Immigration and the birth rate

Immigrant mothers are behind Britain’s biggest baby boom in 34 years, official figures revealed yesterday.

One in four babies delivered in this country last year were born to women from outside the UK.

Experts warned this was putting massive strain on hospitals and local services as the soaring figures show no sign of abating.

Government statistics reveal more than 160,000 babies were born last year to women from overseas.

This has pushed fertility levels in this country to the highest since 1973, with the average number of babies born to each woman up to 1.91 from 1.86 last year.

23% of all births were to immigrant mothers last year, up from 21% in 2006. In 1996, the year before Labour came to power, the figure was just 12%. As you can see, such births have, as a proportion of all births, nearly doubled in just twelve years - a literal embodiment of the present government's open door immigration policy.

As I have said many times before, it's clear that we are experiencing levels of immigration unprecedented in our history. The make-up of this country is being changed before our eyes. And yet even the bravest among our elected representatives can only bring themselves to discuss mass immigration itself, and its significant short-term impact, in the most tentative and apologetic terms, and there isn't one MP who wouldn't rather run ten miles in the pouring rain than even consider the long-term implications of this colossal demographic change. Speaking for myself, this total abdication of responsibility is one of the most enraging aspects of the whole immigration debacle.

ESL pupil numbers still rising

Official figures today revealed that one in seven pupils don't speak English as their first language - and the number of infant school pupils in unlawfully large classes has risen by more than 50 per cent in the last year.

The statistics, compiled by the The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF),show that the proportion of pupils whose first language is not English has risen to an all-time high.

In primary schools, 14.4 per cent of pupils speak another language as their mother tongue, up from 13.5 per cent in 2007, while in secondary schools the figure is 10.8 per cent, up from 10.6 per cent.

This equates to more than 800,000 pupils on the school roll with English as their second language.

As I have noted before, there are now over 1,300 schools in the UK in which the majority of pupils speak English as a second language. The number of ESL pupils has risen massively under Labour. In primary schools, for example, it has jumped from just 7.8% in 1997, to 14.4% now - an increase of 85% over eleven years. It is simply fanciful to claim that this will not have a very negative impact on the education of both native and immigrant children, at least in those classes and schools where non-native English speakers predominate, or form a significant minority. As I wrote back in December:

...if half the class is struggling with the language, then, in the first place, they themselves will find it difficult to gain the full benefit of each lesson, and, in the second place, they will occupy a disproportionate amount of their teacher's time, and retard the progress of the entire class, including those who can speak fluent English. And the problem is self-perpetuating: as a Polish immigrant mother told The Times back in May, if you have a school in which large numbers of children do not speak English, then the pressure on them to learn English is reduced, and the progress that immigrant children make with the language is slowed. After all, if you are the only non-English speaker in your class, then in order merely to socialise with the other children you will have to become fluent in English; if more than half your class speaks your language, then that requirement is removed. It must also be more difficult for individual non-English speakers to get the extra attention they need if there are twenty of them, than if there are only one or two.

There is also a significant financial issue. Teaching unions have estimated the yearly cost of educating an ESL child at £30,000. At present, the average amount spent annually on a state school pupil is £5,270. If all ESL children are receiving the support they need, then each one of them is likely to be costing the taxpayer an extra £25,000 each year. With the rapidity of the increase in the number of ESL pupils, that added expenditure quite quickly builds up. And it has to come from somewhere.

Finally, the colossal increase in the number of schoolchildren speaking English as a second language serves to demonstrate the extent to which immigration levels have ballooned under Labour. This is major demographic change - population replacement, indeed - taking place right before our eyes, and it shows no sign of stopping, or even of slowing down.

I'm a professional...get me out of here!

Britain is experiencing the worst "brain drain" of any country as highly qualified professionals settle abroad, an authoritative international study showed yesterday.

Record numbers of Britons are leaving - many of them doctors, teachers and engineers - in the biggest exodus for almost 50 years.

There are now 3.247 million British-born people living abroad, of whom more than 1.1 million are highly-skilled university graduates, say the researchers.

