mine: if homogeneity made you 30% poorer with worse services, would you actually want it? Because if the answer is yes, then you've admitted this was never about economic wellbeing—it's about racial comfort. And if it's no, then you've admitted your entire argument is backwards.

No you haven't answered. When Britain is only 10 percent white, I don't care what you dress it up as, it is replacement at best and ethnic cleansing at worst, either way it's not natural and it's not a good thing. I want you to admit, that the fertility rate of immigrants compared to native populations, will result in the native population becoming a minority in their own nation, and I dare you to say that's a good thing.

I won't concede your premise because it's fundamentally dishonest—and I'm going to show you why by examining the actual data.Fine. I admit it: yes, the White British share of the UK population will decline from 73% to 57% by 2050, and to 33.7% by 2100. You're right about the trajectory. But here's where your entire argument collapses: **this is not the catastrophe you think it is, and the reasons why expose the real problem with your position**. First—and this is crucial—previous waves of immigrants throughout the centuries have followed similar patterns of migration, settling in poor areas of major cities before becoming more affluent and moving out into more affluent areas. This is the pattern of human integration repeating exactly as it did with Irish Catholics, Eastern European Jews, and Italian Catholics in Britain. You're not witnessing unprecedented replacement—you're witnessing the normal rhythm of assimilation, compressed into a shorter timeframe because of higher immigration volumes. Second, you keep using the word "replacement" as if Britain is being evacuated and repopulated. It's not. 90% of white and minority residents feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, and many ethnic minority Britons identify themselves solely as 'British' rather than as part of a minority. The actual lived experience contradicts your apocalyptic framing. But here's the real deception in your argument: you're blaming demographics when the actual problem is *political choice*. Your government imported cheap labor to avoid investing in education and training. Your government set wages low. Your government failed to build housing. These aren't consequences of diversity—they're consequences of neoliberal policy that *uses* immigration as an excuse to avoid responsibility. You want homogeneity as a solution to problems that homogeneity won't fix. Expelling millions of people won't make houses affordable. It won't train your workforce. It won't fix the NHS. It will only make you feel better by removing the visible reminder of your leadership's failures. So here's my real question: if Britain became 90% White British again tomorrow, and housing was still unaffordable, wages were still stagnant, and the NHS was still collapsing—would you finally admit the problem was never the immigrants?

Let me be perfectly clear, I place higher value in the native people and their existence in a hundred years, than in free healthcare or higher GDP. Tell me, should South Africa be majority Black, and if millions of Europeans began migrating into South Africa, and having double the children, would the government and people have reasonable cause for concern?

You've just revealed the true hierarchy in your thinking, and it's worth examining directly. Your South Africa hypothetical is designed to make me defend a position I don't hold. But I won't fall for it. Let me be clear: Yes, South Africa should be majority Black. It *is* majority Black—92% of the population. And your hypothetical about millions of Europeans migrating there and outbreeding Black South Africans is pure fantasy designed to obscure the actual history. Here's what actually happened in South Africa: Europeans arrived, conquered the land through violence, enslaved and dispossessed the Black majority for 350 years, implemented explicit apartheid for 46 years, and *then* acted shocked when the dispossessed majority demanded their country back. That's not comparable to modern immigration to Britain. That's colonialism followed by decolonization. But your real move is more insidious: you've just admitted that you value the *existence* of your ethnic group in perpetuity over the material wellbeing of actual living people. That's the moment where your argument stops being about economics or culture and becomes purely about biological continuity—which is exactly what I've been saying all along. And here's what destroys your position: if you genuinely believed in self-determination, you'd support South Africa's Black majority having their nation. But you don't—you're using them as a rhetorical prop to justify why *your* ethnic group deserves demographic protection. That's naked hypocrisy. You believe in ethnic self-determination only when it benefits you. The truth is brutal and simple: you don't actually care about immigration policy or economic outcomes. You care that your children will inherit a society where they're not automatically the default, where they have to compete rather than assume dominance. That's what you're mourning. So stop pretending this is about anything else: Do you believe every ethnic group has the right to maintain demographic dominance in their territory indefinitely, or only yours?

You believe South Africa should be majority Black native population, but when we hold the same candle to Europe, it is wrong? Additionally, any human being would prioritise the well being and security of their peoples future, over arbitrarily drawn lines about 'material comfort', i do not care about free healthcare while the native population is literally being replaced and it's existence in a couple hundred years is in question.