When FAKE ENVIRONMENTALISTS----those global 'green' corporation right wing citizens working for global 1% AND GLOBAL BIG AG AND GLOBAL OIL----we NEVER hear them shouting against what is a wholesale stripping of what will be the NEXT MOVE FOR CITIZENS in Western hemisphere.
As we see below we have VAST REAL ESTATE resources enough for all 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens now largely left without population because it is currently very cold and arid. What we see for GDP? That's right----all those PESKY GLOBAL MINING CORPORATIONS which were kept away all last century under left social progressive environmentalism are now being strip-mined, fracked, and fresh water aquifers drained.
THE PROTESTS OVER XL PIPELINE WERE A GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON EVENT----WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE----THE PROBLEM FOR OUR NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR SOVEREIGN LAND IS ----A 1% OF NATIVE CITIZENS WERE MADE RICH BY SIGNING OVER NATIVE LANDS TO FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL 1%.
Do we hear this as the problem from national media and FAKE LEFT GROUPS? No, and we do not hear how the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE should be as concerned NOW about these lands to the north.....but 30 years from now those far-right wing global banking FAKE ENVIRONMENTALISTS will be protesting like heck over environmentally destroyed vital real estate.
Canadian Provinces And Territories By Per Capita GDP
The Northwest Territories has the highest and the Prince Edward Island has the lowest GDP per capita in Canada.
An oil drilling rig in Alberta.
In 2015, Canada had a GDP of USD$1.55 trillion and was ranked the 11th in the world. The 10 provinces of Canada and the three territories all showed high GDP, although there is a wide variation among them. For instance Ontario is the most populous province in the country and is the manufacturing and trade hub in Canada. The province has extensive linkages with midwest and northeastern parts of the US. If Ontario was a country, it would rank the 20th in the world having the largest GDP, according to the figures of 2011. The GDP of the Canadian territories are comparable to the small island nations and consequently smaller than most cities in Canada. The Economies of the provinces of Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, and Alberta rely heavily on natural resources and these are the regions in the country with the highest per capita GDP values.
The Canadian States/Territories With The Highest GDP Per Capita
The Northwest Territories (NWT) is a territory in Canada covering an area of 442,000 square miles that had a population of 41,462 people in 2011 making it the most populous and the second largest of the three territories. By 2016 the population was estimated at 44,291. The primary resources in NWT include diamonds, petroleum, natural gas, and gold. The two world giant mineral resource companies Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton are engaged in mining in the region. In 2010, 28.5% of the total diamonds mined by Rio Tinto come from Divak Diamond mine in the NWT this was about 3.9 million karats. 100% of BHP diamonds mined came from EKATI mine in NWT amounting to 3.05 million karats. Northwest Territories has the highest per capita GDP among all the Canadian provinces and territories. In 2009, per capita GDP of NWT was CAD$77,000 and in 2015, it was CAD$109,122 while the GDP of the territory was CAD$4,828 million.
Alberta is a province in west of Canada and has a population of 4,196,457 people according to the estimates of 2015. It is the 4th most populous province in the country and the most populous of the three prairies provinces of Canada. The economy of Alberta is one of the strongest in the world supported by the petroleum industry, technology, and Agriculture. The per capita GDP of Alberta in 2013 exceeded that of US, Norway or Switzerland and was the highest of all the provinces of Canada standing at CAD$84,390. The figures exceeded the country’s average of CAD$ 53,870. In 2006 the difference from the national average was the largest recorded in any province in the history of Canada. The median annual family income in Alberta was CAD$70,986 after taxes, while the country’s average was CAD$60,270. In 2015, the province had per capita GDP of CAD$ 78,100 and the GDP for the province was CAD$ 326,433 million.
Yukon is the smallest and the west most of the three federal territories in Canada, the other two being the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It has the smallest population size of any province or territory in Canada of only 35, 874 people. The territory was carved out from the Northwest Territories in 1898. Yukon has all along been dependent on mining industry with minerals like gold, silver, copper, zinc, lead, and asbestos. Other significant industries include manufacturing, clothing, furniture, and handicrafts. The government is the biggest employer in Yukon employing about 5000 people out of the 12,500 labor force in the territory. In 2015, the per capita GDP of Yukon was CAD$ 72,473, while the total GDP of the territory was CAD$ 2,710 million.
Canadian Provinces And Territories By Per Capita
GDPRankProvince or Territory
GDP per capita (CAD$, 2015)GDP (million CAD$, 2015)1Northwest Territories109,1224,828
6Newfoundland and Labrador56,93530,100
13Prince Edward Island42,1576,186
The American people are familiar with the resounding ALBERTA TAR SANDS and the ALASKAN OIL DRILLING campaigns against environmental devastation but we never here WHY THESE REGIONS are vital for WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%. Many citizens are simply told it is those LEFTY TREE-HUGGERS------we are given no sense to how these regions will be our lifeline to survival as climate change advances. The environmental devastation in Canada is happening from coast to coast---coastline to bread basket central Canada and it is being done by the same OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% ----global banking neo-liberals vs global banking neo-cons in Canadian politics just as here in US.
We have asked people to think what the goals of OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% RICH might be for the AMERICAS that used to be their colonies---now MOVING FORWARD to being their colonies----and we KNOW they plan to strip these continents of any and all natural resources and load these nations with global 99% of citizens -----and sail off leaving billions of citizens having no way to leave the Americas or no way to survive in the Americas.
GLOBAL 1% ARE BUILDING THEIR GIANT ECODOME UTOPIA IN NORDIC/SIBERIA ----forget about getting a ticket to EX-PAT to these regions in several decades.
'Our clam beds have been destroyed'
One of the most ecologically abundant nodes of that region, an area known to the Heiltsuk as Qvuqvai - or Gale Creek - sits metres away from the crash site.
That was our lifeline and breadbasket. We've worked so hard to steward this territory to protect it for future generations. You have no idea how difficult it is for our community to have to deal with this.
Marilyn Slett, Heiltsuk elected chief '
TRUDEAU is of course CANADA'S Clinton------and Canada has the same tag team ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT as US-------no real candidates other than ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOR THE GLOBAL 1% ONLY................Of course these CANADIAN CITIZENS often native citizens are shouting ----YOU ARE KILLING OUR FOOD SOURCES----- indeed, that is the goal of MOVING FORWARD IN NORTH AMERICA.
"Now that Trudeau's in government, that promise no longer seems important to him any more," he told Al Jazeera'.
FeaturesUS & Canada16 November 2016
Canadian First Nation cleans up latest fuel spill mess
Fuel spill in Canada's Great Bear Rainforest adds to pressure to cut fuel transport lines on Pacific Coast.
An American tugboat and oil barge, transiting Canadian waters, had driven into a reef in Seaforth Channel [Tavish Campbell/Al Jazeera]
John Zada is a freelance journalist based in Toronto.
British Columbia, Canada - On the morning of October 13, Tracy Robinson, a hunter and fisherwoman living in the Heiltsuk First Nation community of Bella Bella, British Columbia, was preparing to go out on to the ocean, when the news reached her: An American tugboat and oil barge transiting Canadian waters had driven into a reef in nearby Seaforth Channel.
Fearing the worst, Robinson and her partner jumped into their boat and rushed to the scene. They arrived to find the tug still attached to its massive floating barge, but almost entirely under water.
Earlier that night the tugboat Nathan E Stewart, heading south after delivering fuel to Alaska, missed its turn into the channel and drove straight into the rocks off Athlone Island.
Although the 100-metre fuel barge it pushed was empty, the tug carried more than 200,000 litres of diesel and other industrial oils that were now leaking into the Pacific.
"I was in tears," Robinson said. "The water was murky and the scent was overpowering. You couldn't smell the fresh ocean breeze that you're used to. It was all diesel, as far as the eye could see."
For Robinson the tug couldn't have run aground in a worse spot. Heiltsuk First Nation Territory is located at the heart of the celebrated Great Bear Rainforest - the world's largest intact temperate rainforest whose land and waters contain some of the greatest biodiversity of life on earth.
The tugboat Nathan E Stewart, heading south after delivering fuel to Alaska, missed its turn into the channel and drove straight into the rocks off Athlone Island [April Bencze/Heiltsuk Nation] 'Our clam beds have been destroyed' One of the most ecologically abundant nodes of that region, an area known to the Heiltsuk as Qvuqvai - or Gale Creek - sits metres away from the crash site.
The narrow passage between islands contains ancient village sites where, for millennia, residents have harvested traditional seafood such as clams, salmon, crab, sea cucumbers, urchins, and seaweed for the traditional roe-on-kelp herring egg harvest.
A horrified Robinson and others watched helplessly from their boats as the widening, rainbow-hued diesel slick moved slowly towards the beaches and coves in the pass.
Since that morning weeks ago, the Heiltsuk and first responders have been working tirelessly to contain and mitigate the slick that has contaminated the food-rich shores of those low-lying islands abutting the open ocean.
That was our lifeline and breadbasket. We've worked so hard to steward this territory to protect it for future generations. You have no idea how difficult it is for our community to have to deal with this.
Marilyn Slett, Heiltsuk elected chief
The Heiltsuk, who have no significant oil-spill response capacity of their own, charge that official containment and cleanup efforts have been incompetent and disorganised - belying the world-class marine safety system that Canada and its industry partners have boasted about for years.
It took almost one full day for responders to arrive at the site, they say.
Containment and absorbent booms have been ineffective in containing the spill, often breaking in rough weather and storms and littering beaches with additional diesel. Divers were able to tap some fuel from the tug's tanks.
But around half of the boat's roughly 200,000 litres of diesel are believed to have escaped into the water.
Residents of Bella Bella and neighbouring Denny Island have been at the frontline of the response, laying thousands of metres of boom, flushing out beaches, and documenting the impact of the spill, often at great physical and psychological strain - including the effects of inhaling diesel fumes.
A variety of fish and birds, seals, crabs and otters have been found dead near the sheen. The spreading contamination has resulted in shellfish harvesting closures in the area.
"We have fuel on many beaches and our clam beds have been destroyed," said Heiltsuk elected chief Marilyn Slett.
"That was our lifeline and breadbasket. We've worked so hard to steward this territory to protect it for future generations. You have no idea how difficult it is for our community to have to deal with this," she told Al Jazeera.
Investigating the causes of the crash The cause of the crash is under investigation by US and Canadian authorities.
Jim Guidry, executive vice-president of vessel operations for the US-based Kirby Offshore Marine, which owns the Nathan E Stewart, apologised to the Heiltsuk and to British Columbians days after the incident.