More than three quarters of these professionals have settled abroad for more than 10 years, according to the study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

No other nation is losing so many qualified people, it points out. Britain has now lost more than one in 10 of its most skilled citizens, while overall only Mexico has had more people emigrate.

The figures, based on official records from more than 220 countries, will alarm Gordon Brown as tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on educating graduates. The cost of training a junior doctor, for example, is £250,000.

There are, of course, particular problems with emigration and immigration in relation to the medical profession. The fact that we are importing large numbers of foreign doctors, while simultaneously telling thousands of British-trained physicians that they should look to other countries for employment, for example. In these circumstances, we shouldn't really be surprised if doctors take that advice.

More generally, there are an abundance of reasons why people might choose to leave Britain. Some will leave for purely personal reasons, and others will have more political motives. As examples of the latter, the shadow immigration minister Damian Green cites taxes and government interference, and he's probably right, although I would guess that the present excessive levels of immigration into Britain might also play a very significant role in encouraging people to leave. As would crime levels. And plenty of other things too: just read a few posts from this blog, or any one of a large number of others, to see some examples.

People do not, by and large, move, unless they think that their quality of life will be significantly improved by doing so. The fact that so many British people do believe this is a colossal indictment of the manner in which Labour has run Britain for the past eleven years. They may have won the last election, but large numbers of Britons are voting with their feet, and this vote is not going Labour's way.

Birth rate update

A baby boom among immigrant families is driving the population to a record high, government figures will show this week.

The figures, from the Office for National Statistics, will reveal that Britain's highest birth rates are in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, both predominantly Muslim.

The birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women, the figures will show.

Separate figures due this month will reveal whether Mohammed has overtaken Jack as Britain's most popular name for baby boys.

As Mullah Krekar put it, "we are the ones who will change you". Or should he perhaps have said "replace you"?

The changing face of the growing population

Britain's population could soar to 90million over the next 50 years.

The dramatic increase, fuelled by immigration and a rising birth rate, would add more than 50 per cent to today's population and put enormous pressure on housing, transport and public services.

Statisticians said the rise would be the equivalent of adding a city the size of Sheffield to the country each year.

The figures are expected to be announced tomorrow by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) and were seized on by the Tories yesterday as evidence that a cap is needed on immigration from countries outside the European Union.

Labour ministers claim that measures are already in the pipeline to deal with an expected population surge over the coming decades, including a new points-based system for screening migrant workers.

GAD statisticians have made a series of predictions based on estimates of three key factors - net migration, birthrates and lifespan.

Earlier this month, they published their central forecast, known as the 'principal projection', which predicted the number of UK residents would rise to 71.1 million by 2031 and 78.6 million by 2056.

Tomorrow, GAD will release 'variant projections' which describe how the population will grow if the three key factors turn out higher or lower than anticipated.

Independent statisticians, using calculations based on data already disclosed by the GAD, have been able to determine in advance the figures likely to be released on Tuesday through The Office for National Statistics.

Their estimates put the population at between 66million and 75million by 2031 and between 66million and 90million in 2056.

[...]

GAD's population forecasts, which are used to plan public spending, have proved to be too low in the past. Its previous estimates two years ago suggested the population in 2056 would be only 69.6million, with a 'high projection' of 82.6million.

The estimate has been increased due to the surge in immigration in the past two years, particularly from the new EU states in eastern Europe.

In order to emphasise the point that the rising birth rate is going to be among the causes of this, potentially massive, increase in the total population, the Daily Mail illustrates its article with a picture of twelve happy babies. However, if you click on the link, then you will find that the picture is somewhat misleading, since all the babies are white. Whereas in reality:

The overall UK average [birth rate] is 1.84 babies. The average for British-born women is 1.6 and for foreign-born women 2.2.

A significant discrepancy. And that's not all:

The highest birthrate in the UK is among Pakistani-born women, who have an average of 4.7 children each.

