White demographic decline

Various national demographic analyses of white populations have measured a demographic decline of white populations, as defined by their local nation-based censuses.[19] Research conducted at the University of Minnesota has observed the phenomenon of a decrease in white population share within jurisdictions in Europe, North America and Oceania:[20]

According to the most recent U.S. census, the non-Hispanic White population is shrinking (US Census Bureau, 2018). This trend has been observed in other White-majority countries including Canada (Statistics Canada, 2017), the UK (Coleman, 2016), and New Zealand (Stats New Zealand, 2004).

Regarding white populations internationally, and particularly in the Western world, demographer Eric Kaufmann has suggested that "In an era of unprecedented white demographic decline, it is absolutely vital for it to have a democratic outlet."[21][22] While sociologist Richard Alba believes this decline is exaggerated by the racial classification system used in the United States Census,[23] regarding the 2020 census, demographer William H. Frey has written:[24]

The Census Bureau was not projecting white population losses to occur until after 2024. This makes any national population growth even more reliant on other race and ethnic groups. The white demographic decline is largely attributable to its older age structure when compared to other race and ethnic groups. This leads to fewer births and more deaths relative to its population size.

Academics in demography have predicted that by the mid to late 21st century all nations which have embraced immigration (unanimously all from the Western world bar Russia) from the mid 20th century will have non-White or non-indigenous majority's in their nations. These vary from nation to nation; for example, in the United States, immigration rates have been significantly higher per proportion to the population of the country than in Europe and did not have a 100% white majority to begin with, compared to a place like the United Kingdom, for example, which will result in White Americans becoming a minority by 2045, sooner than most European nations.

Various predictions for when Western and Central Europe will be majority-minority have normally put the date at around the 2060s to the end of the century. A 2000 report by The Guardian entitled "The last days of a white world" initially put the prediction for a non-white Europe at around 2050, saying, "We are near a global watershed – a time when white people will not be in the majority in the developed world."[25] Demographer David Coleman has also conducted a study which suggests that by 2056 a number of European states, such as Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, will either have non-indigenous majorities or large ethnic minority populations.[26]

For North America, predictions around when a non-white majority will occur are sooner than in Europe. The time period is often predicted to be around the early-to mid-2040s when both Canada and the United States will be majority non-white. Initially, in 2009 the New York Times put the date at 2050[27] however this has been revised down in recent years to 2045.

There is no evidence that these present demographic trends will either slow down, be stopped or reversed.

General population ageing, which is one of the main symptoms of White demographic decline, is a phenomenon which is most noticeably seen in Europe[29] and the United States.[30] It has been characterized by a long-term decline of European and North America's White populations and a "graying", in which the average age of citizen's has risen substantially. A key factor contributing to this trend is an increase in life expectancy across Europe and North America since the end of the Second World War, which has caused the average age of the people of Europe and North America to rise. In 2018, it was reported that the median age across the EU was over 43 years old,[31] with projections to rise to 46.9 years by 2050.

It is worth noting that the median age of the Western World is suppressed to a degree by the presence of non-White populations who have a substantially lower median age than the White population.

Population of over 65 percentage wise in European countries

Population ageing in the Western world has been cited by high level institutions as a big reason and desire for increased immigration to Europe, North America and Oceania. For example, a UN report in 2000 entitled "Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?" suggested increased migration as a solution to population ageing in numerous first world countries, such as Japan, Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, for example.[32][33] Other figures, such as Peter Sutherland (former head of Global Forum on Migration and Development) in 2012 also lobbied for utilizing mass migration for the purpose of "undermining national homogeneity of its member states (...), for the development of multicultural states" as a "crucial dynamic for economic growth (...) however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states" in the European Union, and that if they did not, the "EU's ability to compete at a global level was at risk."[34]

Median Age in the Western World (including Russia)[35]

Country	Median Age (projections 2021+)
	1950	1975	2000	2015	2020	2025	2050	2075	2100
Austria	35.7	33.9	38.2	43.2	44.4	45.3	49.9	49.2	49.4
Australia	30.4	28.1	35.4	37.4	37.9	38.9	41.5	44.1	46.7
Belgium	35.5	34.3	39	41.3	41.8	42.6	44.7	45.7	47.1
Canada	27.7	27.5	36.8	40.5	41.4	42.4	45.2	46.5	47.7
Denmark	31.7	33	38.4	41.6	42.3	42.4	44.2	45.1	46.7
France	34.7	31.8	37.7	41.2	42	42.6	44.3	45.4	47.3
Germany	35.2	35.4	40.1	45.9	46.6	47.1	50.3	49.2	50
Ireland	30	26	31.8	36.9	38.7	40.3	42.6	44.7	47.5
Italy	28.6	33.4	40.4	45.9	47.9	49.7	51.4	49.8	50.5
Netherlands	28	29.4	37.5	42.1	43.2	43.9	46.8	47.5	48.7
New Zealand	29.4	26.3	34.3	37.3	37.9	38.7	43.1	46.3	48.6
Norway	32.6	32.4	36.9	39.2	39.7	40.3	43.2	45.1	47.1
Russia	24.3	30.8	36.5	38.7	39.6	41	41.4	42.1	43.9
Spain	27.5	29.9	37.6	43.2	45.5	47.9	52.3	51.3	51.7
Sweden	34.2	35.4	39.4	40.9	41	41.3	43.2	44.9	46.5
United Kingdom	34.9	34	37.2	40.2	40.8	41.5	43.9	45.8	47.7
United States	30.2	29	35.2	37.6	38.3	39	42	43.8	45.3

According to the 2019 National Vital Statistics Reports, published by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the average fertility rate in the United States varies significantly by race and ethnicity.[36] The average fertility rate as of 2019 was 1,665.5 births per 1,000 women for non-Hispanic whites, 1,824.5 births per 1,000 women for non-Hispanic blacks, and 2,006.5 births per 1,000 women for Hispanics.[36] It is also common to see these figures represented as, for example, "1.6 births-per-woman", rather than 1,665 births per 1,000 women. The report duly notes that "Replacement level fertility is a total fertility rate of 2,100.0 births per 1,000 women."[36] The extra 100 births are required to accommodate for any premature death or disability that may befall the children before they go through puberty and are able to have their own children.

There are notable differences in birthing patterns and behaviors between ethnic groups. For example, African women are more likely to have twins than any other race, while Asians and Native Americans have the lowest twinning rates.[37]

There is an important spectrum of fertility to consider with regards to ethnicity and fertility, known as r/K selection theory. This theory describes a trade-off between quantity and quality of offspring that can be seen across all species of organism on the planet: some species are focused on either an increased quantity of offspring at the expense of parental investment (r-strategists), and some species are focused on a reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment (K-strategists). Each strategy, r and K, are evolved by a given organism to promote success in their particular environment. Human beings overall are K-strategists, but within their own K-strategy one can observe an r/K paradigm.

