So are europeans ok with going extinct or what?

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
What does this mean for the future of europe?

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
What does this mean for the future of europe?

"such a long time", not really. Birth rates can change exponentially over a generation. The UK had a short baby boom in 1990 and before that in 1964. We're keeping our numbers up. As a native European i want a football team sized family and i know that british families tend to go for the 2 children mark so we'll keep our number regardless. You mention the future of Europe but you forget about Westernisation, immigrants that come countries with large families tend to stop after a generation because their children will value the standard of living. So, we won't go extinct and it is incredibly unlikely that the UK's native population will be outnumbered by the sons and daughters of immigrants. However, hypothetically if it did happen then the very nature of Europe will change depending on the replacing dominant ethnic group as it obviously would. But that is also why we need to stress assimilation and not multi-culturalism so that if that ever did occur they would still be culturally british and still have british values.

Rather than exaggerate then it might be more helpful if you make clear what your claim is along with some evidence.

It neednt be a bad thing if populations are decreasing. They are still growing in most cases, just less quickly than Africa. the point would be that they are mature societies where people live longer and they have greater productivity. A lot of the slack is taken up by migrants. I wouldnt be writing Europe off just yet.

It makes more sens to have quality of life and prosperity than ten children families starving and asking for famine Aid in Africa. Whatever makes you happy though.

Assimilation is virtually impossible at this point, the numbers coming in now are just too great. It was different with the migrants in the decades after the Second World War, their numbers were small, and when you are one of the only non-white families in an area, then you have little choice but to assimilate into the host culture (though I would question how 'assimilated' a person of non-native descent can ever truly be. It's not at all hard to find second, third, even forth generation offspring of those early immigrants who will openly tell you they still don't feel they really belong here. They will often chalk it up to 'racism' making them feel unwelcome, but I think it's much deeper than that. At the very least they are still visibly different to everybody else and even if they have fully imbibed the superficial cultural aspects of being 'British', the fact remains they still don't have the deep ancestral connection to these lands and it's history, which I believe is fundamental in forming one's sense of identity and belonging to a nation. But that is a whole other topic for another day).

Today this is not the case, migrants are coming in such numbers now that they can just ghettoise into their own enclaves right off the bat, and that is exactly what we are starting to see in many towns and cities across Europe. I don't think I need to spell out how dangerous it is to have radically different and increasingly hostile parallel societies forming within a society (see former Yugoslavia). Halting further immigration would be a good start, but it won't go far enough. The only solution I see at this point is to as peacefully and humanely possible, send significant numbers of these people back to their ancestral countries, we can at least start with the ones who beligerantly refuse to integrate or assimilate and are only here for financial gain. I know it's highly controversial stuff I'm talking about, but it's a damn sight preferable to the nightmare that awaits us in a few decades if we do nothing about this (which I suspect is exactly what our governments will do. Nothing).

Assimilation is virtually impossible at this point, the numbers coming in now are just too great. It was different with the migrants in the decades after the Second World War, their numbers were small, and when you are one of the only non-white families in an area, then you have little choice but to assimilate into the host culture (though I would question how 'assimilated' a person of non-native descent can ever truly be. It's not at all hard to find second, third, even forth generation offspring of those early immigrants who will openly tell you they still don't feel they really belong here. They will often chalk it up to 'racism' making them feel unwelcome, but I think it's much deeper than that. At the very least they are still visibly different to everybody else and even if they have fully imbibed the superficial cultural aspects of being 'British', the fact remains they still don't have the deep ancestral connection to these lands and it's history, which I believe is fundamental in forming one's sense of identity and belonging to a nation. But that is a whole other topic for another day).

Today this is not the case, migrants are coming in such numbers now that they can just ghettoise into their own enclaves right off the bat, and that is exactly what we are starting to see in many towns and cities across Europe. I don't think I need to spell out how dangerous it is to have radically different and increasingly hostile parallel societies forming within a society (see former Yugoslavia). Halting further immigration would be a good start, but it won't go far enough. The only solution I see at this point is to peacefully and as humanely possible, send significant numbers of these people back to their ancestral countries, we can at least start with the ones who beligerantly refuse to integrate or assimilate and are only here for financial gain. I know it's highly controversial stuff I'm talking about, but it's a damn sight preferable to the nightmare that awaits us in a few decades if we do nothing about this (which I suspect is exactly what our governments will do. Nothing).

Assimilation is not impossible at this point, no-one expected the West Caribbeans to assimilate as well as they have done. I don't think it is easy to find a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant that will say that. I believe in the process of Westernisation and that the majority of those that came in the 60's, their descendents do consider themselves British. I'm not emphasising the superficial aspects of British culture but the culture in its entirety especially our national values. Fundamentally we seem to disagree on this, i believe the people shape themselves, you seem to think that the land shapes the people. I don't think you have to be born somewhere to have a sense of identity, i don't believe being British is only reserved to those whose families have resided here for centuries. How long would a family have to reside here until they form those ancestral roots to these lands? 3 generations? 10 generations? 20 generations?

I agree with you, immigrants should not set up their own societies within our own. It does hinder assimilation and does contribute to sections of society alienating from one another. I do disagree with your next point though, we should not send them back unjustly. Just to uproot immigrants because they have the wrong history, that by another name is ethnic cleansing. Borders are fine but just deporting people because we need to keep the majority could be devastating for people. At this stage, i'm happy with just stronger borders and i think what you want is just too extreme an option.

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
What does this mean for the future of europe?

Assimilation is possible for the minority of immigrants that actually care about adapting but given the speed at which new immigrants are coming and where they're coming from, it's extremely unlikely that these new waves will adapt. What makes you think that these people/ won't/ continue to join/form their own enclaves? People tend to take the easier route in everything. There's no incentive for these people to adapt when they already have ethnic niches they can fit into. I also don't see how removing these people would count as 'ethnic cleansing' since the people we'd be removing are people that are not ethnic europeans at all for the most part. Non-native europeans don't have a right to be in europe. It's a complete privilege given to them. I'm not promoting the removal of immigrants who have adapted to the western way of life, just the ones that don't adapt, specifically.

I disagree, assimilation is possible for all immigrants. Also there are insentives to assimilate, if there weren't foreigners wouldn't be speaking English in their every day lives for 1 example. Also i have no reason reason not to believe that they won't continue to group together but what you can notice is that the host culture is wearing down the cultural practises of the immigrants. It's a process hell with mixed race marriages on the rise most prevalently between whites and black does that mean nothing? Westernisation works, the family sizes of immigrants are falling generation after generation.

Now, if you move a group of people because of their ethnicity or religion that is ethnic cleansing. The gypsies are originally believed to be from India yet most reside in Europe. If we told gypsies to return to India simply because they've kept the ways and haven't assimilated, that is an ethnic cleansing. You are removing an ethnicity either by the sword or the boat the result is the same. How would you classify those that have and haven't properly assimilated. Would you only allow those that know all of the verses to god save the queen or those that work in Asda and keep to themselves? How would you tell who is or isn't assimilated. Besides people do things at different speeds, it may be easier for certain people to assimilate sooner than others. I totally disagree with you.