Well, well, well. And what might the implications of the extremely high birth rate of this particular group be? Personally, I think that the notorious Norwegian-based Islamic extremist Mullah Krekar had it about right:

We're the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children...our way of thinking...will prove more powerful than yours.

The strain on resources, which we are already witnessing to such an extent that it has today even been acknowledged by The Observer, would be beyond all reckoning were the population to increase to 90million. But of far greater concern even than the increasing numbers of the population, is the changing face of the population. Because, as the figures above indicate, it is quite possible that, by the time the population of the United Kingdom does reach 90million, that population will not only be majority non-white, but might well also be majority Muslim.

A picture of the new Britain

Looking at al-Beeb's website this evening, I chanced upon the news that two Bollywood stars are claiming that they had racist remarks shouted at them from a passing car, as they shot a film in Southall. This, clearly very important and newsworthy, story is currently receiving second billing on the "England" section of the BBC News website, and has had quite a lengthy, illustrated, article devoted to it. Of course, the Beeboids did not see fit to publish a single paragraph on a rather more serious recent case in which a man had his skull sliced open with a machete in a racist attack, but that's understandable: the victim was only white, after all.

But, what struck me rather more than the anti-white racism (which, let's face it, is no more than you expect from al-Beeb), was this sentence, regarding the absolutely charming part of London in which the alleged shouting of racist abuse took place:

The town's Pakistani and Indian communities for the most part live happily alongside Somalis and the newest immigrants from eastern Europe.

Now, leaving aside the fact that this is a statement of somewhat questionable veracity, I was just thinking that, alongside the Pakistanis, Indians, Somalis, and east Europeans, there does seem to be one community missing from the multicultural love-in. Now, if only I could remember who they were...

Population replacement, anyone?

Hastilow resignation rejected

Tory leader David Cameron faced fresh embarrassment after rebel Tory activists snubbed calls to ditch a Parliamentary candidate who said Enoch Powell "was right" on immigration.

The Halesowen and Rowley Regis constituency association refused to accept the resignation of would-be MP Nigel Hastilow and instead demanded crisis talks with the Conservative Party Board, the organisation's top decision-making body.

Senior Tories had hoped the local party would drop Hastilow, 51, who quit on November 4 after refusing to apologise for comments he made in a newspaper column in support of Powell's 1968 "rivers of blood" speech.

Officials have been lobbying the local association in a desperate bid to limit the bad publicity, asking them to move on and choose another candidate.

But local members remain furious at the way Hastilow was treated by the party HQ and refused to accept his resignation, saying his views on immigration have widespread support.

Excellent news!

Meanwhile, Neil Hamilton has written an excellent article on the Hastilow case in the Daily Express! Yes, I know he's a smarmy crook with a deranged wife and a worrying predilection for loud, spotty, bow-ties, but his article is excellent nonetheless. Some salient extracts:

Immigration is out of control and millions of indigenous Britons feel like foreigners in their own country. Even Gordon Broon recognises this. A few weeks ago, posing as leader of the Brownish National Party, he promised “British jobs for British workers.”

All spin and lies, of course. EU law, which Broon wants to extend without a referendum, stops us deciding who we want to let into this country.

Two weeks ago, Cabinet Minister Peter Hain (himself an undesirable immigrant) came clean, admitting 1.1 million foreign nationals have taken jobs here since 1997, not 300,000 as previously claimed.

The Office for National Statistics says it is 1.5 million. Governments have routinely deceived the British people about mass immigration. Those, like Enoch, who campaigned to close the door, were abused as fantasists and racists.

Yet, if we had had a referendum 40 years ago, how many of us would have voted to transform our great cities into colonies of foreign cultures?

[...]

But immigration is principally a question of numbers. Our major cities have become a kaleidoscope of ghettos, co-existing but not coalescing. Manchester University demographers forecast that, by 2011 Leicester will be the first British city where Brits are a minority. Birmingham will follow by 2027.

On current trends, ethnic Britons will cease to be the majority group in Britain sometime in the next century.

Would you vote for that? Don’t worry, the politicians won’t ask you to.

