Friday, March 30, 2007
10% of Republic’s population now made up of non-Irish nationals
The principle demographic results from the 2006 census are out and show that Irish Republic now has a population of 4.24 million, 10% of which is made up by non-Irish nationals. In fact, 612,000 were born outside of the Republic with 438,000 coming from the EU. Could be interesting to see if this develops into an election issue.
The main places of origin are:
Northern Ireland 50,172
England and Wales 204,746
Scotland 16,863
Czech Republic 5,278
Estonia 2,373
France 9,307
Germany 11,797
Hungary 3,328
Italy 5,811
Latvia 13,999
Lithuania 24,808
Netherlands 4,292
Poland 63,090
Slovakia 8,201
Spain 6,207
Other European Countries 27,517
Romania 8,566
Russia 4,568
Ukraine 3,397
Moldova 2,260
Other 8,726
Africa total 42,764
Nigeria 16,677
South Africa 7,727
Zimbabwe 2,281
Congo 2,037
Other 14,042
Asia total 55,628
China 11,218
Philippines 9,644
India 9,342
Pakistan 5,850
Malaysia 3,409
USA 25,181
Brazil 4,720
Canada 4,618
Australia 6,624
New Zealand 2,393
Other interesting trends:
- Number of divorced persons has increased by 70 per cent, from 35,000 to 59,500 between 2002 and 2006
- The proportion of ever-married persons who were either separated or divorced increased from 7.5 per cent in 2002 to 8.7 per cent in 2006
- Number of Muslims up 13,400 since 2002 to just over 32,500
- 3.68 million Roman Catholic but the % share fell from 88.4 per cent in 2002 to 86.8 per cent in 2006
- 15% of all residences were vacant on census night
- Just 199 Polish pensioners
George @ 12:59 PM
Does anybody else out there think the actual Polish number is around three times greater than the census figure?
It’s fascinating stuff - the ROI is probably experiencing the greatest proportionate change in population of any EU country in terms of non-nationals. Wonder what happens if the property building market downturns?
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:09 PMThe Church of Ireland population is outstripping the growth of the catholic polulation - 6.3% versus 8.7.
By my estimation this means that if current trends continue there will be a Protestant majority by the year 3402.
Paisley will still be alive and will take the throne and any dissent will be ruthlessly suppresssed by the military wing of the Mothers Union.
Happy days!
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:18 PMIt’s a very healthy development in that the previously quite insular Irish are being exposed to other cultures and, hopefully, different ways of thinking.
I wonder what proportion of the non-nationals are entrepreneurs as opposed to low wage economic migrants.Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:20 PMCan we stop using this idiotic phrase “non-nationals”? Only stateless persons are non-nationals.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:41 PMI’m not sure what you mean Wednesday.
I think we all know what “non-national” means in the context of any country - anyone residing in that country who is not a citizen of that state.
What alternative word do you suggest?Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:44 PMWednesday,
I agree and mea culpa. Have changed it accordingly to the terminology used by the CSO - non-Irish national.Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:47 PMGeorge ,
Thanks for the ‘detail’
Bogexile ,
‘By my estimation this means that if current trends continue there will be a Protestant majority by the year 3402.’
Not at all by 3402 assuming humanity is still extant on the planet there’ll be an atheist/humanist majority on this island , and a Polish majority with a Taoiseach name of Sean O’Kowalski or some such ?
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:48 PMTheres a clear reason why there is such a high percentage of foreign nationals! Theres so much money to be made in Republic. The society is drastically multicultural which is wounderful. Pity Belfast, and much of its narrow minded loyalist/BNP believers could’nt move forward and come into this centuary. As we see the north is yet again been ‘destroyed bu Corp. Tax’! At the end of the day you all no the answer and t a 32 county republic free from the British hand outs and underfunding! We are secound class until it changes!
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:52 PMGeorge ,
‘Could be interesting to see if this develops into an election issue.’
It won’t. Not this time anyway.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 02:56 PMBogexile
LMAO. That did tickle me.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:10 PMMurphy
I think you are implying that it is only loyalists that are racist in Northern Ireland..I dodn’t think so!
Stop playing the second class citizen whinge.I’m a Nationalist and I ain’t no second class citizen in Northern Ireland!Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:27 PM“The Church of Ireland population is outstripping the growth of the catholic polulation - 6.3% versus 8.7.