In response to questions from Al Jazeera, Kirby Offshore Marine said that it is "fully cooperating" with the investigation.
The tug was still leaking fuel when it was pulled from the seabed by a giant floating crane on Monday, November 14, over a month after the spill.
The Canadian government had allowed the Nathan E Stewart (and other tugs and barges) to transit the narrow inside passages and channels without the usual requirement of a Canadian pilot with local knowledge of the area - an exemption that has since been revoked.
The fact that the tug missed the turn into the channel and drove straight into the rocks has fuelled speculation that the ship's pilot may have fallen asleep.
The Heiltsuk say that had the Nathan E Stewart been pushing petroleum, they would have had a far different spill on their hands.
The Heiltsuk First Nation community of Bella Bella, British Columbia, where an American tugboat and oil barge crashed into a reef in nearby Seaforth Channel [John Zada/Al Jazeera]"We had a 50-50 chance that this barge could have been full when this happened," Jess Housty, a member of the Heiltsuk tribal council, said in a video released by the Heiltsuk nation. "Had it been full we would be in a significantly worse situation. I don't even know how to quantify how much worse it would be."
This comparatively smaller incident has confirmed long-standing fears over a number of controversial fossil fuel pipeline and tanker projects slated for the British Columbia coast.
In September, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved, with environmental conditions, a Malaysian-led liquefied natural gas (LNG) project on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. Job creation and economic investment were cited as key factors motivating the decision.
The LNG site would occupy the entrance to the Skeena River Watershed - one of the world's last intact salmon systems. The decision prompted an outcry. First Nation groups have filed a lawsuit against the project, with some on social media calling for a Canadian version of the Standing Rock Sioux protests to stop it.
Two other pipeline-tanker projects on the coasts, including the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project in greater Vancouver, await similar federal rulings.
Heiltsuk First Nation Territory is located at the heart of the celebrated Great Bear Rainforest, as photographed before the fuel spill [John Zada/Al Jazeera]Oil lobbies and government Trudeau campaigned last year on a platform critical of his heavily pro-oil predecessor, Stephen Harper.
In addition to promising more forthright and genuine dealings with First Nations, he pledged to formalise a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia's north coast - a directive spelled out in the mandate letter to his transport minister after he won the election.
It has yet to be implemented.
"That promise was very important to many British Columbians because it showed his understanding of what matters to people on the coast," said Nathan Cullen, a federal MP with the opposition New Democratic Party representing the region of Northwest British Columbia in question.
"Now that Trudeau's in government, that promise no longer seems important to him any more," he told Al Jazeera.
Following the mounting criticism over the Kirby diesel spill and past and pending pipeline decisions, Trudeau announced a $1.1bn National Ocean Protections Plan to improve marine safety nation-wide.
"As a community, we need to protect our magnificent oceans," he said during the announcement, adding that the move was "long overdue".
But critics who had hoped that Trudeau would use the spill to make good on his promise to ban tankers on the North Coast say his announcement focuses on spill mitigation rather than prevention.
The prime minister's office didn't respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera.
Over 100,000 litres of diesel are believed to have escaped into the water where the tugboat Nathan E Stewart ran into the coast [Ian McAllister for Pacific Wild]After this experience, the Heiltsuk and other coastal first nations say they're now convinced that there is no such thing as effective oil-spill mitigation and cleanup - especially in an area as tumultuous and storm-lashed as British Columbia's north coast.
They're holding Trudeau to his promise, adding that their communities will be safe only if American fuel shipments transiting the area instead travel in safer ships far offshore.
"We also need to look at these smaller vessels carrying petroleum," said William Housty, the board chair of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department.
"That's US oil that's going up our waters to Alaska. We're sacrificing all we have for Americans to move their product. Why should we shoulder all the risk? They need to find another way to pass their oil to each other."
Whatever the government decides in the coming months, it won't mitigate the ecological damage done by the diesel spill, which the Heiltsuk worry will take many years to reverse.
"The hardest thing is knowing that I'm not going to teach my children how to harvest our traditional seafood from Gale Creek," said Robinson.
"My kids hug me every day when I come home, saying 'thank you for cleaning up the oil'. It's heartbreaking to tell them that Mummy and Daddy had to be out recovering diesel from the place we, our nation, gets our food."
It is no accident that many of native tribes in North America were pushed north into Canada as the US was industrialized global global 1% AND it was no accident that tribes were given TRIBAL LAND TREATIES on land known to be rich in minerals and natural resources. Tribes were kept too poor to benefit from that wealth PLUS our native cultures ARE STEWARDS OF OUR MOTHER EARTH.
What Clinton did here in US and we are sure the same was done in Canada in 1990s was to identify that same 1% of native citizens to make rich selling out those 99% of native citizens. That is what XL PIPELINE was about -----and it is what these wild-cat mining, stripping, fracking and environmental devastation of our northern territories is about. Where will 99% of WE THE PEOPLE need to be in several decades as climate change starts to advance? In these northern territories being decimated. Who will need to be there as much as left social progressive? Right wing voters calling REAL environmentalists TREE-HUGGERS----while we do indeed need to fight for our immediate rights -----we must develop strategies for what is NOT TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD.
First Nations millionaires club
Sun News Network
Published on Jul 19, 2012Ezra Levant looks at how the problems of First Nations communities lies in their chiefs' mismanagement of funds.
This is the problem we have in US with 30 acres and a mule for our black citizens wanting reparations. We are seeing the BOULE in black GREEK citizens deciding to be that 5% and here we see those same 1% deciding to be the native citizens' beneficiary of 30 acres and a mule.
Our native 99% of citizens have been shouting for these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA that this was happening here in US and as this video shows in Canada----we have long known this dynamic in CASINO earnings----we now have to watch as native 1% who are as much sociopaths as our 5% US white, black, and brown citizens----sell out native lands to great exploitation----they are getting that 30 acres and a mule.
December 1, 2014 10:57 pm
First Nation sets up mining rules for territory
By Staff The Canadian Press
A toxic spill from a British Columbia mine has prompted the country's nuclear watchdog to request a series of checks at seven uranium facilities.The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will discuss the failure of the tailings pond at the Mount Polley gold and copper mine during a meeting Wednesday. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward
A A WILLIAMS LAKE, B.C. – A group of First Nations from Williams Lake, B.C., whose territory includes the area devastated by the Mount Polley tailings pond breach has created a detailed mining policy that will apply to existing, proposed and future projects in its territory.
Northern Shuswap Tribal Council mining co-ordinator Jacinda Mack said Monday the policy is not meant to thwart mining in the area, but seeks to ensure the industry is sustainable, environmentally safe and has the support of First Nations.
The 54-page document was developed with the help of experts when the Xat’sull, formerly the Soda Creek First Nation, commissioned the project last year.
The plan was launched before the Mount Polley disaster last August when millions of litres of mine water and waste gushed over the landscape near Likely, B.C., and shut down operations at the Imperial Metals open pit, copper and gold mine.
“This policy isn’t about shutting down mining,” said Mack. “It’s basically saying we have four operational mines in our territory, and how are we going to deal with them in a way that makes them safer, more accountable and more engaged with us.”
She said the policy is tougher than current mining regulations in B.C. It does not override provincial laws but the group says it will serve as indigenous law for anyone doing mining business in more than five-million hectares of its traditional First Nations territory.
Under the aboriginal policy, mining companies can no longer stake a mineral claim on territory without attempting meaningful consultation with the First Nations, Mack said.
Companies will be held to a polluter pays principle to cover any operational damages and clean-up costs, she said. Environmental stewardship of the area, including potential impacts decades into the future, will be considered before the First Nations support the developments.
“It’s having to come to us with a clear understanding up front of what we want rather than kind of going through government,” said Mack. “This is saying we are a level of government in our territory and you need to speak to us as well, and our standards are higher and our level of scrutiny is beyond current mining legislation in B.C.”
Xat’sull First Nation Chief Bev Sellars said in a statement the document will serve as a rule book for companies wanting to do mining business in the Northern Shuswap territories.
“With this mining policy we can no longer be ignored or imposed upon, and the province and industry can no longer claim they do not know how to work with us — this document spells that out in clear, specific terms,” said Sellars in her statement.
B.C.’s Energy and Mines Ministry said in a statement it is reviewing the Northern Shuswap’s mining policy document.
“The province is committed to working with First Nations so they can benefit from economic activity in their traditional territories,” said ministry spokesman David Haslam in a statement.
“Over the past four years, the province and First Nations have signed more than 200 agreements, including strategic engagement agreements; reconciliation agreements; economic and community development agreements; forestry agreements and clean-energy project revenue-sharing agreements.”
Billionaires around the world came to their money just as here in US----they were ROBBER BARONS looting their nations' of its public wealth and from their sovereign citizens' pockets. They needed to offshore wealth as all nations' are being brought to economic crash and extreme deep depression and currency collapse. Where are those billionaires divesting of all that looted wealth? Well, we shout that all US Foreign Economic Zones will be flush with global 1% and their 2%-----they are buying these northern real estates in Canada, the Nordic, and Siberian regions.
Owning residential homes in all Foreign Economic Zone city centers ---like Baltimore is not a hard thing to do for a billionaire----the race to capture real estate in the north hedging against CLIMATE CHANGE is the race WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% are not EVEN IN.
THINK THESE ARE THE 300 FAMILIES OF OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%? YOU BETCHA.
While the American people are posting sexual photos of Trump's wife and marching in FAKE UNITED NATIONS' populist revolutionary protests led by 5% global 1% players----over a billion citizens in Europe, US, and Canada are allowing these 300 families MOVE FORWARD to eliminating most of those 99% black, white, and brown citizens. It is great to have a focus on community gardens but know what? That local focus is deliberately hiding what REAL ISSUES WE THE PEOPLE must work.
Remember, our first natives came from Asian regions across the BERING STRAIT----it was frozen from ICE AGE to today and that ICE LAND BRIDGE is melting. We want to be very, very aware that bringing billions of global 99% of citizens to US and Canada at the same time depleting all natural resources and polluting all real estate will not end well for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
300 billionaires are also immigrants
by Rishi Iyengar @Iyengarish March 23, 2017: 1:44 PM ET
The life hacks and habits of billionaires
Germany, India and China are great at producing billionaires -- but not so good at keeping them.More than 80 of the world's wealthiest individuals were born in one of these three countries but now live abroad, according to new research from Hurun Report.
Germany tops the list: 31 billionaires of German origin have migrated to another country, followed by India (30), greater China (24), the U.K. (16), U.S. (13) and Italy (11).