Personally, I agree with everything Hamilton has written. And, as an added bonus, he's managed to upset the execrable Cameronite mouthpiece Daniel Finkelstein, who says that describing Peter Hain as an "undesirable immigrant" is an "utterly unacceptable insult" (he does not, of course, actually bother to say what, precisely, is so "unacceptable" about it). So, well done Neil Hamilton!

Population Replacement, part 94,000

The changing face of Britain was revealed yesterday in official figures showing the immigrant population has risen by almost 1.4 million in five years.

At the same time, the number of British-born residents living in the country has fallen by 500,000.

The result, according to the Office for National Statistics, is that one in every ten people living in Britain was born overseas - up from one in 12 in 2001.

Migrants who have moved here are also having significantly more children - an average of 2.5 per woman, compared to 1.7 for British mothers.

[...]

Over the next decade, migrants will swell the population by almost two million.

The new estimate that numbers will grow by 190,000 a year is 30 per cent higher than previous figures.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne indicated this was too high.

"This shows what could happen unless we take action now," he said.

"Frankly, it underlines the need for swift and sweeping changes to the immigration system in the next 12 months."

Of course, one might be inclined to take Byrne slightly more seriously if he were not a member of a government which has now been in power for more than ten years, during which it has presided over mass immigration on an unprecedented, and ever-increasing, scale. As things are, it is impossible to believe a word he says on the matter, and it is certainly impossible to believe that he actually plans to do anything about the problem of unlimited immigration.

As for the figures themselves: do I really need to comment on them? I seem to have discussed this issue a few million times already (here, for example)! Immigration on this scale not only has a severe negative impact on our national infrastructure, but it also has a profound impact on our very culture. As Carol Gould put it, "the concept of an Englishman has been so distorted as to be unrecognisable". Mass immigration of the kind that Labour have allowed and encouraged for ten years has turned many British people into foreigners in their own towns. And yet politicians who are raising the issue - and raising all its consequences, including its cultural consequences - are few and far between. If, as increasingly appears to be the case, our government is quite happy to turn us into a minority in our own country, then they should at least do us the courtesy of asking for our views on the issue. And when the public responded, as they overwhelmingly would, by saying that, actually, we would like immigration to be either severely limited or curtailed altogether, then the government should do that as well. As it is, what they are doing is little less than treason.

Population Replacement in Birmingham, and Britain

In the Telegraph, I read that a team of demographers at Manchester University has predicted that whites will be a minority group in Birmingham by the year 2027. According to the university's Dr Ludi Simpson, the growth of the "minority" population will be driven by the doubling in size of the Pakistani population.

So, not just population replacement, but the first steps towards Islamification as well. Isn't Mark Steyn supposed to be a paranoid racist for predicting demographic change of this nature?

Interestingly, Dr Simpson is scathingly dismissive of the common liberal notion that, in such Balkanised cities as Birmingham, the numerous different ethnic groups now living within Molotov cocktail-throwing distance of one another will just join hands and sing "Kumbaya". Rather, he acknowledges that the suburbs of such cities are "sites of real tension". And, it should be noted that this tension does not just arise between whites and non-whites; it also arises between different non-white groups, with the most notorious recent example being the clashes between Pakistanis and blacks in the Lozells area of Birmingham, two years ago.

The gradual population replacement taking place in many of our largest cities should be a cause of immense concern. The increased likelihood of inter-racial violence, as our cities become increasingly fragmented, and increasingly segregated along racial lines, with each group mistrusting the next, is a considerable problem in itself. And not one that any mainstream politicians are really making much effort to address. They all subscribe to the Kumbaya fantasy.
However, the second concern is, as I see it, more important. It is that we are witnessing a massive change in the racial make-up of our society. Where Birmingham goes, the rest of Britain is likely to follow. This change truly is without precedent - never before has a majority population voluntarily turned itself into a minority - and its implications are potentially immense. And yet, there has never been a serious public debate about this most important of all issues. Indeed, any debate on this issue is positively shut down, with the label 'racist' hastily applied to any who dare raise it. I believe that the British people deserve to know the details of what the political elite has inflicted upon them, and they deserve a debate on whether we want the demographic change that this country has already endured to be exacerbated by continued mass immigration. Sadly, I don't expect that we are likely to see any such debate anytime soon.