A study published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that "US and South American-born black mothers had a consistently higher risk of low birth weight infants, regardless of community income level."[38] According to world-renowned Canadian psychologist and researcher J. Phillippe Rushton, "Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (K-strategy)."[39]

A 2017 report from the United Nations titled "World Population Prospects: Key Findings and Advance Tables" states that "between 1950 and 2015, the regions of Europe, Northern America and Oceania were net receivers of international migrants, while Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean were net senders, with the volume of net migration generally increasing over time."[6]

The United States is a prime example of how mass migration causes white demographic decline. With the passing of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, the previous Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was rendered null and void. This means that the US could no longer discriminate against immigrants based on their country of origin. For example, immigrants from Haiti or the Philippines could not be treated any differently under the law than immigrants from Switzerland or Norway due to their country of origin.

Emigration also contributes to overall white demographic decline of a population group, either nationally or regionally.

In regional area's and jurisdictions, white flight, which is the phenomenon of a massive decline in the white population in a small period of time, can occur to some degree of extent when the ethnic minority population of any race rises in substantial numbers. A famous example of this is in Detroit, where the Non-Hispanic White population dropped from 90.72% in 1940 to 12.36% in 2000.

As well as referencing ethno-cultural, linguistic, and religious demography, the term "majority minority" has consistently been used in racial contexts in media and academia, and specifically to identify the demographic decline of white populations. In 2010, it was reported by the BBC how "America's two largest states – California and Texas – became "majority-minority" states (with an overall minority population outnumbering the white majority)" between 1998 and 2004.[12]

Demographers Rogelio Sáenz and Dudley L. Poston Jr. have studied existing states which have gained white minorities in the 21st century, and how, from 2017 onwards, an ongoing falling white population-share predicts further US states to follow this trend: "Nonwhites account for more than half of the populations of Hawaii, the District of Columbia, California, New Mexico, Texas and Nevada. In the next 10 to 15 years, these half-dozen "majority-minority" states will likely be joined by as many as eight other states where whites now make up less than 60 percent of the population." From their research, Sáenz and Poston Jr. expect the United States to have progressed to overall white minority demography by 2044.[40] Regarding various projected majority minority scenarios across the Western world, in a 2018 article for the London School of Economics, academics Eric Kaufmann and Matthew Goodwin wrote:[41]

The ethnic make-up of many western countries is changing, and in countries previously seen as having 'white' majorities that past predominance is declining. In the United States, Canada and New Zealand, the 'majority-minority' point will arrive around 2050, while in western Europe it is projected to occur towards the end of the century. Some commentators have asked if this change may lead to a growing reaction or 'white backlash'. All else being equal, we suggest that the answer may be yes.

An example from the developing world includes Brazil which, due to a long-term demographic decline of white Brazilians, has been designated as a majority-minority country in relation to the South American nation's racial classification of whiteness.[13]

In their widely cited research, professors Jennifer Richeson and Maureen Craig produced a 2014 study on white racial shift conditions.[42] White people who were informed of their diminishing demographic share of the population displayed more racial hostility to perceived external racial groups.[43] Pacific Standard described the research as how "the coming racial shift evokes higher levels of both explicit and implicit racism on the part of white Americans".[44] In analysis of the study, sociologist Mary C. Waters concurred that the portrayal in media of falling white demography was linked with subsequent discrimination against non-whites.[45]

Demographer Eric Kaufmann's theory of whiteshift predicts that as white demographic decline gradually results in white majorities becoming minorities (sometimes called a majority minority scenario) that a broader and more inclusive classification of white people will occur.[46][47] A professor of politics at Birkbeck College, he suggests that, given the appropriate societal conditions, both conservatives and cosmopolitans may be able to observe whiteshift as a positive factor.[48] In this regard, political analyst Michael Barone believes there may be "cautious optimism" that the social phenomenon can progress in a politically stable form.[49]

Analysing Kaufmann's thesis, historian Michael Burleigh has used examples of whiteshift such as Western politicians Iain Duncan Smith, Geert Wilders and Ted Cruz, who have some degree of what might be considered non-white or ethnic minority ancestry in their respective countries.[50] Demographer Dowell Myers has also referenced Cruz and Megan Markle as examples, claiming that "whites are indeed in numerical decline" in the United States, when judged upon a criterion of exclusively European ancestry.[51]

As of 2020, 29.8% of Australia's population was born overseas.[52]

As Belgium does not keep data on the race and religion of the country's population[53], Demographic classifications are instead taken from a persons nationality and their parents nationality. Statistics Belgium has devised three major classifications for the ethnicity and origin, based on the current and first registered nationality of both parents individually, of Belgium's population;[54]

• Belgian with Belgian parents;
• Belgian with/of foreign parents; a. i. One parent with foreign first registered nationality; ii. Both parents with foreign first registered nationality; b. Foreign first registered nationality.
• Non-Belgian

The Belgian's with or of foreign background can be divided in half;

• 49.7% do not have Belgian nationality as their first registered nationality but have acquired it in the meantime.
• 50.3% have Belgian nationality as first registered nationality, including: 20.3% have both parents with a foreign first registered nationality; 30.0% have one parent with a foreign first registered nationality.

In addition to classifications for ethnicity and origin, the nationality of origin was also registered. The following nationality classifications are as follows;

• Belgian's (only people in the group of origin Belgian with Belgian background);
• Neighboring country: Germany, France, the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are considered as neighboring countries;
• EU27 (excluding Belgium and the neighbouring countries);
• Outside EU27 (excluding neighbouring countries).

As of 2021, 67.3% of Belgium was of only Belgian ancestry, 20.1% was Belgian with/of foreign ancestry and 12.6% was non-Belgian. The demography of the country varied from region to region, in Flanders 75% of the population were Belgians, in Wallonia this went down to 66% and in Brussels this sank down to just a quarter of the population.[54][55]

Demography of Belgium

Ethnic Group	2021[54]
	Number	%
Belgians	7,753,000	67.3%
Belgians with at-least one foreign parent	2,320,385	20.1%
Non-Belgians	1,447,853	12.6%

Statistics Canada classifies the White population in Canada on two criteria regarding race[56];

• That the person is not someone who falls under the Employment Equity Act's 'Visible Minority' category and defines this as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.". This category includes a broad range of groups, these are; South Asians, Chinese, Blacks, Filipino, Latin Americans, Arab, Southeast Asians, West Asians, Koreans, Japanese, Visible minority, n.i.e. ('n.i.e.' means 'not included elsewhere') and Multiple visible minorities (mixed race non-White).
• Not an Aboriginal

Demography wise White Canadians are, as of the Canadian 2016 Census, 72% of the population.

