Norway is another example of a country with an extensive, well-qualified, and wealthy diaspora it could call upon to fill any serious labor or social gaps.
Norway, like Ireland, is a small country with a modest population of just 5.5 million. The wholly Norwegian population of the country is just 4.031 million while the immigrant population and their descendants top 1.15 million individuals. Some 45.5% of these immigrants, or 542,229 people, are of non-Western (largely non-White) extraction.
These immigrants also cost Norwegian taxpayers, dearly. Each non-White immigrant to the country will, over their lifetime, cost the Norwegian taxpayer some 4.1 million Norwegian crowns or $371,700 US dollars. This is sharply contrasted to educated White immigrants from Western countries who are net contributors to the Norwegian system over the course of their lifetime.
In contrast, the Norwegian diaspora is large, wealthy, and well-educated.
There are some 3.9 million Norwegian-descended Americans (Norskamerikanere), with 1.23 million claiming 100% Norwegian extraction. Norwegian Americans have maintained their Lutheran faith, continue to celebrate Norway’s Constitution Day, and have founded countless cultural and educational institutions which celebrate both their American homeland and Norwegian ancestry.
Hundreds of thousands more Norwegian-descended individuals reside in Canada, Australia, and other Nordic countries. If Norway is truly in need of 542,229 immigrants it would be better served replacing its largely dependent non-White population with 542,229 proud members of the Norwegian diaspora.
This policy of diaspora-based immigration applies to the vast bulk of Europe.
Poland, a nation with a rapidly aging population, is importing hundreds of thousands of people from the third world each year to make up for this worker shortage. Rather than importing masses of culturally alien immigrants Poland should be courting the roughly 20 million ethnic Poles who currently reside outside the country.
Similar States and Diaspora Nations:
Unlike the Irish or Norwegian emigrants who resettled in established nations the British people founded and populated several nations that retain, to this day, a strong British or British-inspired character and populations composed largely of British-descended individuals.
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand retain not only cultural and ethnic ties to the United Kingdom but also political ties through a shared monarchy, set of religious institutions, and language.
Nearly 50 million people of whole or partial British ancestry populate Britain’s former colonies or neighboring nations in Europe. While a further 90 million people in the United States lay claim to membership in the formative WASP stock which underpins American culture and nationhood.
Britain, and the countries that remain constitutionally and culturally linked to her, would be better served by establishing a freedom of movement zone between them so that skilled (ethnically) British labor could move between countries without hindrance.
Consideration might also be given to expanding this freedom of movement zone to other majority English-speaking and ethnically similar nations such as Ireland, Malta, and the United States. Special provisions might also be made for the 1.6 million people of English ancestry in South Africa so that they may return to Britain (or another country in the freedom of movement zone) where they won’t be a hated minority such as they are in modern South Africa.
France can look to the several distinct nations that its’ colonial empire brought about. However, they are not nations that currently possess sovereignty in the same way that Britain’s former dominions do today.
The most well-known of these French-derived nations is doubtless Quebec. The French-speaking Quebec, which is governed by a national assembly and not a provincial parliament, boasts a population of more than 2.15 million people who identify themselves as ethnically French and a further 4+ million people in the province lay claim to some French ancestry and speak French as their primary language.
Another 2 million people, largely spread across Canada and the United States claim membership in the Acadian (Acadien) nation. More than 300,000 people in Canada speak Acadian French while an additional 300,000 people in Louisiana, an American state, speak a local dialect of French which was imported when the Acadians were expelled from their colony by the British and resettled in the region.
Additionally, there are 6.4 million Americans who claim some degree of French ancestry with more than 1.5 million claiming to be of entirely French extraction. Similarly, Canada boasts more than a million additional French speakers outside of Quebec.
If, after France repatriates the great majority of its 13+ million non-White non-Western immigrants and their descendants, the French nation feels that it is still in need of immigrants to prop up its national economy it should look to the nearly 16 million members of its diaspora, many of whom speak French, for such immigrants.
The Case of America:
And finally, there is the case of the United States, a nation that has been convinced it is a “nation of immigrants” and that it has always been diverse.
The American nation, that is the White population that founded and underpins the country, is a remarkably un-diverse group. 52% of the roughly 195 million European Whites in the United States originate from the British Isles, a geographic area smaller than the state of New Mexico or less than half the size of Texas. Once Dutch and German Americans are included in the mix it becomes clear that 80+ percent of the White American population originates from an area of Europe roughly double the size of Texas and with remarkably little genetic or religious variation.
The vast bulk of these descendants of Europe remain protestants and share very similar cultural outlooks. They have integrated most of the Nordic, Italian, and Greek Americans into the majority American culture and created a remarkably cohesive White nation defined more by its domestic regionalism than by the various European groups that have come to settle it.
This integration continues today. Roughly 21% of Hispanics in the United States identify as Protestant while 20.3% of Hispanics identify as wholly ethnically European. These 12.6 million Whites from Latin America make up the majority share of Hispanic Protestants in the country and it is not only their religion that aligns with the majority White population. The small number of truly White Hispanics also have politics that align with the White majority. They vote, overwhelmingly, for Republicans and they are very dedicated to concepts such as Christian nationalism, an ideology also popular with the majority of White Evangelical Protestants.
These White Hispanics are much more likely to speak English at home and many of them intermarry with the heritage White population of the United States. In fact, almost half of ‘interracial’ marriages in the United States are between heritage White Americans and White Hispanics and are not truly interracial.
All of this is to say that the American nation, a White nation, is remarkably adept at integrating other Whites into the majority WASP culture. This propensity to integrate other Whites into the majority nation should inform future post-repatriation immigration policy in the same way that it informed previous American immigration policy.
From 1790, starting with America’s first immigration act (the 1790 Naturalization Act) until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 the United States maintained a race-based immigration system. Then from 1952 to 1965, the US maintained a quota system that continued to admit migrants from the European continent, though the legislation did expand quotas for European countries outside of the traditional Western European sphere.
For 120 years from 1850 until the 1970s America’s immigrant population never exceeded a 14.8% share of the national population. By 1970 just 4.7% of the population, about 9.7 million people, were recent immigrants.