Powered by SmartAsset.com
In total, Hurun Report said that 300 -- that's 13% -- of the world's billionaires no longer live in the country of their birth.
Billionaires on the move appear to have preferred destinations -- nearly half the German billionaires are based in Switzerland, while India's super wealthy have predominantly settled in the U.A.E. and the U.K. Meanwhile, nine Chinese billionaires have migrated to the U.S., while five each reside in Singapore and the Philippines.
The U.S., however, is the top overall destination for immigrant billionaires, with 73 of them now calling the country home. That includes Google's (GOOGL, Tech30) Russian-born co-founder Sergey Brin, whose net worth of $36 billion makes him the world's richest immigrant.
This is the first year that Hurun Report has produced the ranking of immigrants.
"Immigration is polarizing nations today," Hurun Report chairman Rupert Hoogewerf said in a statement. "This report is designed to give an insight into how immigrants have contributed to global wealth creation."
The report said that 32% of immigrant billionaires left their home countries before adulthood. Twenty-seven percent moved after making their fortunes.
Of course, many of the richest billionaires are perfectly happy at home. The report estimates that 40% of billionaires -- including Microsoft founder and world's richest man Bill Gates, renowned U.S. investor Warren Buffett, and Alibaba chairman Jack Ma -- still live and work in the same city where they grew up.
Most Americans and global citizens understand that Trump is KABUKI THEATER-----he was installed to MOVE FORWARD to far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, dictator extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. He is simply the next stage to CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ONE WORLD FOR THE GLOBAL 1%.
The craziness over the TRUMP WALL is all being sold as KEEPING IMMIGRANTS OUT OF US----when the goal is keeping those billions of global labor pool brought to US and Canadian Foreign Economic Zones INSIDE NORTH AMERICA----it is indeed a STALINIST WALL----things in US are about to get BRUTAL IN MOVING FORWARD.
We want to understand as we fight MOVING FORWARD TODAY----where in the world the 99% need to be in only several decades. We shout to global labor pool -----it is best to fight from inside our own sovereign governments then to be made EX-PATS sent to North America, Middle-East, or Africa----
For thousands of years people made their way north from Africa----these few centuries have seen those migrations of Africans globally. In Moving Forward ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% ----the African Continent will become as the American continents----it will be contained ----no migrations----no immigrants or global labor pool coming from these African/Middle-East continents. The Asian global 1% as the Middle-Eastern global 1% are already buying that real estate in the north. We can bet DRONE security will not allow BOAT PEOPLE----onto this Eastern European/Asian continent.
While Asian nations send off by the millions their sovereign citizens to North America, Middle-East, and Africa----we know plans are already underway to build that same TRUMP WALL across Asia to keep citizens from migrating to the north.
'The crowd was so enthusiastic for President Trump that one might have thought he was back in the States leading one of his own campaign rallies. The flag-waving Poles frequently interrupted Trump’s speech with chants of “Donald Trump! Donald Trump! Donald Trump!”'
THE WESTTrump in Poland: Akin to Reagan, Churchill
Andy Schlafly likens president's speech to history-making addresses by Western leaders
Published: 07/11/2017 at 7:29 PM
Andy Schlafly is general counsel to the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and founder of Conservapedia.com. He is the son of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, "The Conservative Case for Trump," was published posthumously on Sept. 6.
Can Western civilization survive? Does it even still exist? Liberal intellectuals have already consigned that term to the proverbial “ash heap of history” along with such ailments as racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and colonialism.
The riches of our Western heritage are no longer taught in our public schools, studied in our colleges, or cited by our political leaders. The media insist on exaggerated gestures toward diversity and multiculturalism, denigrating “dead white males” and the English language, and constantly (but inaccurately) describing the United States as a “nation of immigrants.”
With one powerful speech, President Trump has changed the terms and tone of the entire discussion. He has made it not just acceptable, but necessary to speak and act in defense of the Western culture that made America.
Trump’s historic speech last week in Poland was of the same importance as Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946, which marked the beginning of the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall,” which led to America’s victory in that war.
It’s no accident President Trump chose Poland as the place for his powerful speech about civilization, culture and borders. At key points in world history, the Polish nation has been on the front line of the never-ending battle against barbarism.
Surviving members of the “greatest generation” will remember how Poland was divided and dismembered by the two monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, following their “non-aggression pact” of Aug. 23, 1939. Hitler crossed Poland’s borders from the west while Stalin invaded from the east, starting a new world war in Europe.
Trump harkened back to the valiant effort by the Polish Home Army to revolt against the Nazi occupation in 1944, which ended with the Nazis mercilessly destroying Warsaw. That uprising followed several years after the Katyn Forest massacre, in which the Soviet secret police rounded up 22,000 Polish reserve officers, who included doctors, lawyers and other educated professionals, tied their hands behind their backs, fired a bullet to the back of their heads and buried them in mass graves.
Even after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany in 1945, Poland remained under Soviet domination for another 45 years. Poland threw off the Communist yoke in 1989, inspired by its native son, Pope John Paul II, who outmaneuvered official atheism to celebrate 1,000 years of Christianity in his homeland.
That was not the first time Poland helped to save Western civilization, also known as Christendom, against a barbarian invasion. Three centuries earlier, on Sept. 11, 1683, an army led by the Polish king known as Jan III Sobieski defeated the Muslim invaders at the Gates of Vienna.
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump challenged Europe and America, adding, “Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders?” Poland, of all nations, knows that borders are essential and must be defended at all costs.
The crowd was so enthusiastic for President Trump that one might have thought he was back in the States leading one of his own campaign rallies. The flag-waving Poles frequently interrupted Trump’s speech with chants of “Donald Trump! Donald Trump! Donald Trump!”
Trump’s speech was brilliant not only for what Trump said, but where he said it. The successful conservative leadership of pro-life Poland has become a model for the rest of Europe to follow, not abandon.
“Where are you going, Europe? Get up off your knees. Get out of your lethargy. Otherwise you will be crying every day for your children.” Those were not the words of President Trump, though they certainly could have been.
Instead, that quotation was from the conservative Polish prime minister, Beata Szydło, in May in response to threats by the European Union to fine her country if she did not accept more refugees. Mrs. Szydło properly stood up against what she called blackmail, and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have also taken strong stances against opening their borders to migration.
“We are confronted by another oppressive ideology – one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another. We’re going to get it to stop,” Trump pledged to applause.
“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive,” Trump observed. He even praised innovation, which Phyllis Schlafly long recognized as essential to maintaining continued prosperity in the United States.
“Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield – it begins with our minds, our wills and our souls.” Trump explained that “our freedom, our civilization and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture and memory.”
Trump is simply identifying these NORDIC AND SIBERIAN LANDS as the goal of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THOSE GLOBAL 1%...............the global 1% are after this thousands of years battle for SCYTHIAN REAL ESTATE.........
'Based in what is modern-day Ukraine, Southern European Russia, and Crimea, the western Scythians were ruled by a wealthy class known as the Royal Scyths. The Scythians established and controlled a vast trade network connecting Greece, Persia, India and China, perhaps contributing to the contemporary flourishing of those civilizations'
The Asian global 1% have been very good partners with the US and Europe these several decades of bringing our strong US thriving developed nation economy and 99% of people down to third world status. We don't think the Asian global 1% are fighting ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% ----we think they are trying to manage their billions of sovereign citizens out of the picture just as is happening in US and Canada.
We spoke some weeks ago about all of China being under the 45 degree latitude meaning these global Asian leaders need to push NORTH into MONGOLIA----don't think that a MONGOLIAN AND CHINESE global 1% are unfriendly ---we bet they will create these same EX-PAT CONDITIONS pushing as many Asian sovereign citizens out of these nations.
'China exploits Mongolia’s position to the full. One of the reasons it is such an important trading partner is that Mongolia needs ports, and China provides them. This is also why for many years only one port, Tianjin, was made available, and China paid 30% less than market value for any commodity it imported from Mongolia, or exported onwards, as a form of assistance fee'.
Poland during these few decades of REAGAN'S BREAKING DOWN THE WALL were one of the heaviest EX PAT populations. All of this celebratory media overseas mirrors that here in US and our FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT. Here in US we see filling our US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----these very population groups----
17.08.2017 Author: Seth Ferris
What China Wants Tomorrow, Mongolia Does Today
Region: Central Asia
Mongolia’s honor guard regiment has always had a lot of national “flair”
Russia and China are emerging powers with the potential to rule the world, at the expense of the current balance of power. Sometimes they are in partnership, sometimes in conflict. Consequently every move these countries make is reported, analysed and responded to.
But if you look at a map, you may well wonder: why don’t we hear more about Mongolia? Both Russia and China have long seen this landlocked country as a buffer against the other, and that other emerging giant, Kazakhstan, is within walking distance. All three of these countries have agendas towards it, and as a landlocked country Mongolia is obliged to show the utmost respect to neighbours bigger and more powerful than itself. So are we to believe that nothing significant ever happens in Mongolia?
In fact Mongolia continues to serve the purpose it has since it regained its independence nearly a century ago. The Eastern version of the Spanish Civil War is being played out there. Not with guns, but with great powers playing proxy politics. Projecting their ideas onto this helpless neighbour, they try out things they can’t openly try at home and see how they work out – and if successful, use them against the other, and anyone else they want to gain an advantage over.
During Cold War times the Soviet Union was Mongolia’s puppeteer. But now it is most definitely China, which takes full advantage of the opportunity to research on its grasping elite and poverty-stricken masses. What works in Mongolia today is what China will try elsewhere tomorrow: and is there any country on earth where China is not a major investor, a serious political partner or an invasion waiting to happen?
When red tape isn’t red enough
Take the latest headline: “Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to be Disbanded“. Government agencies come and go, and the functions of this commission are being absorbed by other bodies. But the significance of this move is not lost on Mongolians or Chinese, or anyone dealing with China now.
As everyone knows, China refuses to restore Tibetan self-rule and routinely objects when the Dalai Lama, considered Tibet’s political as well as spiritual leader, makes trips to other countries from his exile in India. True to form, it has objected to every visit the Dalai has made to his co-religionists in Mongolia, on one occasion retaliating by blockading the railway .
Mongolia’s new president, Khaltmaagiin Battulga, has only been in office a month. But he was in government during the Dalai’s last visit, in 2011, during which he relocated some of the Dalai’s audiences to avoid upsetting the Chinese, even though the visit was of a religious, and not political, nature.
Battulga is a businessman, and China is by far Mongolia’s major trading partner. It is not hard to see why Mongolia would want to erase a separate Tibetan Affairs Commission from its list of government agencies. It is also not hard to see why this action would be presented the way it is, rather than an overt acknowledgement that China is calling the tune.