Demographic predictions as to when white Canadians will be a minority differ, In 2018, scholars Eric Kaufmann and Matthew Goodwin wrote that the demographic process would result in white Canadians being in the minority by around 2050[41] however Statistics Canada in 2017 has also concluded that it could be even as soon as 2036.[57][58][59]

Percentage of White's in Canada in 2016 in each federal province and territory

Demography of Canada

Ethnic Groups	1996[60][61]		2001[62]		2006[63]		2011[64]		2016[65]		2021
Visible Minority population
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Total:	3,197,485	11.2%	3,983,845	13.4%	5,068,095	16.2%	6,264,750	19.1%	7,674,580	22.3%
South Asian	670,590	2.32%	917,070	3.1%	1,262,865	3.99%	1,567,400	4.8%	1,924,635	5.6%
Chinese	860,150	2.98%	1,029,395	3.5%	1,216,565	3.84%	1,324,750	4%	1,577,060	4.6%
Black	573,860	1.98%	662,215	2.2%	783,795	2.47%	945,665	2.9%	1,198,540	3.5%
Filipino	234,195	0.81%	308,575	1%	410,695	1.29%	619,310	1.9%	780,125	2.3%
Latin American	176,970	0.61%	216,980	0.72%	304,245	0.96%	381,280	1.2%	447,325	1.3%
Arab	–	–	194,685	0.64%	265,550	0.84%	380,620	1.2%	523,235	1.5%
Southeast Asian	172,765	0.59%	198,880	0.66%	239,935	0.75%	312,075	0.9%	313,260	0.9%
West Asian	–	–	109,285	0.36%	156,700	0.49%	206,840	0.6%	264,305	0.8%
Arab/West Asian	244,665	0.84%	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Korean	64,835	0.22%	100,660	0.33%	141,890	0.44%	161,130	0.5%	188,710	0.5%
Japanese	68,135	0.23%	73,315	0.24%	81,300	0.25%	87,270	0.3%	92,920	0.3%
Visible minority, n.i.e	69,745	0.24%	98,915	0.32%	71,420	0.22%	106,475	0.3%	132,090	0.4%
Multiple visible minorities	61,575	0.21%	73,875	0.24%	133,120	0.42%	171,935	0.5%	232,375	0.7%
non-Visible Minority population	25,330,645	88.8%	25,655,185	86.6%	26,172,935	83.8%	26,172,935	83.8%	26,785,480	77.7%
Aboriginal	799,005	2.8%	976,305	3.2%	1,172,785	3.7%	1,400,685	4.3%	1,673,785	4.9%
White Caucasians	24,850,271	86%	25,046,944	83.4%	25,372,017	80.1%	25,186,890	76.7%	25,111,695	72.9%
Total population:	28,846,761	100%	30,007,094	100%	31,612,897	100%	32,437,685	100%	34,460,060	100%

White Caucasian population of Canada by Federal province and territory

Province/territory	2001		2006		2011		2016
	Population (2001)	% of total population	Population (2006)	% of total population	Population (2011)	% of total population	Population (2016)	% of total population
Ontario	8,944,190	79.3%	9,041,200	75.2%	9,070,795	71.7%	8,982,180	67.8%
Quebec	6,548,205	91.9%	6,673,120	89.7%	6,740,370	87.2%	6,750,200	84.7%
British Columbia	2,862,405	74.0%	2,869,450	70.4%	2,911,568	67.3%	2,908,420	63.8%
Alberta	2,455,005	83.5%	2,613,790	80.3%	2,690,955	75.4%	2,786,340	70.0%
Manitoba	866,545	78.5%	849,025	74.9%	824,820	70.2%	800,540	64.5%
Nova Scotia	846,030	94.3%	841,230	93.2%	825,050	91.1%	798,195	87.9%
Saskatchewan	805,380	83.6%	778,060	81.2%	787,745	78.1%	779,665	72.8%
New Brunswick	693,295	96.3%	688,650	95.7%	696,085	94.6%	676,785	92.6%
Newfoundland and Labrador	485,450	95.6%	471,430	94.2%	464,540	91.6%	454,710	88.8%
Prince Edward Island	130,860	98.1%	130,645	97.4%	130,885	95.3%	130,310	93.3%
Yukon	20,955	73.5%	21,395	70.9%	23,595	70.8%	23,915	68.1%
Northwest Territories	16,925	45.4%	18,150	44.2%	16,915	41.6%	16,320	39.7%
Nunavut	3,735	14.0%	3,990	13.6%	3,820	12.1%	4,115	11.6%
Canada	24,678,880	83.3%	25,000,150	80.0%	25,186,890	76.7%	25,111,695	72.9%

Regionally, as of the 2016 census, Toronto is currently the only city that is majority non-white.

Population percentage of Germany without a migrant background in 2016

During the 1980s in Germany, Chancellor Helmut Kohl had plans to reduce the Turkish population in Germany by half within four years,[66] in 1983 the government passed the Return Assistance Act (Das Rückkehrhilfegesetz) which was intended to promote the repatriation of unemployed foreigners in Germany, however by June 1984 the law had no practical relevance in relation to financial benefits and only 150,000 foreign workers used the program by September 1984, of those 100,000 of them were Turk's.[66]

As of 2021 in Germany, regionally Frankfurt is currently the only city in the country in which ethnic Germans are a minority of the residents.[67]

Demography wise, as of 2016 Census data from the Central Statistics Office, people who identify as 'White Irish' are currently 82% of the population.[68][69]

Demography of Ireland

Ethnic Group	2011[68]		2016[68][69]
	Number	%	Number	%
White: Total	4,264,465	94.24%	4,331,940	92.37%
White Irish	3,821,995	84.46%	3,854,226	82.2%
Other White	412,975	9.13%	446,727	9.5%
Irish Traveller	29,495	0.65%	30,987	0.7%
Asian: Total	84,690	1.87%	98,720	2.10%
Chinese	17,832	0.39%	19,447	0.4%
Other Asian	66,858	1.48%	79,273	1.7%
Black: Total	65,078	1.44%	64,639	1.38%
Black Irish and Black African	58,697	1.30%	57,850	1.4%
Other Black	6,381	0.14%	6,789	0.12%
Other and Not Stated	111,048	2.45%	194,622	3.98%
Total:	4,525,281	100%	4,689,921	100%

In an article written in 2005 in the Irish Times, then President of Dublin City University, Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski suggested that by 2050 the 'indigenous Irish' could be a minority within the country stating that 'Ireland's population will consist of a multicultural and multi-ethnic mix in which the indigenous Irish will form a minority.'[70]

As of 2021, the Dutch population in the Netherlands currently sits at 75.36% of the population, with Turks (2.41%), Moroccans (2.37%) and Surinamese (2.05%) being the three biggest groups afterwards[71]

Demography of the Netherlands

Ethnic Group	1996[71]		2001[71]		2006[71]		2011[71]		2016[71]		2021[71]
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Dutch	12,995,174	83.87%	13,116,851	82.04%	13,186,595	80.72%	13,228,780	79.42%	13,226,829	77.9%	13,169,507	75.36%
Turks	271,514	1.75%	319,600	1.99%	364,333	2.23%	388,967	2.33%	397,471	2.34%	422,030	2.41%
Moroccans	255,088	1.64%	272,752	1.70%	325,239	1.99%	355,883	2.13%	385,761	2.27%	414,186	2.37%
Indonesians	411,622	2.65%	403,894	2.52%	393,057	2.4%	380,047	2.28%	366,849	2.16%	352,266	2.01%
Surinamese	280,615	1.81%	308,824	1.93%	331,890	2.03%	344,734	2.06%	349,022	2.05%	358,266	2.05%
Germans	411,504	2.65%	398,776	2.49%	383,841	2.34%	378,581	2.27%	360,116	2.12%	345,746	1.98%
Poles	25,125	0.16%	30,600	0.19%	45,402	0.27%	87,323	0.52%	149,831	0.88%	209,278	1.20%
Other	843,247	5.44%	1,135,778	7.10%	1,330,853	8.14%	1,491,484	8.95%	1,743,241	10.26%	2,204,136	12.61%
non-Dutch	2,498,715	16.13%	2,870,224	17.96%	3,174,615	19.28%	3,427,019	20.68%	3,752,291	22.1%	4,305,908	24.63%
Total:	15,493,889	100%	15,987,075	100%	16,334,210	100%	16,655,799	100%	16,979,120	100%	17,475,415	100%

Regionally, in bigger cities such as Amsterdam, the ethnic Dutch resemble just under a minority of the population there however in relation to under 15's children of Dutch parentage only resemble 1/3rd of the youth in the city.[72] In Rotterdam and The Hague, the same is present in which the ethnic Dutch resemble around 46%, a minority, of the population.

