> Because the link he posted shows that the third of London he calls Native British is just White British.
The table doesn't distinguish "British" from "non-British" for non-white people, so it would be rather hard to account for that.
But if he's referring to an ethnicity (really a narrow group of ethnicities) rather than a nationality then of course that would entail a range of skin tones what people would normally call "white". And yes, that thinking would necessarily exclude Idris Elba.
But then if this is really about worrying about "white people", then why is he also excluding the non-British white people from his figure? Can it really not just be that there exists an English ethnicity (and Scottish and Welsh) that has been there for centuries and has nowhere else to go?
> This isn’t about mass immigration, it’s just about immigration as such.
There is no such distinction.
You ask "after how many generations are you native British"; I can equally well ask "after how many immigrants is it mass immigration".
The point is that the rate of immigration has been sufficient to completely overwhelm the native birthrate, causing a rapid demographic shift.
When the UK colonized India in the first place, the population did not become minority-Indian at all, let alone within the space of a couple of generations.
The table doesn't distinguish "British" from "non-British" for non-white people, so it would be rather hard to account for that.
But if he's referring to an ethnicity (really a narrow group of ethnicities) rather than a nationality then of course that would entail a range of skin tones what people would normally call "white". And yes, that thinking would necessarily exclude Idris Elba.
But then if this is really about worrying about "white people", then why is he also excluding the non-British white people from his figure? Can it really not just be that there exists an English ethnicity (and Scottish and Welsh) that has been there for centuries and has nowhere else to go?
> This isn’t about mass immigration, it’s just about immigration as such.
There is no such distinction.
You ask "after how many generations are you native British"; I can equally well ask "after how many immigrants is it mass immigration".
The point is that the rate of immigration has been sufficient to completely overwhelm the native birthrate, causing a rapid demographic shift.
When the UK colonized India in the first place, the population did not become minority-Indian at all, let alone within the space of a couple of generations.