Hostages to misfortune
China exploits Mongolia’s position to the full. One of the reasons it is such an important trading partner is that Mongolia needs ports, and China provides them. This is also why for many years only one port, Tianjin, was made available, and China paid 30% less than market value for any commodity it imported from Mongolia, or exported onwards, as a form of assistance fee.
In return for good behaviour, China is now opening up more ports. But it is also increasing is stranglehold over the Mongolian economy, which is largely dependent on mineral exports and the general health of China.
Mongols have proved themselves true descendants of their independent-spirited ancestors who once had the largest contiguous land empire the world has ever seen. Though they seek increasing foreign investment from Western countries they also have deep-rooted objections to the exploitation of their resources by so many foreign companies for the benefit of a small and notably corrupt elite, and these views must be taken into account in the healthy democracy introduced after 1990.
The electors rejoiced when increasing restrictions were imposed on foreign companies by the previous government, as these were designed to ensure more wealth flowed to the people. However they simply dissuaded the electors from entering Mongolia in the first place. Who benefitted? China. Mongols are worse off without the investors; China has gained greater leverage and enough resources of its own not to need favourable agreements with Mongolia.
Similarly, the democratic revolution after the fall of the Soviet Union resulted not only in multi-party democracy but advanced electoral laws, such as counting blank ballots in the total cast and insisting that candidates have to gain a majority of all votes cast, including the blank ballots. It also introduced a mixed electoral system in which some parliamentary seats were decided by first past the post voting and others allocated proportionally. This gave new parties the opportunity to make an impact, an important prerequisite in a country which has abandoned one system and is trying to introduce another.
Mongolia is one of those former Communist countries where the old ruling party, the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP), just rebranded itself as social democrat and continued as before. It has enjoyed spells of democratically-sanctioned rule, whilst continuing to display a lot of Soviet era tendencies .
But in 2010 the MPRP decided to complete its rebranding by removing the word “Revolutionary” from its name. Former leader Nambaryn Enkhbayar objcted to this, so broke away and founded a new MPRP to continue the traditions of the old. This new party gained proportional seats and entered government alongside the old MPRP’s centre-right rivals, the Democratic Party.
The Chinese communists were happy to indulge the MPRP’s new line, as it was merely a further extension of its own evolution. It was another Chinese experiment in Mongolia. But when it resulted in a split this was not acceptable. Unsurprisingly, Enkhbayar was prevented from standing in the next election on corruption charges, which are applied very selectively in a country famous for political graft. Similarly the electoral system was changed to a purely first past the post one, which favours established parties over new ones. The new MPRP now has only one seat in parliament, and no hope of displacing the old MPRP as the voice of the left.
All these things might have happened anyway. But it seems that every change made in Mongolia benefits China more than anyone, including Mongolia itself. Modern Mongolia may have won its independence from China in the first place, but China is now getting is payback big time.
Mongolia is always keen to stress that it has a “Third Neighbour” policy, which means that it regards itself as closer to the Western world than to Russia or China, and seeks Western assistance where possible. This is also something China is happy to indulge as an experiment, as it is gaining an ever greater footprint of its own in the West in key areas such as infrastructure.
Mongolians are increasingly educated in the West, whereas previously they found themselves in the Eastern bloc. These students and prospective entrepreneurs thus form a sort of advanced guard for China, which wants to know how far it can push the export of its own ways, and the importation of foreign ways, whilst continuing to turn things to its own advantage.
Mongolians are under no illusions about this. The older ones remember the Soviets playing the same game with them. Though a Soviet satellite state Mongolia was allowed to retain nominal independence so the Soviets could see how far their own ideas went.
Mongolia was often run by non-communists, despite its total dependence on the Soviet Union in retaining its “independence”. This promoted the idea that Soviet-style communism was a historical inevitability which political leaders of all views would eventually end up practising, and was thus a perpetual threat to the West.
These non-communists also advocated the reintegration of the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia with the independent state, whilst nationalist China advocated the opposite. When the nationalist Chinese delegation vetoed Mongolia’s application for UN membership in 1955 on the grounds that Mongolia was part of China but was then forced to back down, as the international community was happy to accept the Moscow-declared status quo.
The proxy Nazi-Soviet fight known as the Spanish Civil War ended in victory for the Nazis in 1936. Emboldened by this, Hitler created World War Two only three years later. Hungarians might ponder the connection between Moscow getting its own way via Mongolia in 1955 and it moving in to crush the Hungarian Revolution, despite international condemnation, the following year.
Mongolia emerged from that period with a new democratic system achieved by Mongolians rather than imposed by new invaders. Mongols now hope this will happen again, and the country’s Western orientation is designed to increase this independence, which is celebrated even by those who utterly reject the communist orientation of those who achieved it. But Western investment is worthless if you can’t get the goods out. Landlocked countries can’t preserve their independence without having good relations with the neighbours who give it access to the sea, and thus international trade.
Foreign investment in Mongolia, when it comes, takes two forms. The main one is foreign companies, and sometimes governments, investing in exploiting its mineral or agricultural resources. But they can only do this if they get their goods to market, and the more you invest, the more you need the infrastructure to do that. Who invests in infrastructure? China, as another of its Mongolian experiments.
The other countries need to know they will get the goods out before committing to infrastructure development. China doesn’t need Mongolian goods, but does need to control the supply of those goods. Almost all of Mongolia’s public facilities are either Soviet-era holdovers or newer Chinese developments. In practice, this means other countries will only be able to trade in ways Beijing wants. This has long been a Chinese policy, and Mongolia is being used to see how far other countries are prepared to submit to it.
China has now turned the economic screw even more by founding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, dedicated to this purpose. Eventually, other countries will object to the price they have to pay to invest in countries where they can’t move without China. But the more Mongolians themselves object, and secure trade agreements with other countries, the more this, once again, benefits China.
Words don’t speak louder than words
Mongolia sees the problem of being more of a plaything the more it can offer. It is building a new international airport for Ulaanbataar, which will be able to handle a lot more traffic, of higher carrying capacity, than the present very restricted one. It is also trying to involve Russia in its trade arrangements more. These measures may indeed integrate Mongolia’s trade relations so that China can’t move without greater co-operation with others on Mongolia’s terms. But for now Mongolia can only make do with cosmetic gestures to placate an increasingly restless, left behind population who no one else wishes to help.
Businessman-president Battulga has promised to support Mongolia’s traditional way of life, the herding, grazing and breeding practiced by the nomads who inhabit its wide open spaces. As these nomads largely support his political opponents in the old and new MRPR, and he only won the election by a tiny margin, he is likely to make good on this promise. But what will that actually mean, if these nomads cannot be integrated with the trade priorities set by the wealthy political elite in the capital?
Battulga is promising in effect to “take back control”. He is part of the oligarchy who got rich after communism fell, but says he wants to redistribute wealth more widely. China is struggling with how to maintain the one party state now a nouveau riche has emerged, as many other countries have before. Maybe restoring the importance of traditional practices will unite the poor with the elite against the new fancypants who think their opinions are more important now. If this fails, it will affect Mongolia but not China, If it succeeds, China has much more to gain from it.
All great powers like to see just what they could get away with if they tried. The US has forfeited a lot of international goodwill by doing the same in its allied countries. But first it was the Soviet Union and now China–they have been using Mongolia as their policy testing ground for a hundred years. What Mongolia does today is what China wants to do elsewhere tomorrow, but can’t yet get away with or be sure it will work. It is Western fear of eventual Chinese conquest, not lack of newsworthiness, which is keeping Mongolia off the front pages.
Here in US our black 99% of citizens are under attack from their 5% to the 1% with goals of enslaving them in Foreign Economic Zone global corporate factories both in US and in African nations. We see GARVEY'S LET'S ALL LEAVE FOR LIBERIA happening all over again---GHANA for example is one global factory zone being built needing global labor pool workers.
AFRICA will be toast in the coming climate change as will Middle-East so any movement of any global 99% to these nations will end with them being stranded in the very regions of EARTH hit hardest by climate change. Our US 5% to the 1% white, black, and brown citizens are working hard for global 1% to position WE THE PEOPLE where the SUN DON'T SHINE.
PLEASE THINK AND EDUCATE STRONGLY AS TO WHERE IN THE WORLD IS BEST FOR THIS NEXT EX-PAT MIGRATION -----WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL GLOBAL 99% ---WE DO KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING---AND THAT IS SECURING THESE NORTHERN LATITUDES FOR ALL GLOBAL CITIZENS AND NOT ONLY THOSE GLOBAL 1%.
Zambia reviews investment in multi-facility economic zones
Zambia's investment agency said on Friday that it was reviewing requirements for investing in Multi-Facility Economic Zones in order to allow local investors invest in the facilities.
Sep 26, 2015
Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) Director-General Patrick Chisanga said the agency was reviewing among other things the threshold that one should have at least 500,000 U.S. dollars to invest in the Multi-Facility Economic Zones, according to state-broadcaster, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation.
The official said the threshold was acting as a barrier for Zambians to invest within the zones, hence denying them an opportunity to enjoy the incentives that come with investing in the zones.
The investment agency, he said, wanted to see many Zambian investors enjoying the incentives provided by investing in the zones as the facilities were not restricted to foreign investors only.
He said there was currently interest from some local investors to invest in the Lusaka and Chambishi Multi-Facility Economic Zones.
The Multi-Facility Economic Zone is a government program introduced to Zambia in 2005 by the Japanese government. The aim is to create a platform for Zambia to achieve economic development by attracting significant domestic and foreign direct investment through a strengthened policy and legislative environment.
The zones are special industrial zones for both export-oriented and domestic-oriented industries. Enditem
We are seeing for our 99% black US citizens this same movement by a global 1% black citizens to divest themselves of 99% of citizens into what MOVING FORWARD make a return to global enslavement. It appears to us there are agreements between African and US PAN AFRICAN global 1% to exchange their sovereign citizens as is happening to white and brown global citizens. African citizens sent to US-----US black 99% sent to Africa----both regions not ending well for surviving climate change----we can bet those global 1% of PAN AFRICAN citizens are buying their real estate in northern regions.
The US has always had this racial tug-of-war wear white citizens tied to race want to ship black citizens overseas and black citizens tired of racism decide to go overseas. The 99% of black, white, and brown citizens really must SHAKE RACE AND CLASS and come together as a 99% vs 1%. So, we have native Americans and Canadians on real estate that will be the most habitable and should be made into food breadbaskets----selling out to global 1% and their destruction. Our 99% of native citizens need to head north as much as everyone else-----we need to stop protesting FAKE ISSUES FOR OUR TRIBES----and STOP MOVING FORWARD BY ENDING US STATUS OF FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ACROSS AMERICA AND CANADA.