David Coleman, a demography professor, projects that by the end of the century on projected current trends, that the Netherlands would have a 'majority foreign origin population'[26]

As of 2013, New Zealand registered a European population percentage of 74% with Māori (14.9%), Asians (11.8%) and Pacific Islanders (7.4%) totaling as the next 3 largest groups.[73]

David Coleman, a demography professor, projects that by the end of the century on projected current trends, that Sweden would have a 'majority foreign origin population'[26]

Regionally, in Malmö, ethnic Swede's make up around 45% of the population of the city while foreign-born populations with at least one foreign-born parent made up around 55% of the city's population.[74]

White British people have been in period of demographic decline ever since the late 1940s when non-white immigration to the country began, it is estimated numerically that the number of non-Whites living in Britain in the year 1950 was no more than 20,000, who were primarily located in England, however by the time of the mid-1960's; this number has risen to nearly 1,000,000. This can in part be explained to relaxed immigration laws to allow the country to have access to a bigger labour force after the end of the Second World War and very loose definition and criteria for who would be classed as a 'United Kingdom citizen', especially in regards to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

The initial mass immigration wave of the middle and late 20th century to the United Kingdom plateaued and stayed capped at around 50,000 every year by the 1960s, however in 1997, this had been changed by Tony Blair who had eased up restrictions on immigration for a variety of reasons; one such example of this was when in 1997 the Labour Government dropped the Primary Purpose rule which had barred many immigrants from coming to the United Kingdom due to restrictions on family reunions as it could be abused.[75] It has been said of the period of migration from 1997 to 2010 has been 'one of the largest in British peace time history', numerically the ethnic minority population doubled in size from around 4 million to 8 million, the Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said that;

in each year between 2004–10 there were more immigrants to the United Kingdom than there were in the whole period between 1066 and 1945. There were more immigrants in each year than there were in nine centuries.[76]

From each census, The Office of National Statistics has changed their way of classifying the overall immigrant population into different groups, the classifications from each census are as follows[78];

• 1966 sample Census – ONS classified the immigrant population into three groups based purely on nationality over ethnicity; the Old Commonwealth (Australia, Canada and New Zealand), the New Commonwealth (including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the West Indies), the African Commonwealth (including Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya).
• 1971 until well into the 1980's – Interviewers were asked to judge whether someone was White or 'coloured', 1971 Census and 1981 Census did not include a question on ethnicity specifically and went with nationality classifications from beforehand.
• 1991 Census – Ethnicity is asked for the first time as a proper question on the census, the classifications on the census were as follows: White; Black-Caribbean; Black-African; Black-Other; Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Chinese; Any other ethnic group.
• 2001 Census – Mixed ethnicity was added to the census, 'Asian British' and 'Black British' added as well. White British and Irish is also added as a additional clarification for White respondents
• 2011 Census – 'Black or Black British' changed to ‘Black/African/Caribbean/Black British’, two new categories added for England, Wales and Scotland, those being ‘Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ and ‘Arab’.
• 2021 Census – Addition of a tickbox for the 'Roma' population group.

Demography wise, the White British population of the United Kingdom stands at currently as of the 2011 census at 83%, in specifically England, who receives 90% of the United Kingdom's immigration this percentage drops down to 79% in 2011 from 87% in 2001.

Non-white population in the UK in 2011

White British proportion of the population regionally and nationally in 2011

Demography of the United Kingdom

Ethnic Group	1991[79]		2001[80][81][82]		2011[83]
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
White: Total	53,415,915	94.65%	54,153,898	92.12%	55,073,552	87.17%
White: British			52,037,485	88.52%	51,736,290	81.88%
White: Irish	837,464	1.48%	691,232	1.18%
White: Gypsy / Traveller / Irish Traveller	–	–	1,710	–	63,193	0.1%
White: Other			1,423,471	2.42%
Asian: Total	1,834,117	3.25%	2,578,826	4.39%	4,373,339	6.3%
Asian / Asian British: Indian	840,255	1.48%	1,053,411	1.79%	1,451,862	2.3%
Asian / Asian British: Pakistani	476,555	0.84%	747,285	1.27%	1,174,983	1.9%
Asian / Asian British: Bangladeshi	162,835	0.28%	283,063	0.48%	451,529	0.7%
Asian / Asian British: Chinese	156,938	0.27%	247,403	0.42%	433,150	0.7%
Asian / Asian British: Other Asian	197,534	0.35%	247,664	0.42%	861,815	1.4%
Black: Total	890,727	1.57%	1,148,738	1.95%	1,904,684	3.0%
Black: African	212,362	0.37%	485,277	0.83%
Black: Caribbean	499,964	0.88%	565,876	0.96%
Black: Other Black	178,401	0.31%	97,585	0.17%
British Mixed	–	–	677,117	1.15%	1,250,229	2.0%
Other: Total	290,206	0.51%	230,615	0.39%	580,374	0.9%
New Commonwealth	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total:	56,430,965	100%	58,789,194	100%	63,182,178	100%

Increasingly, in live births, a phenomenon of 'diversification' is also occurring. Historically, non-White ethnic groups which reside within the United Kingdom have always had an very high fertility rate compared to the indigenous population, As of recently the fertility rates of all groups has declined however non-White ethnic populations are usually much younger on average than their White counterparts and still consistently have a slightly higher fertility rate of 1.97 TFR (total fertility rate) than the indigenous population which sits at 1.57, furthermore there has been an increase of births from foreign-born mothers as well, which account for 28.7% of births in the country,[84] Due to the aforementioned population ageing of the White British population, this has began to create a more ethnically diverse youth population in the United Kingdom. This can be seen especially in big urban areas such as: London, Manchester, Leicester, Slough and Cambridge for example, in which births to the indigenous White British are a minority.

