Make England predominantly multiracial by 2010.

yoyo

Banned
With a POD as early as the 19th century, make England, constituent country of UK, predominantly multiracial by 2010.

Disclaimer: This is just a thought experiment inspired by this article which cites a study by oxford's migration observatory that given their projections, UK would be minority-majority by 2070s. This post is just a question not a political statement.
 

jocay

Banned
There was some brief discussion to resettle 5.5 million Hong Kongers into northern Ireland during the height of the Troubles. In order to convert the place into an area of financial excellence or some other silly nonsense. For whatever reason, have the plans switched from northern Ireland into northern England which was beginning its decline in manufacturing around the late 70s and early 80s. Move millions or at least several hundreds of thousands into England and you'll well on the way of having a relatively more multiracial England than OTL.
 
One obvious was would be to redefine what exactly is "England". Gibraltar for example has been counted as part of South West England for some election purposes. This does not matter much as it is tiny and demographically not that different from the rest of England.

France for example counts a lot of things as parts of France proper that are nowhere near metropolitan France. If the UK decided to treat a place like Hong Kong the way France treats French Guiana, and count it as part of England for some purpose or other that could lead to some very different demographic results for "England".

When keeping England geographically the same major demographic changes would probably require more travel and perhaps some sort of free movement between the UK and its colonies while it still has them.

Having a much better and prosperous economy might make the UK take on guest workers from overseas to help out like Germany did during its economic miracle.

A greater departure might include some harsher European wars during the 20th century that require more people from elsewhere in the empire to rebuild, because all the local lads were sent of to die in trench wars or got nuked or died of Spanish flue or something.
 
I think this is probably ASB. The POD would almost certainly have to be 19th century, would need a much more prosperous UK than in OTL, probably no Great War(?) in order that there is massive demand for labour. Even then the demand would probably be filled by Irish immigrants rather than other Empire immigrants.

In any event it is much more likely that it is only the UK ruling class which absorbs other "races", in particular the Indian ruling caste. In OTL, whilst the Raj technically ended in 1947, the post Independence rulers were Oxbridge educated and in every way, apart from skin colour, upper class "English" with all its arrogance, superiority and indeed Socialism.
 
Doesnt look that ASB to me, you just have to have a laissez faire immigration policy towards the colonies. People will come on their own if they're allowed.
 
Doesnt look that ASB to me, you just have to have a laissez faire immigration policy towards the colonies. People will come on their own if they're allowed.
Wasn't there already a laissez faire immigration policy in the 19th century? The problem was getting there, then getting a job..."the gods of the copy book headings say if you don't work you die"....
 
I think your best bet is to get a lot of immigration while at the same time reducing the pre-existing population. Have the UK have a nuclear war and rely heavily on immigration from the Commonwealth in rebuilding, say, and you could get a population that is only plurality white, especially after a generation or two of racial mixing.
 
A scenario with Napoleonic France stabalising it's position as the dominant force in Europe, at least for a few decades, might condition British attitudes towards "We have to build up the population as much as possible, so if push comes to shove we can field an army of the same magnitude as France", and taking policies to pursue this, with the effect of normalising mass immigration a century early. An earlier spurning of protecting local farming and a focus on full employment in the new industrial economy could provide the pull for immigration while also minimising the potential tension among the white working class ("They're taking our jobs!" doesn't work as well when everybody has a job already) A British equivalent to the Foreign Legion could provide a vector for nonwhites in British colonies other than the ruling classes to become British citizens and settle in the Home Islands. America taking all or most of Canada in 1812, more likely in a timeline where Napoleon is even more of a threat to Britain, might have butterflies as far as Britain becoming the end of the Underground Railroad instead of Canada, with more normal immigration continuing after the Civil War when freed blacks realise that the powers in the South are going to do their damndest to make freedom as miserable for them as slavery was.