The "immigrant-dependent" NHS

An inquiry into the competence of foreign doctors has been launched by Britain's medical regulator after it was revealed that they were twice as likely to face disciplinary hearings as UK medical graduates.

According to the Times, three times the number of doctors who trained abroad were struck off the UK medical register last year compared with 2005.

The General Medical Council has commissioned a series of research projects which will look at a range of issues including the competence of foreign doctors and whether they are subject to institutional racism within the health service.

More than 5,000 cases were dealt with by the GMC in 2006, the paper said.

Of these 303 resulted in a fitness-to-practise hearing and 54 doctors were struck off - 35 of whom had trained outside the UK.

One of the common refrains in the hymn book of the pro-mass immigration left is that the NHS is completely dependent on immigrants to keep it going. However, I would point out that there are currently some 8,000 British-trained doctors who have been told that if they wish to practise in their chosen profession, then they should go abroad. And as a result of the apparently appalling application system for junior doctor positions, those who have failed to get places actually possess, on average, more impressive qualifications than those who have been successful. So it's hardly as if we're talking about utter incompetents: we're talking about people who would in all probability be excellent physicians. So why on Earth is the NHS turning these people away, in favour of second-rate foreigners, many of whom have a command of English so poor that they cannot fill in a death certificate, and of whom a more than negligible number may actually pose a positive threat to patient safety?

It seems that the NHS is no more immune to population replacement than the rest of society...

Hugh Fitzgerald on demography

There's an interesting post by Hugh Fitzgerald at Dhimmi Watch, on the subject of the demographic war being waged by Muslims against the infidels. Of course, I doubt that there can be many people reading this blog who are unaware of the extremely high Muslim birth-rate in Britain, and in Western Europe as a whole, but Mr Fitzgerald also demonstrates that the tactic (and there can be no doubt that, at least for the imams in charge, it is a tactic, and a very successful one) of turning themselves into a majority by simply outbreeding rival religious or ethnic groups is one that Muslims are using across the world. Of course, once their numbers become sufficiently large, then the next step is incessant low-level violence against non-Muslims, something that we are already beginning to witness in France and Sweden, for example.

Another point that Mr Fitzgerald makes is that the bloated Western European welfare state means that we are actually supporting the vast families that so many Muslims have. It is bad enough that these people are living and breeding in our midst, ready to take over our country. But the fact that we are paying for them to do so really is sickening.

It is imperative that we prevent the Muslim population in Britain growing much further. If we do not, we risk ending up like the Christians of Lebanon, now an oppressed minority in a land which once was theirs. For this reason, I believe that we need to take drastic action to make the breeding up of big families less appealing to Muslims. And the best way to do that, is to hit them in their wallets. Specifically, I believe that Muslims should be denied access to the various social security payments upon which so many of them rely for financial support when raising their numerous children. They should not, for example, be entitled to child benefit payments: if they want to raise an invading army within our country, let them finance it themselves, if they can. Or let the much-vaunted Ummah pay for it. But leave the British taxpayer out of it. I imagine that if Muslims were made to suffer genuine financial hardship in consequence of their habit of breeding vast families, then they would be much less keen to do it, and the Muslim birth-rate would fall significantly.

More Common Sense on Immigration

Responding to Lord Carey's recent comments, Sir Max Hastings, who I would generally consider something of a wet Cameronite, writes more common sense on immigration, in the Daily Mail:

By the Government's own projections, immigrants will account for 83 per cent of our future population growth, and will require us to build more than 200 houses a day for the next 20 years to provide them with roofs.

Most native Britons fiercely resist and resent the influx, and feel betrayed by the entire political class which is allowing it to happen.

The Government professes to believe in restricting entry, but refuses to enforce effective controls. It is unnecessary to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that many Labour ministers and MPs simply do not mind.