Live Births in England and Wales

	2019[84]
Ethnic Group	Number	%
White: British	374,056	58.45%
White: Other	78,192	12.22%
White: Total	452,248	70.67%
Asian / Asian British: Indian	20,627	3.22%
Asian / Asian British: Pakistani	27,573	4.31%
Asian / Asian British: Bangladeshi	9,505	1.49%
Asian: Total	57,705	9.02%
Black: African	21,589	3.37%
Black: Caribbean	5,480	0.86%
Black: Total	27,069	4.23%
Other: Total	77,387	12.09%
Not Stated	25,578	4.00%
Total:	639,987	100%

Regionally, a small number of cities and towns in the United Kingdom have became majority non-White British in recent years, as of the 2011 census, London (44.9% White British)[85], Leicester (45.1% White British) and Slough (34.5% White British), where White British are a minority. Other towns are also projected either currently, or in the future to have White British minorities. Birmingham and Luton are expected to become minority-White British by the 2021 UK Census, other cities and towns such as Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Peterborough and Coventry for example are expected to have major demographic shifts in the future which will make these places majority-minority.[86]

In 2013, Demos published research analyzing the 2011 United Kingdom census. The UK-based think tank detailed how "departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline".[87]

Academic David Coleman has produced research which demonstrates that the cities of Leicester and Birmingham will join London in their majority minority status during the 2020s, with regards to the demographic decline of White people in Britain.[88] Coleman, a University of Oxford demography professor since 1980, estimates that by 2056, the trend of a declining share of the white populace will result in the United Kingdom having an overall white minority.[89]

White demographic decline in the United States has been occurring relatively since the passing of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, this bill drastically changed immigration to America and removed provisions off of the Immigration Act of 1924 which barred Immigration from Asia and set-quotas from those outside of the Western Hemisphere. A contemporary term for this process is called the 'browning of America'[90][91]

The 2020 Census results also began to show a new trend within the United States, as previous census results had shown a decline in the percentage of White Americans nationally but not a decline in actual numbers, however, the new census had shown that for the first time both had actually occurred.[92]

The 2000 U.S. census states that racial categories "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria." The U.S Census classification of 'White' encompasses many different ethnic groups but generally denotes someone of European ethnicity, ancestry and race, however legally, West Asian's, Arab Americans and North African's are considered White as well.[93]

The United States Census Bureau classifies the population of the United States into several racial groups:

• White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
• Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
• American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
• Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.[94]

The Census allows for people of mixed race heritage to report themselves of two racial groups.

The United States Census Bureau states that 'An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. The Census Bureau does not tell individuals which boxes to mark or what heritage to write in.'[94]

2020 US Census of self-identified White Americans of one race by proportion of the population[95]

Non-Hispanic White American's per proportion of population by states. As of 2020, Non-Hispanic White's in the United States are 57.8% of the population

The results of the 2020 United States census showed a 8.6% decline in the white population when compared to 10 years prior, which is the first time that there has been a drop in white population numbers since the country's founding.[96]

Non-Hispanic White population in the United States by state or territory

State/Territory	1990		2000		2010		2020
	Pop	% pop	Pop	% pop	Pop	% pop	Pop	% pop
Alabama	2,960,167	73.3%	3,125,819	70.3%	3,204,402	67.0%	3,171,351	65.3%
Alaska	406,722	73.9%	423,788	67.6%	455,320	64.1%	421,758	57.5%
Arizona	2,626,185	71.7%	3,274,258	63.8%	3,695,647	57.8%	3,816,547	53.4%
Arkansas	1,933,082	82.2%	2,100,135	78.6%	2,173,469	74.5%	2,063,550	68.5%
California	17,029,126	57.2%	15,816,790	46.7%	14,956,253	40.1%	13,714,587	34.7%
Colorado	2,658,945	80.7%	3,202,880	74.5%	3,520,793	70.0%	3,760,663	65.1%
Connecticut	2,754,184	83.8%	2,638,845	77.5%	2,546,262	71.2%	2,279,232	63.2%
Delaware	528,092	79.3%	567,973	72.5%	586,752	65.3%	579,851	58.6%
District of Columbia	166,131	27.4%	159,178	27.8%	209,464	34.8%	261,771	38.0%
Florida	9,475,326	73.2%	10,458,509	65.4%	10,884,722	57.9%	11,100,503	51.5%
Georgia	4,543,425	70.1%	5,128,661	62.6%	5,413,920	55.9%	5,362,156	50.1%
Hawaii	347,644	31.4%	277,091	22.9%	309,343	22.7%	314,365	21.6%
Idaho	928,661	92.2%	1,139,291	88.0%	1,316,243	84.0%	1,450,523	81.7%
Illinois	8,550,208	74.8%	8,424,140	67.8%	8,167,753	63.7%	7,472,751	58.3%
Indiana	4,965,242	89.6%	5,219,373	85.8%	5,286,453	81.5%	5,266,034	75.5%
Iowa	2,663,840	95.9%	2,710,344	92.6%	2,701,123	88.7%	2,638,201	82.7%
Kansas	2,190,524	88.4%	2,233,997	83.1%	2,230,539	78.2%	2,122,575	72.2%
Kentucky	3,378,022	91.7%	3,608,013	89.3%	3,745,655	86.3%	3,664,764	81.3%
Louisiana	2,776,022	65.8%	2,794,391	62.5%	2,734,884	60.3%	2,596,702	55.8%
Maine	1,203,357	98.0%	1,230,297	96.5%	1,254,297	94.4%	1,245,632	90.2%
Maryland	3,326,109	69.6%	3,286,547	62.1%	3,157,958	54.7%	3,035,979	47.2%
Massachusetts	5,280,292	87.8%	5,198,359	81.9%	4,984,800	76.1%	4,748,897	67.6%
Michigan	7,649,951	82.3%	7,806,691	78.6%	7,569,939	76.6%	7,295,651	72.4%
Minnesota	4,101,266	93.7%	4,337,143	88.2%	4,405,142	83.1%	4,353,880	79.4%
Mississippi	1,624,198	63.1%	1,727,908	60.7%	1,722,287	58.0%	1,639,077	55.4%
Missouri	4,448,465	86.9%	4,686,474	83.8%	4,850,748	81.0%	4,663,907	75.8%
Montana	733,878	91.8%	807,823	89.5%	868,628	87.8%	901,318	83.1%
Nebraska	1,460,095	92.5%	1,494,494	87.3%	1,499,753	82.1%	1,484,687	75.7%
Nevada	946,357	78.7%	1,303,001	65.2%	1,462,081	54.1%	1,425,952	45.9%
New Hampshire	1,079,484	97.3%	1,175,252	95.1%	1,215,050	92.3%	1,200,649	87.2%
New Jersey	5,718,966	74.0%	5,557,209	66.0%	5,214,878	59.3%	4,863,535	51.8%
New Mexico	764,164	50.4%	813,495	44.7%	833,810	40.5%	772,952	36.5%
New York	12,460,189	69.3%	11,760,981	62.0%	11,304,247	58.3%	10,598,907	52.5%
North Carolina	4,971,127	75.0%	5,647,155	70.2%	6,223,995	65.3%	6,312,148	60.5%
North Dakota	601,592	94.2%	589,149	91.7%	598,007	88.9%	636,160	81.7%
Ohio	9,444,622	87.1%	9,538,111	84.0%	9,359,263	81.1%	8,954,135	75.9%
Oklahoma	2,547,588	81.0%	2,556,368	74.1%	2,575,381	68.7%	2,407,188	60.8%
Oregon	2,579,732	90.8%	2,857,616	83.5%	3,005,848	78.5%	3,036,158	71.7%
Pennsylvania	10,422,058	87.7%	10,322,455	84.1%	10,094,652	79.5%	9,725,769	73.5%
Rhode Island	896,109	89.3%	858,433	81.9%	803,685	76.4%	754,050	68.7%
South Carolina	2,390,056	68.5%	2,652,291	66.1%	2,962,740	64.1%	3,178,552	62.1%
South Dakota	634,788	91.2%	664,585	88.0%	689,502	84.7%	705,583	79.6%
Tennessee	4,027,631	82.6%	4,505,930	79.2%	4,800,782	75.6%	4,900,246	70.9%
Texas	10,291,680	60.6%	10,933,313	52.4%	11,397,345	45.3%	11,884,773	39.7%
Utah	1,571,254	91.2%	1,904,265	85.3%	2,221,719	80.4%	2,465,355	75.4%
Vermont	552,184	98.1%	585,431	96.2%	590,223	94.3%	573,201	89.1%
Virginia	4,701,650	76.0%	4,965,637	70.2%	5,186,450	64.8%	5,058,363	58.6%
Washington	4,221,622	86.7%	4,652,490	78.9%	4,876,804	72.5%	4,918,820	63.8%
West Virginia	1,718,896	95.8%	1,709,966	94.6%	1,726,256	93.2%	1,598,834	89.1%
Wisconsin	4,464,677	91.3%	4,681,630	87.3%	4,738,411	83.3%	4,634,018	78.6%
Wyoming	412,711	91.0%	438,799	88.9%	483,874	85.9%	469,664	81.4%
American Samoa			682	1.2%	611	1.1%
Guam			10,666	6.9%	11,001	6.9%
Northern Mariana Islands			1,274	1.8%	916	1.7%
Puerto Rico			33,966	0.9%	26,946	0.7%	24,548	0.8%
U.S. Virgin Islands			8,580	7.9%	3,830	3.6%
United States of America	188,128,296	75.6%	194,552,774	69.1%	196,817,552	63.7%	191,697,647	57.8%