The PAN AFRICAN crowd are the same UNITED NATIONS ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE UTOPIA FOR THE GLOBAL 1%----as we just talked about in Asia and Eastern Europe-----so please don't listen to TALKING POINTS on economic development and where the jobs will be------know when nothing is being done to secure REAL COMMUNITY/FAMILY STABILITY -----there is nothing being done in US Foreign Economic Zones not tied to MOVING FORWARD.
What is Pan-Africanism?
How Pan-Africanism Has Developed as a Modern Socio-Political Movement
by Alistair Boddy-Evans
Updated January 20, 2017
P an-Africanism was Initially an anti-slavery and anti-colonial movement amongst black people of Africa and the diaspora in the late 19th century. Its aims have evolved through the ensuing decades.
Pan-Africanism has covered calls for African unity (both as a continent and as a people), nationalism, independence, political and economic cooperation, and historical and cultural awareness (especially for Afrocentric versus Eurocentric interpretations).
History of Pan-Africanism
Some claim that Pan-Africanism goes back to the writings of ex-slaves such as Olaudah Equiano and Ottobah Cugoano. Pan-Africanism here related to the ending of the slave trade, and the need to rebut the 'scientific' claims of African inferiority.
For Pan-Africanists, such as Edward Wilmot Blyden, part of the call for African unity was to return the diaspora to Africa, whereas others, such as Frederick Douglass, called for rights in their adopted countries.
Blyden and James Africanus Beale Horton, working in Africa, are seen as the true fathers of Pan-Africanism, writing about the potential for African nationalism and self-government amidst growing European colonialism. They, in turn, inspired a new generation of Pan-Africanists at the turn of the twentieth century, including JE Casely Hayford, and Martin Robinson Delany (who coined the phrase 'Africa for Africans' later picked up by Marcus Garvey).
African Association and Pan-African Congresses
Pan-Africanism gained legitimacy with the founding of the African Association in London in 1897, and the first Pan-African conference held, again in London, in 1900. Henry Sylvester Williams, the power behind the African Association, and his colleagues were interested in uniting the whole of the African diaspora and gaining political rights for those of African descent.
Others were more concerned with the struggle against colonialism and Imperial rule in Africa and the Caribbean. Dusé Mohamed Ali, for example, believed that change could only come through economic development. Marcus Garvey combined the two paths, calling for political and economic gains as well as a return to Africa, either physically or through a return to an Africanized ideology.
Between the World Wars, Pan-Africanism was influenced by communism and trade unionism, especially through the writings of George Padmore, Isaac Wallace-Johnson, Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire, Paul Robeson, CLR James, WEB Du Bois, and Walter Rodney.
Significantly, Pan-Africanism had expanded out beyond the continent into Europe, the Caribbean, and Americas. WEB Du Bois organized a series of Pan-African Congresses in London, Paris, and New York in the first half of the twentieth century. International awareness of Africa was also heightened by the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935.
Also between the two World Wars, Africa's two main colonial powers, France and Britain, attracted a younger group of Pan-Africanists: Aimé Césaire, Léopold Sédar Senghor, Cheikh Anta Diop, and Ladipo Solanke. As student activists they gave rise to Africanist philosophies such as Négritude.
International Pan-Africanism had probably reached its zenith by the end of World War II when WEB Du Bois held the fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester in 1945.
After World War II, Pan-Africanist interests once more returned to the African continent, with a particular focus on African unity and liberation. A number of leading Pan-Africanists, particularly George Padmore and WEB Du Bois, emphasized their commitment to Africa by emigrating (in both cases to Ghana) and becoming African citizens. Across the continent, a new group of Pan-Africanists arose amongst the nationalists -- Kwame Nkrumah, Sékou Ahmed Touré, Ahmed Ben Bella, Julius Nyerere, Jomo Kenyatta, Amilcar Cabral, and Patrice Lumumba.
In 1963, the Organization African Unity was formed to advance cooperation and solidarity between newly independent African countries and fight against colonialism.
In an attempt to revamp the organization, and move away from it being seen as an alliance of African dictators, it was re-imagined in July 2002 as the African Union.
Pan-Africanism today is seen much more as a cultural and social philosophy than the politically driven movement of the past. People, such as Molefi Kete Asante, hold to the importance of ancient Egyptian and Nubian cultures being part of a (black) African heritage, and seek a re-evaluation of Africa's place, and the diaspora, in the world.
The reason we are sure a TRUMP WALL is not about keeping those pesky 99% of LATINO IMMIGRANTS out is this------we don't think there are many REAL LATINO 99% left in Central and South America. These nations have been under assault for several decades by global banking neo-liberalism and Foreign Economic Zone development bringing in global labor pool and pushing out sovereign LATINO CITIZENS----either sent overseas to Foreign Economic Zones or pushed into US now Canada.
Heading into Canada is the LAST FRONTIER----remember, the global 1% for our Latino nations ARE the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% PORTUGUESE AND SPAIN----so they have already established who gets that northern real estate in Canada----
We are shouting to STOP MOVING FORWARD in all US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones AS THE TOP PRIORITY because WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% will have no chance in containing global 1% brutal far-right authoritarianism if we don't STOP IT NOW IN US CITIES! Please fight for the control of our US cities and a local small business economy but be aware of policies MOVING FORWARD in our northern regions---that will be the future for those US citizens remaining in BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE #2 NORTH AMERICA-----formerly Baltimore MD USA.
Latin American immigrants make waves in Canada as Generation Ñ
Unlike the generation of Latin American immigrants before them, Generation Ñ are younger, more educated, bilingual and business-savvy
Darren Calabrese/National Post
Special to Financial PostFebruary 4, 2013
8:01 AM EST
A smooth Spanish accent and a wooden surfboard on a shelf in his office on Toronto’s King Street West hint at Diego Casco’s origins. Otherwise, the Costa Rican graphic designer might be from anywhere.
But after running his own design and communications company for the past 12 years and “just wanting to blend in” with the general business community, Mr. Casco is ready to be counted as part of a new group of educated, Latin American entrepreneurs making waves in Canada.
“We’re not too many but we’re slowly starting to show ourselves,” he says.
“The Canadian business community is not aware that there is an up and coming Generation Ñ — entrepreneurs and professionals from Latin America starting to do their own thing.”
It’s a coming out of sorts for the group that has been calling themselves Generation Ñ, after the letter in the Spanish alphabet (pronounced en-ye). Unlike the generation of Latin American immigrants before them, they are younger, more educated, bilingual and business-savvy.
“We all share for the most part a pretty positive approach and outlook in life,” Mr. Casco says of Latin American entrepreneurs. “We’re very open… When you talk to people without being shy, it opens doors.”
Mr. Casco, 36, studied and worked in graphic design in Costa Rica before arriving in Canada in 2000. His first few years in Canada, he improved his English, worked out of his home and networked like mad, one year clocking 80,000 kilometres in travel.
He now supervises three employees, takes business courses at the University of Toronto and in November merged his company with New York-based agency ClarkHuot, hoping to expand internationally.
Since 2011, Mr. Casco has also served as president of the Toronto Hispanic Chamber of Commerce — one of a handful of organizations that have cropped up in the past 10 years, connecting Latin American entrepreneurs and boosting knowledge of these business owners in the wider community.
The THCC recently released a report it says is the first of its kind in Canada, defining the profile of the Hispanic business community in the GTA.
The group recorded more than 500 Latin American-owned businesses in the city, mostly in the food and beverage sector and personal and professional services, such as legal, accounting and immigration consultation.
Out of the few hundred professionals it surveyed, 91% reported having a bachelor degree or higher.
The THCC also estimates the economic impact of Latin American businesses on the Toronto-area economy at anywhere from $49.2-million to $73.8-million in direct effects.
“These people are educated, they come with a decent amount of money and they’re looking for not only a new life but to be recognized in terms of their quality of work and experience and education that they have,” says Jacob Moshinsky, THCC chairman and Mexican-born entrepreneur. He now runs Ñ Communications.
“There’s absolutely a misconception of what the Hispanic community is here,” he adds, listing Latino stereotypes such as all being refugees and living in low-income areas.
The term Generation Ñ was born as a reaction to those generalizations. Most point back to Bill Teck, a Miami-based entrepreneur who started a magazine of that name in the mid-1990s.
The term’s significance in Canada is “very, very recent,” Mr. Moshinsky says.
Several organizations have been giving the community wider recognition in Canada, including the Hispanic Ontario Lawyers Association and the Latin Americans MBA alumni network (LAMBA), which formed in 2010 and has 400 members. Hispanics in Mining launched just a few months ago.
The community’s significance has also benefited from several recent Free Trade Agreements between Canada and Latin American countries, as well as the 2015 PanAm Games to be held in Toronto, and the Canadian Hispanic Business Association’s 10 Most Influential Hispanic Canadians, an annual awards program that has been held since 2007.
Last year’s awards honoured the co-founder of Toronto’s Lula Lounge, Ecuadorian Jose Ortega, and co-founder of ILAC language schools, Colombian Bernardo Riveros.
“In the United States, they have political power. Here they don’t [due to a relatively smaller population] but they are highly educated and are having an impact on business,” says Fabiola Sicard, director of Latin Markets, Multicultural Banking for Scotiabank and co-founder of LAMBA.
Mexican-born Ms. Sicard says the older generation of Latin American business owners often targeted only their own cultural market, but because now there are fewer language barriers, entrepreneurs are reaching beyond their close networks.
Such is the case for 29-year-old Cristian Contreras, a Colombia native and graduate of the University of Toronto. He founded the online, political engagement site called Next Parliament about 18 months ago.
He taught himself how to code and created a business model he hopes will eventually attract 1,500 members and turn a profit through sponsored polls on the site, which encourages action on political issues.
“If anything, my South American background has been a plus,” Mr. Contreras says. “The stereotypes are usually positive, except for at a party when you get, ‘Oh, what do you sell, cocaine or something?’ but that is a juvenile [comment].”
Those kinds of ideas are fading, says Ms. Sicard, who points to the THCC study as a catalyst.
“[The group] has been kind of invisible, so it’s good that the THCC is trying to put a number on how many businesses there are and what impact they have on the economy.”