By my estimation this means that if current trends continue there will be a Protestant majority by the year 3402.”
I think that’s quite ironic given that the trend on mainland Britain is the other way - with Catholics set to overtake the Anglicans as the as the largest branch of Christianity in Britain for the first time since the Reformation - mainly due to Eastern European immigration.
Wonder what Paisley and co would make of that!
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:32 PMAny idea what the non-national figures would be for the US Australia?
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:34 PMMmm, not too sure about this one, the criteria of birth as a benchmark is always dodgy. I’m a non-Irish nat according to above.
On the other hand, the figs for Polish, Chinese, Brazilian (there are surely more than 4,700 in South Connacht, must be 2000 in Gort alone) seem very low.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:46 PMBogexile
LOL!
Actually it could be much sooner surely as that would be a C of I majority! Add in Prebyterian and the fact that many of the African migrants are from smaller Protestant sects!
Sean O’Kowalski might be Co I by 3402!Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:46 PMTochais Síoraí,
no you aren’t part of the non-Irish national category, you are part of the not born in the Republic category.612,000 were born outside of the Republic, 419,000 of whom fit into the non-Irish national category.
The 193,000 would then be those from NI, children of return immigrants, second-generation diaspora making a life here, naturalised citizens etc.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 03:53 PMGas how only a couple of years ago Trimble descibed the Irish Republic as being a ‘’...pathetic sectarian, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state to our south….’‘
He was kinda out of touch here as well with a few other things.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:23 PMAt a guess, you can take those figures for non-Irish nationals and double them. You’ll get a fairly accurate census return from a household that is a family home, but much less accurate when there are ten immigrants to one house (and the landlord doesn’t know), when immigrants change digs regularly, don’t have the language skills to fill out the form, fear it, or couldn’t give a toss. It also, of course, only includes those who are here legally.
It’s all multicultural and sunshine while Ireland needs the immigrants, but wait until the economic downturn comes and the immigrants are competing for state handouts with the indigenous population, then we’ll see a more ugly side to Irish hospitality, alas.
A sensible cap on immigrants would be 15% of population (I think the EU says 10%). Realistically (and despite what the census says), we’re way above that figure.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:28 PM‘By my estimation this means that if current trends continue there will be a Protestant majority by the year 3402.’
A Protestant Irish Republic would be ideal, ....except we don’t want the Protestant monarchists!No Pope & no King!
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:31 PM“Can we stop using this idiotic phrase “non-nationals”? Only stateless persons are non-nationals.”
Yes it’s sounds an awful, negative tag.
“Non-Irish-nationals” - not much better, it probably only sounds good if you have a Belfast accent and have just consumed 10 pints of beer.
I like that other phrase you often hear these days - the “New Irish” - it has pedigree, it reminds me of the “Old English”.
It’s one of those “modern” and “at ease with itself” type phrases, rather pretentious and silly. It’s not like your going to ask a Nigerian or a Pole what their nationality is and they’re going to tell you “New Irish”.
Also, there is an island in the pacific ocean called New Ireland and I would presume that the inhabitants are the real New Irish.
I think by rights we should call them expats, or is it inpats?
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:33 PMThanks, George, for a while there i thought the Garda immigration boys were coming after me.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:34 PMLOL…there’s Definitely a lot more Poles in Ireland than that, and er…11,000 Chinese??? Come off it.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:40 PMThanks for making the change, George.
Joe:
I think we all know what “non-national” means in the context of any country
Other countries don’t use the term. If you Google it, you’ll see that nearly all the results are pages from Ireland.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 04:40 PMThe % of Catholics has fallen over 1% in 4 years. It will be just over 150 years before they are a minority in the Republic!
Of course for the Big Man to be President he would have to form a coalition with Muslims and Hindus. He would be a mature 240 something, so never say never.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 05:00 PMI find this figure to be absolutely terrifying! If in just a few years a figure like this can be achieved, what will society in the South look like within the next decade?
What does it mean to be English? That’s a question a lot of English people will have a tough time answering, mostly due to the fact that England has now become a multi cultural hell hole, with no sense of common identity. Lets just hope the Republic doesn’t make the same mistake or any sense of ‘Irishness’ could be lost forever.Posted by on Mar 30, 2007 @ 05:07 PM