White American population in the United States [97]

State	2000		2010		2020
	Number	% 2000	Number	%	Number	%
Alabama	3,162,808	71.1%	3,275,394	68.5%	3,220,452	64.1%
Alaska	434,534	69.3%	473,576	66.7%	435,392	59.4%
Arizona	3,873,611	75.5%	4,667,121	73.0%	4,322,337	60.4%
Arkansas	2,138,598	80.0%	2,245,229	77.0%	2,114,512	70.2%
California	20,170,059	79.7%	21,453,934	74.0%	16,296,122	41.2%
Colorado	3,560,005	82.8%	4,089,202	81.3%	4,082,927	70.7%
Connecticut	2,780,355	81.6%	2,772,410	77.6%	2,395,128	66.4%
Delaware	584,773	74.6%	618,617	68.9%	597,763	60.4%
District of Columbia	176,101	30.8%	231,471	38.5%	273,194	39.4%
Florida	12,465,029	78.0%	14,109,162	75.0%	12,422,961	57.7%
Georgia	5,327,281	65.1%	5,787,440	59.7%	5,555,483	51.9%
Hawaii	294,102	24.3%	336,599	24.7%	333,261	22.9%
Idaho	1,177,304	91.0%	1,396,487	89.1%	1,510,360	82.1%
Illinois	9,125,471	73.5%	9,177,877	71.5%	7,868,227	61.4%
Indiana	5,320,022	87.5%	5,467,906	84.3%	5,241,791	77.2%
Iowa	2,748,640	93.9%	2,781,561	91.3%	2,694,521	84.5%
Kansas	2,313,944	86.1%	2,391,044	83.8%	2,222,462	75.6%
Kentucky	3,640,889	90.1%	3,809,537	87.8%	3,711,254	82.4%
Louisiana	2,856,161	63.9%	2,836,192	62.6%	2,675,652	57.1%
Maine	1,236,014	96.9%	1,264,971	95.2%	1,237,041	90.8%
Maryland	3,391,308	64.0%	3,359,284	58.2%	3,007,874	48.7%
Massachusetts	5,367,286	84.5%	5,265,236	80.4%	4,896,037	69.6%
Michigan	7,966,053	80.2%	7,803,120	78.9%	7,444,974	73.9%
Minnesota	4,400,282	89.4%	4,524,062	85.3%	4,423,146	77.5%
Mississippi	1,746,099	61.4%	1,754,684	59.1%	1,658,893	56%
Missouri	4,748,083	84.9%	4,958,770	82.8%	4,740,335	77%
Montana	817,229	90.6%	884,961	89.4%	916,524	84.5%
Nebraska	1,533,261	89.6%	1,572,838	86.1%	1,538,052	78.4%
Nevada	1,501,886	75.2%	1,786,688	66.2%	1,588,463	51.2%
New Hampshire	1,186,851	96.0%	1,236,050	92.3%	1,216,203	88.3%
New Jersey	6,104,705	72.6%	6,029,248	68.6%	5,112,280	55%
New Mexico	1,214,253	66.8%	1,407,876	68.4%	1,078,927	51%
New York	12,893,689	67.9%	12,740,974	65.7%	11,143,349	55.2%
North Carolina	5,804,656	72.1%	6,528,950	68.5%	6,448,459	62.2%
North Dakota	593,181	92.4%	605,449	90.0%	645,938	82.9%
Ohio	9,645,453	85.0%	9,539,437	82.7%	9,080,688	77%
Oklahoma	2,628,434	76.2%	2,706,845	72.2%	2,514,884	63.5%
Oregon	2,961,623	86.6%	3,204,614	83.6%	3,169,096	74.8%
Pennsylvania	10,484,203	85.4%	10,406,288	81.9%	9,750,687	75%
Rhode Island	891,191	85.0%	856,869	81.4%	782,920	71.3%
South Carolina	2,695,560	67.2%	3,060,000	66.2%	3,243,442	63.4%
South Dakota	669,404	88.7%	699,392	85.9%	715,336	80.7%
Tennessee	4,563,310	80.2%	4,921,948	77.6%	4,990,938	72.2%
Texas	14,799,505	71.0%	17,701,552	70.4%	14,609,365	50.1%
Utah	1,992,975	89.2%	2,379,560	86.1%	2,573,413	78.7%
Vermont	589,208	96.8%	596,292	95.3%	577,751	89.8%
Virginia	5,120,110	72.3%	5,486,852	68.6%	5,208,856	60.3%
Washington	4,821,823	81.8%	5,196,362	77.3%	5,130,920	66.6%
West Virginia	1,718,777	95.0%	1,739,988	93.9%	1,610,749	89.8%
Wisconsin	4,769,857	88.9%	4,902,067	86.2%	4,737,545	80.4%
Wyoming	454,670	92.1%	511,279	90.7%	488,374	84.7%
United States of America	211,460,626	75.1%	223,553,265	72.4%	204,277,273	61.6%