Canada's west coast cities and east coast cities are more likely to be under water with rising sea levels and ARCTIC CIRCLE ICE melt brings what was Canadian land territory further south. Central Canada will be that bread basket for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
ONTARIO----which is UK ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE has a great presence in real estate that will be valuable in the north and they are heavily involved in building FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL FACTORIES no doubt devastating their environment just as US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will do to our environment. Ontario and Quebec----basically UK AND FRANCE-----fighting for ONE WORLD GLOBAL 1% control of what they see as TRIBUTE STATE CANADA----as TRIBUTE STATE US------these CANADIAN global 1% are heading to ONE WORLD GLOBAL 1% UTOPIA NORDIC/SIBERIA.
See what rising ocean levels will do to Canadian cities
Canada under water
Canada under water
Current Time 0:21
Duration Time 0:21
Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 4:55 PM - Climate change is already having an impact on ocean levels these days, which has contributed to the effects of flooding and storm surges, but in years to come, this rise will become a hazard unto itself.
There's been some sobering news from the 'climate change' front over the past week, with word of CO2 levels climbing to record heights, dire accounts of how climate change is affecting the United States and Canada now and the impacts that are to come, and just yesterday more news about the glaciers of West Antarctica reaching a 'point of no return' for an inevitable collapse in the centuries to come.
One of the major themes about all of this is how we're going to have to adapt to the coming changes, one of which is rising sea levels. In order to prepare us, the website World Under Water offers a simulated glimpse at what this might look like, as it uses Google street-views and some added flare to flood our neighbourhoods and favourite places around the world.
Downtown Halifax now
Downtown Halifax under several feet of water
Downtown Vancouver, along W. Pender Street
The same view of Downtown Vancouver, along a flooded W. Pender Street
Coastal cities are the ones most in danger from the real-world flooding, but in this simulation no place is safe. Type any address or location into their search engine and you should be able to see it underwater, even if these areas are very unlikely to see rising water levels directly related to rising sea levels - due to their location, terrain or elevation.
Cities along the Great Lakes (like Toronto, shown at Dundas Square at the start of the video above) are also be shown flooded, but they're actually more likely to be high-and-dry due to climate change. Increased evaporation and generally-lower rainfall amounts through the Great Plains and Midwest are expected to cause water levels in the lakes to plummet. However, since more downpours of rain are already happening due to the changing climate, and it's expected that they will happen more often in the future, this kind of flooding could happen even in these areas, at least on a temporary basis. It's simply a matter of having too much water fall from the sky in a very short time, and we all saw quite dramatic examples of this in southern Alberta last June and in Toronto last July.
For the moment the World Under Water site is really just a bit of 'fun' to see what these places would look like under water. However, the site is trying to raise awareness of what we can expect in years to come, and hopefully inspire people to do something about it.
It may seem like an overwhelming problem that we can't do anything about by ourselves, but there's a very valuable and effective tool we all have access to here: our vote. If we vote the right people into office - those that take the threat of climate change seriously and are committed to taking effective action to reduce that threat - both now and in the future, we can overcome this problem. One of the greatest and most successful international scientific initiatives ever undertaken was when nations worldwide came together to sign the Montreal Protocol. The leaders of the time saw the dire threat the loss of our protective ozone layer represented, and because of their action we prevented the worst from happening, and there are even signs that the ozone layer is recovering. We need similar attitudes and action now to tackle the threat of climate change.
'It is happening around the world, but researchers say new ghost forests are particularly apparent in North America, with hundreds of thousands of acres of salt-killed trees stretching from Canada down the East Coast, around Florida and over to Texas'.
US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are being built largely along our US coast EAST AND WEST on land known to be sea level and below sea level-----as Baltimore. Please think in where you relocate that these coastal cities will be gone as we say ----the 50 year lifespan of an industrial Foreign Economic Zone. As 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are fighting just to have jobs and housing in US cities -----the land where our children and grandchildren will need to control is silently being bought by those dastardly global 1% black, white, and brown citizens.
Rising sea levels accelerating ‘ghost forests’ along Canada, U.S. east coast, experts warn
By Wayne Parry The Associated Press
PORT REPUBLIC, N.J. – They’re called “ghost forests” – dead trees along vast swaths of coastline invaded by rising seas, something scientists call one of the most visible markers of climate change.
The process has occurred naturally for thousands of years, but it has accelerated in recent decades as polar ice melts and raises sea levels, scientists say, pushing salt water farther inland and killing trees in what used to be thriving freshwater plains.
Efforts are underway worldwide to determine exactly how quickly the creation of ghost forests is increasing. But scientists agree the startling sight of dead trees in once-healthy areas is an easy-to-grasp example of the consequences of climate change.
“I think ghost forests are the most obvious indicator of climate change anywhere on the Eastern coast of the U.S.,” said Matthew Kirwan, a professor at Virginia Institute of Marine Science who is studying ghost forests in his state and Maryland. “It was dry, usable land 50 years ago; now it’s marshes with dead stumps and dead trees.”
This undated photo shows Phragmites and Spartina marshland expanding into a “ghost forest” in Robbins, Md.
Matthew Kirwan via AP It is happening around the world, but researchers say new ghost forests are particularly apparent in North America, with hundreds of thousands of acres of salt-killed trees stretching from Canada down the East Coast, around Florida and over to Texas.
The intruding salt water changes coastal ecosystems, creating marshes where forests used to be. This has numerous effects on the environment, though many scientists caution against viewing them in terms of “good” or “bad.” What benefits one species or ecosystem might harm another one, they say.
For instance, migratory birds that rely on coastal forests have less habitat. And the death of the trees makes soil microbes release nitrogen, which adds to nitrogen already occurring from other sources, including agricultural runoff, to contribute to algae blooms and reduced oxygen that can sicken or kill fish.
But the conversion of forest into marshland produces “extremely productive” wetlands that feed and shelter fish and shellfish.
The Atlantic croaker fish, for instance, was rare 15 years ago in southern New Jersey waters but now is abundant, said Ken Able, a Rutgers University professor.
“There is a lot of change going on,” said Greg Noe, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. “It’s dramatic and it’s changing faster than it has before in human history.”
Quantifying the rate of increase in ghost forests is a major focus of Able’s research. Some scientists say the increase began around the time of the Industrial Revolution, while others say the speedup began more recently than that.
In this July 16, 2017 photo, the sun rises over a “ghost forest” near the Savannah River in Port Wentworth, Ga.
AP Photo/Stephen B. Morton In the past 100 years, Kirwan said, 100,000 acres of forest in the Chesapeake Bay has converted to marshland. Photographs show the rate of coastal forest loss is four times greater now than it was during the 1930s, he said.
Seas off the East Coast have risen by 1.3 feet over the last 100 years, said Ben Horton, a Rutgers University professor and expert on sea level rise. That is a faster pace than for the past 2,000 years combined, he said.
Some of the most dramatic anecdotal evidence of the acceleration in ghost forest creation is along the Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina, Noe said.
When his team first got there 10 years ago, “it looked like the trees were under a little stress, but they were all alive,” he said. “But five years later, the vast majority of them were dead. That happened right in front of our eyes, much faster than we expected.”
Marcelo Ardon, a biology professor at North Carolina State University, studied one site called the Palmetto Pear Tree Preserve on Albemarle Sound in North Carolina from 2006 to 2009. When he returned in 2016, he said, “what used to look like a healthy cypress swamp, now the trees are dead and the water level is a lot higher. The place has completely changed. I’ve checked overhead satellite photos and you can see the trees dying.”
This undated aerial photo provided Matthew Kirwan shows a narrow band of brown pine trees that were killed by October 2015 tidal flooding near Yorktown, Va.
David Walters via AP In southern New Jersey, the most affected species is the Atlantic white cedar, which was a mainstay of the shipbuilding industry because of its resistance to rot. Farther south, cypress, loblolly pines and Eastern red cedar are dying.
Large storms can drive salt water further inland and kill trees; 2012’s Superstorm Sandy is believed to have led to the deaths of some trees in southern New Jersey, Able said.
The difference, Kirwan said, is that in the past, flooded areas would dry out before salt water killed most of the trees.
“That same storm 100 years ago would also have killed trees,” he said. “But 100 years ago that same land wouldn’t have been so wet that new trees couldn’t get established and replace the dead ones. That’s a big part of where sea level rise comes in.”
Here we see a discussion about a hypothetical that is really the goal of MOVING FORWARD and we see this coming from far-right wing Libertarian who thinks a few billion immigrants to US would be good for the GDP----he is that OPEN BORDERS FAN----OPEN BORDERS IS FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXIST----
What this article does not explain is the goal of creating mass dislocation of global labor pool to these extents----billions of people-----he says forget about EQUAL OPPORTUNITY-----that came with EQUAL RIGHTS---and enshrines all our civil rights movements this past century. CLINTON IMMEDIATELY USED EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PRETEND HE COULD SIMPLY IGNORE EQUAL PROTECTION as he pushed into making the global 1% extremely rich anyway they wanted.
This question is not sincere----of course we would be ending any appearance of what it is to be AMERICAN when a few billion people from all points of the world come to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Libertarians love enslavement----working for free is very is the goal of every extreme wealth civil libertarian. Think about the goal of mass movement with the ultimate goal being abandonment by global 1%=======
'Certain American ideals would die of their own increasing impracticality, e.g., “equality of opportunity,” the social safety net, one person, one vote, or non-discrimination in employment'.
We see reference to ROMAN EMPIRE'S habit of saturating a captured society to erase it-----this is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----this is a long article but please glance through.
How Would a Billion Immigrants Change the American Polity?
August 14, 2015 Nathan Smith
[UPDATE: See the follow-up blog post A Billion Immigrants: Continuing the Conversation by Nathan Smith, where he responds to comments on and criticisms of this blog post. You may also be interested in the Open Borders Action Group discussion of this post, where Smith articulates some aspects of his views in more detail, and others offer criticism.]
A couple of years ago, I wrote a post called “The American Polity Can Endure and Flourish Under Open Borders.” I would not write that post today. The American polity might endure and flourish under open borders, but I wouldn’t claim that confidently. What changed my mind? A greater familiarity with the theoretical models that are the basis for “double world GDP” as a claim about the global economic impact of open borders, especially my own. It turns out that these estimates depend on billions of people migrating internationally under open borders. Previously, my vague and tentative expectations about how much migration would occur under open borders were akin to Gallup poll estimates suggesting that 150 million or so would like to migrate to the USA. Others may disagree, but I was fairly confident at the time that the US polity was robust enough to absorb 150-200 million immigrants (over, say, a couple of decades) and retain its basic political character and structure. I do not think the US polity is robust enough to absorb 1 billion immigrants (even, say, over the course of fifty years) and retain its basic political character and structure.
