What are native birthrates like in your country?

Sub 50% white
And that's a good thing!

bump

Angl*ids never wept for the peoples they destroyed. Now the boot is on their neck and they have the gall to cry "mercy"?

Attached: 1502083505106.png (870x136, 15K)

when did you visit? we are having a baby boom these past 2 years

foreign origin, i guess. but then again, you can have one parent from afghanistan and still be counted as native as long as one of your parents and you have citizenship

Attached: fertilitymap.png (800x662, 165K)

Germany is just as bad, if that's what you were hinting at. If statistics were kept for France, I'd be surprised if native births were any higher than ~55%.

White people aren't having kids here, in general most people born here have no or few kids. Canada is a dying nation, and the government solution of importing shitskins who have 8 kids and then paying to support them is only speeding up our fucked up situation.

>descendants of western immigrants: 1.82
>descendants of non-western immigrants: 1.84
give the source for these

I just returned last week to the states. It was astounding how many pregnant ladies there were. It made me proud that whites still care enough to carry on the legacy. Whores here act like children will make them old when in reality motherhood gives youthfulness and a reason not to suck strangers dicks.

But I digress. Baby-boom ftw

There is zero credibility behind this "we need immigrants because natives/whites have low birth rates" argument. It's a known fact that the reason for low births in developed countries is precisely that--they're developed; there's no reason to have excess children either for necessity (e.g. high infant mortality means you need to have more children) or otherwise. Assuming non-native/white populations do eventually assimilate, the exact same phenomenon will occur as they become adjusted to the country's conditions.

Knowing what we know, there's absolutely no reason for government's to use this as a justification for more immigration. Incentivising birth rates among the already established population would have been a much more sustainable long-term solution, but it's too late for that now.

That's actually pretty cool.

Very high

Attached: Amerindian Takeover.png (1086x652, 262K)

Native population of these islands was wiped out by the C*lts a long, long time ago.

statistikbanken.dk/10018

In what way? They didn't create Canada. Canada is a fundamentally European creation, built on European ideas and following European frameworks. If any group is native to the nation of Canada, it's Europeans (I would argue specifically Brits--and French in Quebec--but Canada was never really as WASP-ified as Australia or NZ so some may dispute that).

Note that it says "White British", not "White". This completely omits the millions of ethnic Irish, Poles, etc. who live here.

government sucks their dick at every turn when they are literally cavepeople cutting each other up with machetes on the news every day

>If any group is native to the nation of Canada, it's Europeans

Attached: B1954930-6E4E-4D8E-AA5B-EEA060BAFE93.jpg (575x1024, 56K)

A much better definition of "native" would be the group which historically defined and established the existing national entity.

great argument

So South Africa is dutch

Sounds like an imperialist asspull

Same is true for America. Why should a group which played a negligible role in the establishment/fostering of the nation have a right to refer to themselves as natives?

If it always has been, then I’m sure finding a source would be simple.

A nation in the traditional sense has always been intrinsically linked with a people. The concept of people-less nations as most countries in the West apparently are ("built on values") is a very recent phenomenon.

All you need to do is look at the etymology of the word "nation".

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nation#Etymology_1

By that logic if America was to kill majority of Danes, destroy the government, create a new one and I was to move there I’d be considered native to Denmark?

That entity would no longer be Denmark. A nation is defined first and foremost by its people.

i don't think you get what he is saying.
if americans came over here and created a new country based on american culture/values/laws etc. you'd be native to the new nation you created, but not the land that the nation is located on. that's at least that's how i see it.

t. xing

Exactly. A "native American" from the Mohawk tribe would be native to the territory held by that tribe, not the US.

I think we were at ~25% births to non-native mothers recently. Combined with mass immigration native Gaelic Irish will probably be a minority within the century.

It depends on what definition your using. When I say Europeans aren’t native to Canada/North and South America I’m using the red circled definition.

Attached: 0F1604B3-CC15-4A14-9657-796290057735.jpg (1842x2047, 461K)

So the natives of this country are the Normans then?

I guess what I'm doing is pointing out the flaws of that definition/understanding.

As I said in , a nation is a product of a people. It's wrong to think of a nation as simply a piece of land or something that's only defined by a certain political structure or "values". If a nation ceases to be driven by the group that created it, it ceases to be the same entity.

I'm obviously referring to ethnic groups. Normans, Anglo-Saxons and the other Germanic groups (yes, the Normans were German in origin, not French) who arrived in this country were all identical ethnically; their differences were cultural. As well as this, the Celts who lived in this country pre-Age of Migrations originated from broadly the same region too ("Celt" is a cultural term, not an ethnic term). It's safe to consider the native population of this country a wholly (ethnically) Germanic people.

How are their identical ethnically if their cultures are different?

Brits like to make fun of our whiteness but they are only 30 years behind us.

I use "cultural" to mean superficial social differences. Ethncity refers to genetics.