While under 18 non-Hispanic White Americans in the US. are already a minority as of 2020, it is projected that non-Hispanic whites overall will become a minority within the US. by 2045.[19]

White British population by percentage in Bradford. In Bradford, which was one of the cities affected by the 2001 race riots in England, different ethnicity's and religious groups live 'parallel lives' and is largely segregated.[98]

White demographic decline has also led to increased 'self-segregation' in regional area's and cities, who have all experienced a large degree of 'white flight'. When ethnic minority population's start to grow in size in a visible area there is a increased likelihood that the resident White population will move out to a more whiter area[99], research found from the think tank Demos for example in the United Kingdom has found that around 45% of ethnic minority groups live in area's in which the indigenous White British are a minority and around 41% live in areas where the White population is less than half.[87] An example of this is in London, where from the years of 2001 and 2011 over 600,000 White British Londoners left the capital and their overall percentage declined from 55% to 45% of the population[100][101] however more profound changes can be found in regional boroughs of the city itself, for example the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham saw its White British population collapse from 80.86% of the population in 2001 to a minority, 49.46% in 2011 while other ethnically diverse area's saw similar declines of percentage of the indigenous population.

Auto-segregation, or self-segregation effects many aspects of life and damages integration between different ethnic and racial groups in the countries in which it is present in. In area's which have experienced a large degree of White flight have become largely segregated along racial lines. In education, school's can become segregated as well.[102] Social cohesion in a regional area also becomes impaired as different ethnic groups 'hunker down' in the area's in which they are present in if the area becomes more heterogeneous in nature, this transformation also negatively impacts civic engagement in an area as well and results in lower social cohesion levels for ethnically diverse heterogeneous areas compared to more homogeneous area's of any specific ethnicity.[103][104]

In Katha Pollitt's 2015 book Pro, the essayist links anxiety with the demographic trend of whites and correlating support for the anti-abortion movement.[16] Hampshire College professor Marlene Fried's research suggests Pollitt exposed the "underlying agenda of the antiabortion movement", recognizing that it was associated with white demographic decline and its subsequent effects on sections of the populace.[17]

University of Louisville's anthropology professor Steven Gardiner has proposed how:[105]

The decline in white fertility, however, is only a small part of the story. The narrative of white demographic decline is being written, primarily, in the language of immigration. It is only since Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act Amendments of 1965 that American racial and ethnic demographics have taken the turn sketched above (Office of Immigration Statistics 2004, 5). Passed during the Johnson Administration, during the height of the Civil Rights era, the 1965 Act repealed the most blatantly racist aspects of the Immigration Act of 1924. It abolished the national origins quotas which had, quite intentionally, limited non-white and non-European immigration to the United States.

Based on the effect of immigration on white demography, Jaime Winders, a professor of geography at Syracuse University, notes that, for example: "In rural communities in the South, immigration often keeps smaller towns afloat, maintaining local schools, populations, and economies in the face of white demographic decline."[106] In 2020, research from University of Guadalajara's Alejandro Canales confirmed similar findings in the southern US:[107]

The current case of California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada are a clear indication of what we are affirming. In all of these states the traditional demographic supremacy of non-Hispanic white people practically has been diluted by the influence of Mexican and Latin-American immigration.

Scholars have studied how the demographic decline of white people, as well as its portrayal within different types of media, have contributed towards adherence to racist and disproven conspiracy theories. Harvard University fellow José Pedro Zúquete has observed that:[14]

For many years in the American extreme right subculture a putative Jewish conspiracy – reified by the notion of ZOG or Zionist Occupation Government – was often invoked to explain the demographic decline of whites in America.

In 2019, scholar Monica Toft expanded on the emergence of nativist politics and conspiracy theory advocacy in relation to the demographic phenomenon, stating that "The 'why now' of white nativism is due to decades of demographic decline for white Americans combined with a serious decline in public education standards that leads to unwarranted nostalgia and openness to conspiracy theories."[15]

The Combating Terrorism Center, which is an academic institution within the United States Military Academy, has published research which recognizes anxiety regarding white demographic decline as an ongoing contributing motivation to terrorism in the Western world. An example of this was observed in the Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand.[108] In August 2019, a man arrested for threatening to attack people at a Jewish community center in Ohio had been found to have appeared in a documentary speaking about white demographic decline in the United States and Europe.[109]

Scholars Hermann Giliomee and Lawrence Schlemmer have credited, among other factors, international pressure on the apartheid government and "a white demographic decline" for facilitating the process of negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa.[110]

From the start of mass non-white immigration to Europe in the late 1940s the vast majority of opinion polls taken in respective countries have shown that Europeans have been broadly against it from the very beginning.

In 2018 analysis, the Southern Poverty Law Center explored how right-wing extremism attempts to utilize the demographic decline of white people in Austria for political gain.[111]

A 1982 survey conducted by pollster Infas found that 58 percent of Germans wanted to reduce the number of foreigners in the country.[66]

Adela Fofiu of Babeș-Bolyai University has noted how right-wing organizations and outlets in Romania politicize white demographic decline, attempting to associate it with concepts such as the "Islamization of Europe" or "Gypsifcation" of the country, the latter of which refers to the Romani people in Romania.[112]

Enoch Powell

The political impact of White British demographic decline in the United Kingdom has existed since non-white immigration began on a significant scale to the country in 1948.

In relation to public opinion polling, the British public have been strongly against immigration from its very inception, opinion polling as far back as 1964 has shown strong majorities against immigration and presently opposition to immigration is still in the majority, the University of Oxford's Migratory Observatory writes;

Opposition to the arrival of immigrants in the UK is not new. Rising concern about ‘New Commonwealth’ immigration prompted the British Election Study (BES) to begin asking the public about immigration as far back as 1964, although in those early years it did not ask the question to ‘coloured’ respondents. Throughout this period, the majority of people in Britain agreed that there were too many immigrants in the UK.[113][114]

In 1968, Enoch Powell gave the Rivers of Blood speech in which he criticised the then present levels of mass-immigration to the United Kingdom and called for the cessation of non-white immigration and for voluntary repatriation. While the speech was condemned by politicians on all sides of the political mainstream in Britain it attracted overwhelming public support from the general masses, Powell received around 110,000 overwhelmingly positive letters and a Gallup opinion poll commissioned by the BBC taken at the end of April 1968 showed that 74% of those asked agreed with what Powell had said in relation to voluntary repatriation of non-white immigrants in Britain, while only 15% disagreed and 11% unsure and 82% agreed with his call for the cessation of non-white immigration to the nation.[115] Conservative politician Michael Heseltine has said that if Enoch Powell had stood to be Leader of the Conservative Party in the aftermath of the speech, he would have won "by a landslide" and had he stood to be Prime Minister, he would have won by a "national landslide".[116]

Under the Labour Government of Tony Blair from 1997 to 2007, there was an apparent 'conspiracy of intent' behind the quadrupling of immigration numbers under the government at that time as was reported by the media.[117][118][119] It is claimed by a former government advisor Andrew Neather, who had been an advisor to then Home Secretary's David Blunkett and Jack Straw and Immigration Minister Barbara Roche that there was a deliberate intent "to make the UK truly multicultural" and that quote;

It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late-2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration. (...)

