The European Union BaM Project – Becoming a Minority. Addressing the majority-minority context. Cities where the natives are going to be a minority soon.

35 comments

  2. This is a brilliant example to observe the right wing and left wing people drawing completely different conclusions out of the same data.

  3. Dutch people seem to be obsessed by this bs that is “migration background”. Were born and spent your whole life in the Netherlands? You’re Dutch. Even if one of your parents was born in Germany or Belgium! (replace “Swedish” and “Denmark” where appropriate, in the case of Malmö).

  4. It’s probably only looking at youth in the technical city area, according to local council borders. Most non migrant young people are probably living in surrounding towns, villages and suburbs which are wealthier and nicer places to grow up.

  5. Commercial hubs have always been migration hubs, it was already true back at the medieval times and even before that.
    The more you trade, the more migration you’ll get.

    Now isn’t world commerce (and financial banking for world commerce) the n°1 reason for Netherlands to be a rich country now?

  6. My guess is that the data underlying this isn’t that great and that the most basic definitions like what exactly constitutes migration background isn’t very precise nor means the same across Europe.

    Whatever this data is saying, a simple walk around any of the cities mentioned gives a very precise picture of becoming a minority.

  8. It’s almost as if Europeans aren’t having children. Something that I guess most people in this thread will avoid talking about.

    In fact, the entire immigration debate seems to avoid the fact that under capitalism, we need a growing population because if things aren’t growing they are stagnating or crashing, both of which are disasters for the economy.

    Then you also have the massive lump of baby boomers who are retiring now and who will massively burden the state (in almost every developed country), so there’s going to have to be a lot more workers to pay for them.

    That’s why politicians allow immigration. It’s nothing to do with diversity or whatever bullshit people go on about.

    But no one wants to talk about these basic demographic facts. The entire ‘debate’ is so annoying because people are incapable of even mentioning the reasons for immigration in the first place. Native Europeans don’t want to have children and boomers want a fat pension fund.

    All this bleating about cultural integration is just pointless, it does nothing to address the problems Europe is facing.

  9. Tbf to have migration background basically means Ya were already born in the country, which basically makes you a native.
    Like yes, your family obviously can have influence on your culture and stuff but depending on different factors that doesn’t even have to be the case. And regardless of their families culture, they themselves are going to be influenced more by the place their live in then their families, especially after they move out.
    And for those still upset abt this, this is the prize we pay to make the demographic collapse less bad, we need more young workers for the economy which they provide.

  12. That’s not exactly a new phenomenon though. For example during PLC times a lot of polish cities had very low polish population due to most of the local population being tied to farming and immigrants moved to the cities. Urbanisation was drastically lower though.

  13. I may or may not be in the mood to explain this to the curious but if this makes you feel angry or happy for that matter you are racist/xenophobic

  14. Keep waffling on about how much of a disaster brexit is!

    Did malmo have ghettos that made international news 20 years ago? These days, sweden has become known for guns & gangs instead of volovos & millionaires 🤷‍♂️

    Each to their own I guess 👍

  15. 50 issues with this what definition do ppl use for migrant backround because that matters cause tehre is the franch def wich mean 1 forein parent or the german one which is one foreign born ansestor up to great grand parent cause those change the statics from concerning af to bearly relevant

  20. Belgium has a lot of people of partly of fully French resident parents, which would mean they are “not natives”, even though we know there is not a big difference between a Wallonian and a French person from the north. These statistics always carry some sort of agend in it.

  21. European immigrants did this to many other countries for hundreds of years. The “immigration background” population of Canada/America/NZ/Aus/Brazil etc is >90%.

  23. “Migration background” in the Netherlands includes born-and-bred Dutch people, who have at least one parent who was born outside the Netherlands e.g. a parent from Belgium. For example, the Dutch crown-princess Amalia has a migration background, because her mother was born in Argentina.

    So the title claiming “native minority” is an exaggeration of the data presented, since you are counting native-born people as foreign.

  24. “This is a brilliant example to observe the right wing and left wing people drawing completely different conclusions out of the same data”

  26. Tbh I’m with the group that says that the data, for itself, doesn’t say much. Otherwise, the conclusion that can emerge from this is that having cities of 70% migrant background don’t significantly affect the quality of life in cities if institutions still work ad expected – unless we actually believe that Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp are horrible hellholes.

    I think that by conflating all migrant backgrounds together (which include EU countries) and people that might come from mixed marriages, this data gives an impression of diversity which doesn’t necessarily reflects reality

  32. Because in the nations you named, the culture and population has changed without it being able to reverse. And other nations (like African nations) where it wasn’t the mayority, there has been a trend of getting rid of the (white) ‘immigrants’ or more and more so create a sentiment of non-belonging there (even some have been living there for 3-4 centuries)…The same (I guess) will eventually happen in Europe, also because of failed integration and lack of cohesion.

  33. If people were born in Rotterdam then they’re more of a native than I am when I’m born in Brabant.
    People make the city, there is no inherent majoritarian Dutch/Rotterdam culture that they should adhere to.
    Cities have always been melting pots, whether it have been Germans, Belgian/French protestants or Iberian jews.
    What makes a place great is its ability to adapt and draw from the creative potential that comes from the cultural exchange to come out stronger.
    Love my city and the people in it.

  34. For big cities, it makes sense, but I still think the EU needs to change its immigration policy for non EU citizens. And maybe come up with an EU wide plan to boost fertility rate for native Europeans, even though I think it’s not possible to come up with EU wide plan for things like fertility rate.

Leave a Reply