First world countries must respond to a “jaw-dropping” crash in fertility by totally opening their borders to unlimited mass migration, according to “experts” interviewed by the BBC.
Falling fertility rates are “a success story” because they mean more women are in work and are not having children, according to a report by the BBC published on Wednesday.
It is shocking, however, that lower fertility rates will result in 23 countries, including Spain and Japan, seeing their populations drop by more than half by 2100, Professor Christopher Murray told the state media organ.
“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” the researcher said, adding: “I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies.”
“You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland,” says the BBC, which has been promoting a “child-free” life to British women for decades as “liberation” and as a means to “save the planet”.
BBC: Having a Family with Children Supports Slavery https://t.co/98iENvXixR
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) February 24, 2020
But “who pays tax in a massively aged world?” the state broadcaster asks, going on to tell readers that there must be a massive population transfer from Africa to the first world to make up for a deficit of babies.
“Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates,” asserts the BBC, neglecting to mention that third world migration has been a huge net drain on the British treasury.
To support this argument, the broadcaster speaks to mass migration enthusiast, Professor Ibrahim Abubakar from University College London (UCL), who said: “If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.
“To be successful, we need a fundamental rethink of global politics. The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers.”
Hungary Sees 5.5 Per Cent Birthrate Increase After Enacting Pro-Family Policies https://t.co/x6dIFyx8Ln
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) June 12, 2020
This sentiment — that mass migration will be mandatory — was echoed in the article by Professor Murray, who told the BBC: “We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough.”
Noting projections that the population of sub-Saharan Africa is set to treble to over three billion people by the end of this century, he argued that “global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical” in the coming years, stating that large numbers of African migrants and their descendants will be present in “many more countries”.
In addition, the BBC uses the article to stress that first world countries should not try to increase the fertility rate of their native populations, stating that “researchers warn against undoing the progress on women’s education and access to contraception”.
The article quotes Professor Stein Emil Vollset, who said: “Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women’s reproductive health or progress on women’s rights.”
While subcontracting the process of human reproduction abroad is increasingly the model for many developed and European nations, there are exceptions which suggest other ways are possible. Central European nation Hungary — led by national conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and directed by pro-family families minister Katalin Novák — has been actively pursuing pro-child policies with the object of stabilising the nation’s population without resorting to wholesale importation of humans.
Poland Agrees New State Pension For Mothers Who Dedicated Lives to Bringing up Families https://t.co/NE25fcTUZH
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) February 1, 2019
The policies include financial support and tax relief for families and intend to make women having the children they already wanted financially viable, rather than a burden. The policies seem to be working, too: Breitbart London reported earlier this year that the nation saw a 5.5 per cent rise in fertility in just 12 months under the new scheme.
Commenting on the purpose behind the scheme, a Hungarian government spokesman had earlier told Breitbart London that: “Europe is at a crossroads. Western Europe seeks to address the problem of demography with simple solutions which only offer short-term success, but convey catastrophic consequences in the long run.
“What we need is not numbers, but Hungarian children: we’re not seeking to sustain an economic system, but Hungary, the Hungarian nation and Hungarian history; we want to encourage the continuation of our families for several generations.”
The United Kingdom could pursue similar schemes, but for now, the government sees getting as many women working as possible as an objective, while the British tax system punishes single-income families where the mother stays at home to care for children.
Criticising this ‘mum tax’, motherhood campaigner Alena Kate Pettitt — known for her vocal advocation of real families in the British mainstream media, often facing hard criticism from the left for doing so — told Breitbart London: “This country relies on the strength of the family, the basic building block of our communities. The fact that we increasingly cannot afford to simply birth, raise first-hand, or even sustain a future generation throws our misguided priorities into a very harsh light.
“The government wants women to go to work, leaving parents relying on paid childcare and ever-longer school hours. Many families would rather keep the money spent on services that they could provide for themselves. Why encourage parents to outsource what should be the happiest years of their lives when they have the means to provide for a family themselves — or would, were it not for the tax system unfairly advantaging families where both parents work?”