History of family migration

[JonathanM]

This topic is inspired really by a conversation with one of our regular tradesmen. We always chat a lot and he's a decent guy. However, he's quite partial to conspiracy theories and over time his topics of interest have moved from the EU, to covid and now to immigration. So, he tells me that each immigrant can bring fifteen family members and that's why there are so many muslims in this country. I know this isn't true. But it did make me realise that I've never known that much about the history of the rules on family migration.

I was hoping there would be an easy explanation out there on the web somewhere, but I've not really found anything. If this were my area of expertise I would be able to summarise it on a page of A4. I don't want to have to read a book! The best I've come up with so far is Wikipedia, but it doesn't add much to what I already knew. Which is that, basically, until the early 1960s there was an open door policy where anybody from the Empire/Commonwealth could come to the UK, no questions asked. In the 1950s we sent civils servants to Pakistan and the West Indies to recruit people to work in the jobs which indigenous Brits didn't want to do. They in turn brought their families and things got out of control. The rules were gradually tightened, starting in 1962, and then in 1972 there was a massive clamp down. According to Wikipedia, since 1972 "only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry."

So, is it true that the vast majority of the muslim population in the UK stems from these initial movements in the 1950/1960s/early 1970s?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

See 4.7 for part of the answer to your question.

https://www.ijesd.org/papers/29-D438.pdf

 

[Vinty]

Muslims have a higher birthrate than non muslims, the birthrate of white Britons is 1.8 which is less than the 2.1 required to keep the white population at its present level.
So, it appears that the white population is in decline while the non white muslim population is growing due to a higher birthrate over 2.1.

Don't know if white Eastern Europeans have been factored into these percentages.

 

[JonathanM]

But I suppose, even if only a relatively small number of family migrations happen each year, it all builds up over time. If there were say 20,000 per year, then over the past fifty years since the law was passed, that would be an extra million.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Let me give you an analogy that hopefully links quite well to your question.

I watched a tv series x years back. Each episode concentrated on a single street in the UK, charting the street's history from its inception through to present day. I found it quite an interesting watch.

I can't recall the specific street, however one episode featured a street in England. It started off with a few large houses being built, populated by those with money and influence in the local area. More large houses followed and for the first few decades the street was 100% privately owned by rich folk and if I recall correctly, all were white Brits.

Fast forward a few decades and the street experiences its first change, due to recession and/or war, can't recall. This led to a few of the residents being declared broke/bankrupt so they had to move out. The house values dropped and this enabled the middle classes and landlords to move in. The latter essentially let to anyone who could afford it. So here we saw the street change from upper class white residents to a mixture of middle class owners and renters, but still predominantly white.

Fast forward a few decades and the street experiences another change, again due to recession or war. Long story short, the street ended up being home to a culturally mixed bohemian lot, with values dropping to an all time low.

Fast forward to present day, the area has been gentrified and the properties are once more worth millions (adjusted) although the cultural mix is still varied.

It's a long winded way of saying streets, towns, counties and countries change over time, for better or worse depending on the view of the individual.

Using the above street analogy, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest the Britain of say 2124, compared to the Britain we know today, will be significantly different in terms of its cultural and religious mix.