They told us in 1997 that they intended to bring about "an irreversible change in the nature of British society". Wholesale immigration contributes mightily to this process, as few newcomers vote Tory.

The use of immigrants - who are more likely to support leftist parties - to effect social change is far from being an exclusively British phenomenon. In Belgium, for example, socialist parties have rushed to give voting rights to immigrants, in order to halt the rise of the right-wing Vlaams Belang.

To return to Sir Max's article, he continues:

While almost all emigrants are, of course, professed Christians, a huge number of those who come in are Muslims.

And there's the rub. Since so many have no desire to adopt the values and customs of our society, their presence has drastically altered the appearance and character of Britain's inner cities.

Lord Carey said on Sunday that he hopes Gordon Brown "will not forget the importance of Christian identity at the heart of being a part of the United Kingdom". It seems fanciful to suppose that his wish will be fulfilled.

The point which so much of the political elite seem unable to grasp is just this: that the main problem with immigration is the unwanted social change it is bringing to this country. They believe that people are only concerned about pressures on housing, or on the job market, and so, on the rare occasions when they deign to address this vital issue at all, they only talk about those things. And of course, jobs and housing are important concerns. But the most obvious, and simultaneously the least talked about, aspect of immigration for most people is that large parts of Britain are beginning to seem like a foreign country to the native population.

Actually, when I say "the least talked about", I am perhaps wrong. After all, the political elite are quite happy to praise "multiculturalism" when it suits them, or to tell us how "wonderful" it is that the country is being transformed. What they won't acknowledge is that most people, without being fascists or racists, object to multiculturalism, and that they rather like their own way of life, and don't want to see Britain transformed. Perhaps the politicians should consider this point, and respond accordingly, by stopping the immigration that is wreaking this destructive transformation. Forgive me, though, if I don't hold my breath.

Britain's very own death cult

At the Spectator Blog, Fraser Nelson reports that 26.1% of pregnancies in England end in abortion. I should say that, from the figures (pdf) to which he refers, it appears to me that the actual figure is 22.6%, but, in any event, the total is shockingly high. Abortion has a particular popularity in London, with nearly 34% of pregnancies in Inner London ending in this manner.

Besides being horrific and vile in itself, the sheer number of abortions taking place in this country must go some way towards explaining the demographic crisis this country, and particularly its native population, faces. I sincerely doubt that many of those women who had abortions were Muslims. Rather, it seems that the British are literally sacrificing their own children in their rush to despoil themselves of their birthright.

Good news, bad news

Good news: The birth rate has risen for the fifth successive year, and is now at its highest level since 1980.

Bad news: 20% of those births were to immigrant mothers. This figure is 77% higher than it was when Labour came to power.

The Rise of the Mohammedans

The Times reports that Mohammed is now the second most popular boys' name in the UK. If all the different spelling variations for the name are included, then in 2006 5,991 little Mohammeds were born in the UK. This edged out the 5,921 Thomases, and, if current trends remain the same, Mohammed should have overtaken Jack as Britain's most popular boys' name by the end of this year.

Muslim parents apparently name their sons Mohammed in the hope that he will emulate the "prophet". So we should all be on the look out for a sharp rise in the levels of violence, rape, and paedophilia, then. Incidentally, the most popular Muslim girls' name is Aisha, which was, of course, the name of the nine year old victim of Mohammed's paedophilic tendencies.

While the popularity of this particular name does not signify an imminent takeover by Muslims (all of the other top 20 boys' names are recognisably "white" names), it is still an important omen of the replacement of the native population of these lands. The rapid rise in the popularity of the name Mohammed (which only entered the list of the 30 most popular names in 2000) is representative of the extremely high Muslim birth rate (three times the national average). And neither should we ignore the symbolic importance of the fact that, within a few years at the most, the most popular boys' name in Britain will be the name of the founder of that group, which, of all groups, poses the greatest threat to this nation, its culture, and its heritage.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Cross-posted at ATW

Population Replacement Watch

British citizenship has been granted to one million foreign nationals since Labour came to power in 1997, official figures showed yesterday.