So why is it that ministers have been so very bad at communicating this? I wonder because I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here. (...)

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.[120]

Andrew Neather then later claimed that his words had been taken out of context;

Somehow this has become distorted by excitable right-wing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.[121]

In 2008, the BBC commissioned a poll on the issue of immigration and race relations, on the question of 'What do you think of the statement; "There are too many immigrants in the country?"' 59% agreed, 11% neither agreed nor disagreed, 26% disagreed and 4% refused/don't know, on the question 'Should the government encourage immigrants to leave?' 49% agreed, 43% disagreed and 8% refused/don't know. The poll then asked whether the respondents considered there to be racial tension in Britain, 76% agreed, 22% disagreed and 2% did not know/refused, on the question of whether that tension would spill into violence, 64% said it was certain to fairly likely that violence would occur while 35% said it was fairly unlikely to certain to that violence would not occur, 2% did not know or refused. The poll also asked respondents whether they considered themselves to be racially prejudiced, 79% said they were not, 17% they were a little and 3% said they were very racially prejudiced, 1% of respondents did not answer or refused.[122]

In 2018, Eric Kaufmann wrote a piece for the New Statesman on the demographic decline of White British people within the United Kingdom, stating that "Three-quarters of people in Britain in 2150 will, like myself, be mixed-race." and highlighted political consequences of such a transformation taking place:[123]

When whites can't express their sense of ethnic loss, they turn to the seemingly more “respectable” alternatives of demonising Muslims, criticising immigrants who live in minority neighbourhoods, or voting for Brexit (a result of diverting concerns over ethnic change into hatred of the acceptably “white” EU). Few things have contributed more to today's populist blowback than the demographic blind spot in Western political thought.

In 2020, Nick Timothy, a former Downing Street Chief of Staff, addressed societal consequences of the ongoing demographic decline of white people in the United Kingdom:[124]

This is a difficult issue to understand and address, but the anxiety is real. White people are as attached to their ethnic and cultural identity as any other group and, faced with the reality of rapid demographic decline, many feel a sense of loss.

Writing in 2019, journalist Margaret Wente has suggested that "nations upended by right-wing populism all have one thing in common. They are all facing white demographic decline. And that is the breeding ground for populist revolts." Wente argues that with significant projected decline of the white share of the population in Canada, the country will have to address reactionary populist politics.[125]

In 1998 research, Fordham University professor Tanya K. Hernandez outlined the potential for multiracial Americans to have their representative US census category "co-opted by the larger society as a mechanism for constructing a buffer class to maintain White privilege, in the midst of a growing concern with the demographic decline of White U.S. residents".[126] Samuel P. Huntington's 2004 book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity addressed the emerging population change in the United States. In an analysis on Huntington's treatise, political demographer Eric Kaufmann wrote:[127]

Finally, Huntington considers the possibility of a white nationalist response to the changes taking place. He says that white nativism is a "plausible" response to white demographic decline, the cosmopolitan defection of the white elite and the fading power of the Anglo-Protestant core.

By 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center's 1,000 organizations listed within their "hate" and "nativist" archives predominantly involved politics referencing white demography. Arizona State University anthropologist Luis Plascencia wrote that "a common thread in many of these groups is the concern with the demographic decline of 'white' individuals".[128] In 2009, Stanford University professor Eamonn Callan observed that:[129]

The slow but inexorable demographic decline of white Americans to the status of one minority among others has begun to register in popular consciousness, making it harder for anyone to suppose that American identity could still be white identity.

In the mid-2010s, white people's demographic decline became increasing associated with politics in relation to the 2016 presidential election.[130][131] Donald Trump's policy positions and rhetoric were seen by some scholars as giving an outlet to anxiety based upon this changing white demography.[132] Journalist Christopher Caldwell argued that perceived cultural celebration of the process had contributed to the political energies supporting candidate Trump. Caldwell wrote that "At the same time, white demographic decline has been accompanied in many quarters with official exultation. The promise is not to enrich white America with new ethnicities but to replace it."[133] Research has predicted a rise in rhetoric regarding issues such as protectionism among white Americans, and particularly white evangelicals, in proportion with the ongoing percentage-share reduction of whites.[134] This demographic decline has also been utilized by extremist commentators, such as explicit supporters of the "alt-right" or white supremacist movements.[134][135]

In this regard, research in historian Mark Sedgwick's Key Thinkers of the Radical Right indicated that elements of the extremist right-wing believed that Trump's proposed policies, such as the Trump travel ban or the wall, would "slow white demographic decline".[136] Similarly, Aurora University professor Faith Agostinone-Wilson's On the Question of Truth in the Era of Trump describes these types of political aspirations as "an Americanized version of salvation, where White demographic decline is halted and the country is purged of the Other".[137] Anthropologist Rich Benjamin has suggested that the "Trump administration has aimed its rhetoric at a slice of aggrieved white Americans who are panicked about their demographic decline",[138] while political scientist Elliot Jager has written:[139]

Trump directs his appeal at disenfranchised working-class Americans by telling them that he’ll "make America great again", intimating that he’ll reverse the demographic decline of whites by "humanely" deporting 11 million mostly Hispanic, illegal aliens; will protect the homeland by banning Muslims from entering, and will build an impenetrable barrier on the Mexican border.

In the 2020s, study of American politics increasingly factored in the demographic reduction in analyzing the Republican Party's electoral success and future strategy. For example, in analysis of the 2020 presidential election results, University of Melbourne professor Timothy J. Lynch suggests "white demographic decline need not spell disaster for the GOP. Despite his dog-whistle racism, Trump performed better than expected among Black voters."[140] In relation to the party's future direction, UCLA's political scientist Gary Segura notes that "Republicans nationally receive 85 percent of their votes from white voters by capturing between 55 and 60 percent of their ballots in each election", adding that "with the demographic decline of white voters, even 60 percent of that cohort will be a poor start when it comprises just two-thirds of the electorate in 2024".[141] Professor Nicholas Lemann also argues that high motivation and corresponding turnout from the Republican Party's supporter base would be required to offset the ongoing demographic decline of whites by the 2024 election.[142]

Interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg in 2020, the director of the documentary film White Noise proposed that the decline of whites had become the most significant driving force in the politics of the US. Daniel Lombroso stated "There is a deep-seated fear of white demographic decline in this country, and obviously in Europe. And I think that is now the defining fault line in American politics".[143]

A study by Pew Research Center in co-ordinance with the release of the U.S. Census 2020 results found that the majority of American's overall (61%) found that the White population of the U.S. declining is 'neither a good or bad thing'. White people in the United States however were still recorded more to have negative views (11%/22% reported that white decline was a good/bad thing) on the subject then positive views compared to other racial groups (Blacks; 22%/21%, Hispanic; 20%/16%, Asian; 25%/16%). Moreover, the younger the participants were the more positive view they had on white decline and those that are socially conservative also had more negative views of the subject then those that were socially liberal.[144]