For more educated guesswork about the number of migrants under open borders, see also our reference article on swamping; Joel Newman’s article “If Open Borders are Instituted Gradually, What Should be the Initial Number of Immigrants Admitted?”, which, among other things, details how the threat of swamping gives open borders advocates like Joseph Carens and Michael Huemer pause, as well as Joel Newman’s latest post; and Vipul Naik’s explorations of whether the case for open borders can be combined with radical agnosticism about how many would migrate and whether the number of migrants under open borders would be “too high” or “too low” (e.g., by utilitarian-universalist criteria). In this post, I’ll argue that swamping probably will happen, and that open borders is the right thing to do anyway.
To the question of what kind of polity and society the US would become with a billion immigrants, I have only the vaguest and most speculative notions, but for this post to make sense at all, I’ll have to outline my guesses as best I can. I’m focusing on the US case because I’m most familiar with US institutions and they’re most well-known, but I’d expect other Western countries to have similar experiences. As an aid to intuition, think of the way Roman and British institutions evolved when they came to govern far more people (albeit due to territorial expansion rather than immigration). In both cases, the polity in question survived in the sense that a continuous thread of sovereign authority was maintained. But the character of the polity was transformed.
In the Roman case, the participatory institutions of the Republic gradually broke down. The family farmer, backbone of the old Republic, was crowded out by latifundia, large farms worked by slaves. The Roman populace was largely turned to a mob dependent on public handouts. Finally, the Republic gave way to a permanent dictatorship by the emperors, which, though the loss of the Republic was felt keenly by Rome’s aristocratic intellectuals, was not all bad. Historian Edward Gibbon, writing in the 18th century, celebrated the reigns of the “five good emperors” Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (2nd century AD) as the happiest time in the history of mankind. The Senate still met, and Romans still called their state the “Republic,” but the real constitution had changed.
The British case is quite different in that the acquisition of a globe-girdling empire “on which the sun never set” didn’t influence the governance of the UK all that much. In four centuries of British empire, from the settlements at Jamestown and the Caribbean sugar islands to the relinquishing of Hong Kong, the British home constitution certainly underwent profound transformations, towards liberalism (the change took place from about 1750 to 1850), democracy (from about 1830 to 1910) and socialism (from the Liberal/Labor victory of 1906 to the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979), but these had far more to do with the influence of Enlightenment ideas and the Industrial Revolution, than with the empire. The empire, meanwhile, was never governed by the same liberal-democratic principles that prevailed in Britain. It was governed in a manner at once authoritarian and improvisational. Since London was so far away and could rarely understand local circumstances and difficulties, it tended to ratify what the “man on the spot” had done. Often, in effect, public power passed into private hands, as when the East India Company ended up governing India. Often, too, the British Empire was conservative, in the sense that British officialdom tried to co-opt and collaborate with local, traditional institutions. At the same time, a kind of ideology developed, according to which it was the British imperial mission to gradually foster liberal, democratic, representative institutions– not Christianity, interestingly: imperial institutions weren’t particularly friendly to missionary efforts– among the empire’s subject peoples. British political thought provided the templates for both the conservative (Edmund Burke; Winston Churchill) and the liberalizing (Locke; Adam Smith; J.S. Mill) strands in British imperial governance.
I would tentatively envision the US experience under open borders as resembling the British and Roman cases, inasmuch as the protocols and ideals of the US polity, as well as its merely ethnic characteristics, would persist in attenuated form, but governing a much larger population would necessitate improvisational and sometimes authoritarian expedients that would cumulatively transform the polity into something quite different, even as it claimed descent from the historic constitutional polity of the United States as we know it. The illusion of continuity would deceive the subjects of the new polity, native-born and immigrant, to a considerable extent, though on the other hand there would be a good deal of lamentation and triumphalism, and only after several generations would historians be able to look back and assess the bewildering transformation in a sober, balanced way.
Certain American ideals would die of their own increasing impracticality, e.g., “equality of opportunity,” the social safety net, one person, one vote, or non-discrimination in employment. Americans might continue to feel that these ideals were right long after they had ceased to be practiced, as the Romans seemed to feel that Rome ought to be governed by its Senate long after real governance had passed to the emperors. I don’t see how public schools could adapt to a far larger and more diverse student body. I think there would have to be a transition to some sort of vouchers combined with individual and/or community responsibility for education, e.g., the government pressures the Chinese neighborhoods to set up Chinese schools. Jefferson’s cry that “all men are created equal,” which today is sometimes mistaken, almost, for an enforceable policy rule, would retreat until wasn’t even an aspiration, but only a dream. Of course, open borders would actually mitigate global inequality, but American egalitarianism is a sheltered creed that needs the border as blindfold to retain its limited plausibility as an ideal.
If open borders included open voting, US political institutions would be overhauled very quickly as political parties reinvented themselves to appeal to the vast immigrant masses, but I’ll assume the vote would be extended gradually so that native-born Americans (including many second-generation immigrants) would always comprise a majority of the electorate. This would put an end to majority rule, for a large fraction, likely a majority, of the resident population would lack votes. As it did in the British empire, minority governance would clash with democratic ideas to undermine the legitimacy of the regime, though not, I think, fatally. This could be a benefit, in that defenders of the regime would need to appeal, as Edmund Burke once did, more to the regime’s performance in fostering prosperity and adhering to objective norms of justice, than to crude majoritarian math (which in any case has long since been exposed as logically incoherent). The Republican and Democratic parties would be likely to maintain their duopoly, but their ideologies would go through a continual metamorphosis, not only to appeal to new immigrant voters, but perhaps even more, to adapt to the realigned interests of the natives, who would derive their incomes more from land, shareholding, and government subsidies, and less from wages.
Spontaneous Schelling segregation, even if not enforced by, or even if actively opposed by, the law (but I doubt the law would resist for long), would make neighborhoods and workplaces, and a fortiori churches and community organizations, far more homogeneous than the resident population as a whole. I have advocated legalizing and de-stigmatizing private discrimination against immigrants, but even if it remained illegal, I think private discrimination would be widely practiced, simply because statistical discrimination is efficient, and in the more complex and dynamic economy of an open-borders America those efficiencies would be more worth capturing than ever. Many natives would retreat into gated communities, not so much from fear of crime as simply from love of the familiar. There would be large immigrant neighborhoods dominated by particular ethnicities, where English was rarely spoken, yet English in the US would remain a lingua franca for all the immigrant groups and wouldn’t be threatened as the national language (though German in Germany, Dutch in the Netherlands, etc., might). Overall crime rates might or might not rise, but law enforcement would often be baffled by new and complex challenges. The overworked and puzzled courts would have to improvise and compromise and decline a lot of cases, and would end up leaving a lot of stuff in an emerging domain of private law. I’d expect gaps to emerge where representatives of the official courts feared to tread and a kind of anarcho-capitalist natural law would prevail, and these might be the most productive, innovative, prosperous places in the new, open-borders America. As in the Dark Ages, the Christian churches would likely be more effective than the government in reaching out to, serving, and cultivating a sense of community and identity in many immigrant populations. As in ancient Rome, native-born Americans would find themselves increasingly unable to govern a larger and more diverse subject population through traditional institutions of self-government– they might often find it expedient, as the British empire did, to let public power slip into private hands– but on the other hand, they could easily vote themselves increasing handouts from a burgeoning treasury.
There would probably be an increasing role for private security companies, both to supply protection to private firms that didn’t trust the police to handle the strange new situation, and as contractors for the government. I don’t think it would be too difficult for a regime claiming descent from the US Constitution to fend off open contestation of its sovereignty. Still, if you remember America’s national reaction to 9/11, it isn’t difficult to imagine that even intermittent, local stirrings of revolt would transform the American psyche enough to make weapons training in schools or even universal conscription into some sort of national police force attractive, in order to empower the citizenry physically to defend its sovereignty against a possible immigrant revolution. The vote and citizenship would likely be bestowed opportunistically on immigrant groups deemed especially loyal or effective, both for national security reasons, and for partisan advantage when Republicans or Democrats found themselves favored by some immigrant group.
The least tentative part of my forecast is that all this would take place amidst a continuous surge of booming economic growth, with fortunes being made galore, but this might take forms that some would find disturbing. We would see some modern latifundia, worked not by slaves this time but by voluntary immigrants, but working for pay rates that would strike native-born Americans as a form of slave labor. Meanwhile, we would likely see modern equivalents of the ancient Roman mob, privileged idlers demanding bread and circuses paid for by taxes collected from non-citizens. Entrepreneurs would thrive with so many new workers and customers. The Dow would rise, and rise, and rise. Landowners would see their assets appreciate rapidly and would face a bewildering variety of opportunities to put them to profitable use. Educators and medical personnel would enjoy an almost limitless demand for their services. Of today’s middle-class Americans, even many who failed to find ultra-productive niches in the new open-borders economy would find domestic servants suddenly affordable. The cruel dilemma now faced by educated women, career vs. children, would be greatly mitigated as live-in nannies would become abundant and cheap. American seniors, too, would flourish as the quantity and quality of eldercare workers rose sharply, and paid drivers became affordable to anyone with a little income over and above their Social Security check. But while two-income professional couples would find their domestic arrangements greatly eased, employment rates among native-born Americans would probably fall significantly, partly because lower wages for unskilled labor would make working too unremunerative to bother with for those without special skills, partly because many Americans would be able to live rather comfortably on dividends, land rentals, and government subsidies. For some, this comfortable rentier lifestyle would rankle, clashing as it does with Americans’ traditional disdain of parasitic aristocracies. People need to feel like they have a function. But some sort of general conscription into a national police force might help here. Americans cognitively or culturally ill-equipped to thrive in the dynamic new open-borders economy would be useful to their fellow citizens, and would justify the increasingly valuable privileges and subsidies to which citizenship entitled them, by serving as a kind of praetorian guard.
In short, I think the most wild-eyed predictions of the open borders optimists will come true, and to spare, but I think a lot of the forebodings of the grimmest open border pessimists will also prove more than justified.
All these forecasts are so tentative that I’m embarrassed to write them down at all, but they are necessary to help readers to understand what I mean when I doubt that the American polity can endure and flourish under open borders. It’s not that I’d expect a complete civilizational collapse, or a revolution. On the contrary, I’d expect superficial continuity. But an open-borders America of a billion people would, in substance, be as different a polity from the polity that the United States of America is today, as the Roman Empire of the 2nd century AD was from the Roman Republic of the 3rd century BC. At the end of this post, I’ll write a bit about whether the end of the American polity as we know it should be regretted or welcomed. But first, would billions really migrate under open borders?