More than 150,000 obtained a passport in 2006 - taking the total to around 1,020,000 since Tony Blair took office.

About half of the new citizens were people who qualified through being resident in the country for five years or more and 20 per cent became British through marriage. The remainder were mainly dependant children.

[...]

The number of new citizens in 2006 was still higher than in any other year - and four times the number granted a passport in 1997. The rate of overseas settlement in Britain is the highest ever.

In the late 1960s, about 75,000 a year were accepted for citizenship but this fell to about 50,000 after new laws were introduced in 1971.

For about 25 years the figure remained near or below this level, falling to 37,000 in 1997. Since then, there has been a spectacular increase.

The scale of new settlements is a principal cause of the increase in the population, which is expected to grow by five million by 2020.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said passing one million new citizens since 1997 was a watershed for government policy. "This total does not even include the latest wave of east Europeans," he said.

[...]

Opinion polls consistently show that immigration is seen as the most important issue facing the country, with more than half of voters placing it higher than health or education on a list of concerns.

And yet neither Labour, nor the Cameron Tories, nor the Lib Dems seem prepared even to talk about it, still less to actually do anything. The British people are apparently expected to embrace their own destruction without one MP raising his voice in opposition to this. It is surely unprecedented in any society, still less in an ostensible democracy, for the political class to completely and utterly avoid mentioning what is by far the most important issue in the minds of most people.

Still, on the bright side, we do appear to be conquering Spain...

Population Replacement Watch

One in five schoolchildren is from an ethnic minority - almost double the figure a decade ago.

The annual school census reveals a Britain where one in eight pupils speaks a language other than English at home.

The record figures include more than 40,000 children from Eastern Europe who have enrolled at schools since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.

The statistics emerged as the race relations watchdog warned that Britain's segregated schools are a "ticking timebomb".

The Commission for Racial Equality's director of policy said parents must stop sending their children to schools where most pupils come from similar religious or racial backgrounds.

Nick Johnson also suggested schools should be given more money to admit a racially mixed intake. He said: "We're in fear of turning into a mini-America with racially determined schools.

"Schools are where our children first learn how to get along with people from other cultures and backgrounds. Racially segregated schools prevent this from happening. This is a ticking timebomb."

Calling people "subhuman" for finding this kind of thing worrying is also a bit of a bar to community cohesion, isn't it, Nick? Perhaps you should take that up with your boss, eh?

His comments came as figures published by the Department for Education and Skills showed the biggest year- on-year increase in ethnic minority pupils for a decade.

They account for just under a fifth (19.8 per cent) of England's 6.5million primary and secondary pupils, up from 11 per cent when Labour came to power.

Meanwhile, the number of primary pupils alone who do not speak English as their first language increased by seven per cent from last year to 448,000 - or about one child in seven. Overall, it is around one in eight.

But the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned that there are not enough resources to integrate pupils from such diverse backgrounds. Mr Johnson said he was particularly worried about Tony Blair's controversial city academies and trust schools.

Well done Nick. Never miss a chance to push a leftist cause, no matter how irrelevant.

He added that some of these are using their extra freedoms to "cream off pupils from certain ethnic backgrounds or religions, thus ... increasing racial tensions".

The Conservatives said ministers had been caught off-guard by the increase in non-native English speakers in schools.

Tory education spokesman David Willetts said: "The Government has completely failed to keep up with the rate of change in our school population."

A DfES spokesman said: "The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed a new duty on the governing bodies of all maintained schools, including faith schools, to promote community cohesion."

How wonderful. Of course, if successive governments had not embarked on the lunatic scheme of bringing people from all over the world to live together in one country, while at the same time continually undermining and belittling the native population and their culture, then we might not have problems with community cohesion on the scale that we do now. But that's wicked hate speech, and having read it, you must now say three Hail Trevs and genuflect repeatedly before a picture of Mandela, in order that your soul may be cleansed of the stain of "prejudice".