All in all, you'd really have to push Britain towards strategies that risk it virtually overheating, but it isn't like Britain pre-1950 was entirely foreign to big waves of immigration that seemed, at the time, to be unassimilable - much of Liverpool became Irish-born in the years after the Famine, at a time when many would've looked at you weird for insisting English and Irish were the 'same race', and it eventually worked out alright.
 
Wasn't there already a laissez faire immigration policy in the 19th century? The problem was getting there, then getting a job..."the gods of the copy book headings say if you don't work you die"....
I know that it was pretty much the case in Europe where you could move around everywhere without a passport, except Russia, but towards the colonies? I'm not aware of free movements for them.
 
This is just making OTL trends occur at a faster rate, but it's hard to see the WindRush generation gaining British citizenship and acceptance in 1918 rather than 1948.

If most of mainland China isn't communists and nothing like the One Child Policy is enacted, there would be an earlier, and possibly larger Chinese diaspora. The rise in global migration is a function of the population boom in the global south, cheap air travel, and a more prosperous world overall.

Potential emigrants around the world are generally middle class by world standards, the poorest can't afford to leave and the wealthy have little reason to move. Generally as a given country develops emigration looks like an upside down parabola, rising rapidly up to a certain point and then declining rapidly even though GDP is growing the entire time. There's still a massive income gap between Central America and the US, but Central America is wealthy enough that emigration to the US is tapering off.

This might be feasible if Britain opts for something like the open borders system that the US had with Europe before the '20s. Seasonal/temporary migration was common between Europe and the Americas, people often planned after saving up for a few years, but staying permanently. The lack of a safety net meant that about 1/3 of immigrants went back to Europe though, the ones who stayed were generally middle class. Open migration is incompatible with social democracy though, the rise of Labour would have to be either prevented or delayed. Labour would have to accept a two-tier system of generous welfare for natives, high naturalization requirements, and streamlined labor migration that the Gulf States have.
 

Zachariah

Banned
How about if the UK maintains the Commonwealth of Nations as the basis for an economic common market, instead of drifting towards Europe and the newly established EEC in the 50's (a "Plan H" scenario, as opposed to Eden's "Plan G" to create a European free trade zone while also protecting the favoured status of the Commonwealth, since the British wouldn't have been able to 'have their cake and eat it')? Let's say that the UK gets fed up with repeatedly trying to join the European Economic Community, only to be vetoed over and over again by Charles de Gaulle (persevering for 14 yrs IOTL, before only being admitted after de Gualle's death); giving up on trying to join the EEC in the late 60's, and deciding to push ahead with establishing its own Commonwealth Economic Community instead. Eventually, if this featured freedom of movement, even if it wasn't to the same extent as in the EU IOTL, given the far larger population levels of the Commonwealth relative to the EU and the far greater levels of relative poverty in its most populous states, you'd expect England to be one of their destination of choice (with Australia, Canada & NZ also in the top-tier of Commonwealth migrant destinations under a 'freedom of movement for workers' agreement). And it wouldn't be unrealistic to anticipate 3-4x as many Commonwealth migrants to England as there were EU migrants to England in the same timeframe. And given that there have been roughly 3.5M EU migrants to England, comprising around 6.3% of England's population, in that timespan- with England's population roughly 80% White, excluding these White Europeans (78%, excluding the Scots and Irish)- that'd easily provide enough room to achieve this. Especially if there's significant 'white flight' of White Britons emigrating to other places in the Commonwealth, like Australia, Canada, NZ, Malta, Cyprus, the Caribbean and Polynesia, in addition to all that extra immigration.
 
I know that it was pretty much the case in Europe where you could move around everywhere without a passport, except Russia, but towards the colonies? I'm not aware of free movements for them.
Passports as we know them were an early 20th century creation. Prior to that I think immigration to the UK was simply a matter of coming....and surviving. With no skill to sell, no survival...
 
England is already multiracial - we let the Scottish, Irish and Welsh in ;-)
Ironically, Brits in the 1910s probably would say England was multiracial already because race was often synonymous with ethnic groups like English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh.
 
Top