It may seem foolish of me to have so much altered my view of what an open-borders future would look like, in response to a few mere economic models. To be sure, I certainly don’t believe that these models are anything like exact descriptions of an open borders future. The authors, including myself, make all sorts of simplifications, some of them obviously unrealistic, to create a platform from which to launch heroic feats of extrapolation. The wisest course, which Paul Collier for example seems to adopt, may seem to be to dismiss the guesses as unrealistic. But my former guesses had, and any other guesses I could now formulate without reference to the models would have, even less basis. I believe the economic models of open borders, flawed and fallible as they are, represent the most rational estimates available of how many would migrate under open borders. I’ll try to anticipate and reply to a few objections in order to consolidate this point.
1. What about the Gallup polls?
That’s easy. Gallup can’t take diaspora dynamics (also see Bryan Caplan and Paul Collier on this) into account. It can only find out how many people would now like to emigrate. But under open borders, after a little while, many people would be more willing to emigrate because there would be large communities of their fellow nationals abroad, including some of their loved ones.
2. What about Europe?
Contemporary Europe stands as an apparent counter-example to claims that open borders would trigger an epic transformation of human geography. The European Union is said to have internal open borders, and though a glance at the relevant European Commission webpage suggests that EU citizens’ rights to live and work elsewhere in the EU are subject to some red tape, it surely comes close. And while this has led to many millions of internal EU migrants, the migrant share is an order of magnitude less than what the global economic models of open borders predict. I think there are several reasons for this. First, GDP per capita doesn’t vary that much within Europe, which not only mitigates the pressure to migrate but may prevent diaspora dynamics from achieving critical mass. Second, EU countries are among the world’s oldest, with most having a median age above 40, whereas young people are more inclined to migrate. Third, far more than any other region of the world, Europe has been carved into national homelands through centuries of cultural genius and military jostling, so that local ties are probably more important there than elsewhere. Fourth, EU “cohesion” policies deliberately subsidize the poorest European regions, mitigating pressure to migrate. Fifth, migration within the EU seems to be accelerating as a result of the economic crisis that began in 2008, so slow migration may turn out to have been a temporary anomaly. Puerto Rico, which has enjoyed open borders with the USA for a century, has experienced so much emigration that most (about 60%) people of Puerto Rican descent live on the US mainland, even though Puerto Rico isn’t all that poor, with a GDP about half that of the USA as a whole. Puerto Rico’s experience, or that of 19th-century Ireland, may be more predictive of an open borders future than contemporary Europe is. In that case, many billions would migrate, and the global economic models of open borders are getting the order of magnitude right.
3. It’s never happened before.
Even in the 19th century golden age of open borders, the share of migrants in world population was well below 10 percent. Before and since, it’s been lower. And now we’re predicting a rise in the share of international migrants to around 50 percent of world population! But of course, just because it’s never happened before doesn’t mean it won’t. The Roman Empire and its fall, the medieval cathedrals, the circumnavigation of the world, and the Industrial Revolution hadn’t happened till they happened.
4. People are loyal to their homelands.
Another reason for skepticism is that the models apparently leave out of account that people feel affection and love for their homelands, while foreign countries are scary and forbidding. That’s why international migration has always been something “exceptional people” do. But first, the models don’t actually leave this completely out of account. My estimates of global migration under open borders, for example, assume that everyone stays put unless (relative to the status quo) migration offers higher pay for raw labor and/or human capital. No one would emigrate from the USA, since both raw labor and human capital would be attracted to the USA. Yet a recent poll suggests that 1 in 3 Americans would like to emigrate if they could. Few can have a strong economic motive to do so, since the USA is one of the richest countries on Earth, so either weak economic motives suffice (do they want to earn Australia’s minimum wage? to enjoy the Swedish social safety net?) or else cultural preferences (the fun loving culture of Brazil? the ancient dignity of Japan? the beauty and charm of western European cities?) actually motivate them to leave rather than to stay. I agree that people’s attachment to their homelands, along with simple inertia, would probably keep migration down to hundreds of millions in the short run, but in the long run, e.g., over the course of a few decades, I think diaspora dynamics would overwhelm local ties. Also, the globalization of culture (see me and Bryan Caplan) has made migration (especially to the US, the chief source of the globalizing culture) much easier, and will continue to make it easier in future. (Language is one of the more quantifiable elements of this trend. This site estimates that there are almost 1 billion. The British Council expects two billion English speakers by 2020. Of course, you can also immigrate first and learn English later, or immigrate into a diaspora bubble and never learn English.)
5. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Wouldn’t epic mass migrations be self-halting, because the desirable properties that make wealthy countries such attractive immigration destinations would be erased by mass migration? Don’t the economic models ignore this? Actually, no. In particular, my model allows for some total factor productivity (TFP) reduction in destination countries. Even if epic mass migrations degraded institutions (or whatever causes TFP) in rich countries, they’d still be attractive to billions.
Paul Collier, in Exodus, contemptuously dismisses the economic models of open borders, but hardly pretends to give any reason why. To the extent that his implicit reason for dismissing them can be deduced from the book, it’s that he thinks there would be a huge nativist backlash. More recently, Ryan Cooper at The Week argued that “a massive wave of immigration is not a magic fix for the economy” because “air-dropping a billion random foreigners into the country would do, of course, is create the mother of all nativist backlashes.” But this begs the question. It’s certainly unlikely that open borders will be adopted by any country anytime soon, but the question is what would happen if it were.
My new doubts that the American polity could survive and flourish under open borders do not in the least undermine my support for open borders. For one thing, the American polity is too small a thing to have much weight in these scales, when the well-being of so many billions is at stake. But my estimation of the value of the American polity as an institution has also dwindled considerably of late. Daron Acemoglu’s thesis in Why Nations Fail, basically that the prosperity of the West depends mainly on its representative and democratic institutions, has quite a few adherents in contemporary development economics, but I attach little credence to it. I was actually surprised, in the data exercise undergirding my open borders forecasts, by how much of the wealth and poverty of nations seems explicable by human capital, broadly understood, so I’ve downgraded “institutions” (and “total factor productivity”) as explanatory factors in the wealth and poverty of nations. Even to the extent that institutions are important, I think democracy is less important than things like the thousand-year-old British common-law tradition, or norms of religious freedom and free speech, that predate and are quite separable from democracy. I don’t think the US polity, as it was founded in 1789, is or ever was the chief explanation of the enviable economic prosperity that the US has enjoyed throughout its history. But I do attach some value to what that polity was historically.
In particular, I see the US Constitution of 1789 as one of the wisest systems of government ever devised, albeit seriously marred by its tolerance for slavery. There followed almost 80 years of what may be called “Tocqueville’s America,” a time when a Jeffersonian political philosophy was in the ascendant, government was mostly small and local and highly participatory, and the way the Constitution was implemented in practice was reasonably conformable to its intended meaning. Then came the Civil War, which erased slavery, a magnificent achievement, while at the same time replacing the loose social contract among states with a powerful federal government from which there was no right of secession. Nonetheless, for a few more decades, the US still enjoyed a genuinely limited government, wherein elected officials really felt that the Constitution endowed them with limited powers, and they simply had no right to do more than it had authorized them to do. This limited, constitutional government was lost forever in the 1930s, when Roosevelt bullied the Supreme Court into elastic interpretations of the Constitution, especially the commerce clause, that rendered obsolete the enumerated powers strategy for restraining the federal government on which the founders had principally relied. From the 1930s onward, the federal government was still somewhat constrained by the Bill of Rights, but other than that, a kind of absolutist democracy was born, where elected majorities could do anything they liked, very high tax rates produced a substantial economic leveling of the population, and conscription fostered a sense of shared citizenship and made foreign policy much more participatory than it has been before or since. Meanwhile, the most distinctive and important feature of the American polity, religious freedom, traced its origins back before the 1789 Constitution to the original pious motives of the Puritans who settled Massachusetts, and the English-speaking peoples of North America maintained an almost unblemished record of respect for religious freedom through all the other changes that took place, until the past few years.
Starting with the school prayer decisions of the 1960s, this absolutist democracy was in its turn eviscerated by a creeping secularist coup d’etat emanating from the courts, which claimed a warrant from the Constitution. The courts were certainly mistaken in thinking the Constitution warranted a comprehensive secularization of American governance, but they seem to have been sincere. Later, as the rising imperial judiciary also became a key patron of the Sexual Revolution, the courts’ reasoning became so disgracefully inept that the possibility that the courts sincerely think they are doing anything other than arbitrarily legislating from the bench is hard to take seriously. Roe v. Wade was a brazen attack on democracy, and while it’s hard to say when the Rubicon was definitely crossed, in the wake of the Obergefell decree, I agree with Justice Scalia that “my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” A country whose Constitution can suddenly, poof!, take on a new meaning that no one can seriously doubt would have amazed and disgusted its authors, and thereby override many democratically-passed laws and rob the people of the ability to legislate according to the majority will on an absolutely crucial social question, is not aptly described as a democracy. It might be best described as a judicial oligarchy in which elected elements play the chief administrative and a subordinate legislative role.
I’m not so fond of democracy that my loyalty to a regime would depend very greatly on its democratic character, but I am very, very fond of telling the truth, and I can have no respect for, and no loyalty to, judges who, in decreeing gay marriage, pretend that they’re interpreting the Constitution. Modern constitutional law is a lot like the Catholic Church’s theology of indulgences in the 15th and early 16th centuries. It makes very little sense, and every critical thinker more or less feels that it’s a disgraceful travesty, but people are afraid to challenge it as aggressively as reason demands, because it underpins the order of society. Reams and libraries are dedicated to rationalizing it, precisely because it’s rationally indefensible, yet is a crucial currency of power. And yes, I’d like to see modern constitutional law immolated in a kind of Lutheran Reformation, and would gladly pay a high price in chaos to see the dragon slain. Thanks to my low opinion of the US constitutional regime as it currently exists is one reason, I can contemplate with very little distress the immigration of a billion or so people from all over the world, unschooled in the peculiar mythology of early 21st-century American democracy and its ever-more-irrational cult of equality.
It would be interesting to hear the reactions to the billion-immigrant scenario, of people with a more favorable view of the legitimacy and beneficence of the present US regime.
Editor’s note: You might be interested in reading Nathan Smith’s follow-up blog post to this piece, A Billion Immigrants: Continuing the Conversation, where he fleshes out some of the arguments outlined in this blog post, and responds to some comments and criticisms of it.