Showing posts with label Demography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demography. Show all posts

Sunday, December 24, 2017

EU Militarizes Africa To Halt Migration

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,


Fighting terrorism is now morphing into clamping down on human migration, as far as the European Union is concerned.


France’s President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge, claiming at a conference in Paris last week that terrorism and human trafficking are part of the same problem, requiring the deployment of a military force spread across Africa.



The melding of the two concepts provokes serious legal and moral questions.


But so desperate, it seems, is the EU to halt illegal migration into the bloc that it is moving to militarize the problem in Africa – under the guise of “fighting terrorism”.


This is tantamount to European Neo-imperialism. That is, attempting to sort out deep-seated socio-economic problems down the barrel of a gun. Not only that, but using futile heavy-handed methods to deal with problems that European powers themselves are responsible for creating.


Such an approach will only worsen humanitarian problems for millions of displaced war-torn and impoverished people. In typical arrogant imperialist fashion, the EU is not addressing root causes of the problem – its own role in shattering African societies from illegal wars and predatory economics.


The panicky reaction this week in Brussels to the formation of the new Austrian government led by populist Chancellor Sebastian Kurz shows that the other European powers are still rattled by the rise of nationalistic politics across Europe and the underlying long-term problem of migration into the EU.


Kurz’s People’s Party has formed a coalition government with the Freedom Party. Both share anti-immigration policies and are deeply critical of the EU. The new Austrian administration has been described with trepidation in the news media as the first “far-right” government in the European Union. That epithet appears to be aimed at demonizing the new Austrian authorities with the taint of “fascism”.


However, what seems to be the real concern among the pro-EU governments of Germany and France is that Austria rekindles wider fears in regard to large uncontrolled flows of refugees entering into Europe and the knock-on effect of rising anti-EU populist politics that those fears tend to fan.


Another sign of the EU’s concern over the flow of migrants into the bloc is the attempt by France, Germany and Italy to morph the issue of refugees into one of “fighting terrorism”. This is an audacious, not to say reprehensible, step of treating a humanitarian crisis with military force. But because the emotive “anti-terror” card is invoked, the intention is to mask the controversial, unethical move with a veneer of humanitarianism.


Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a summit in Paris which was billed as countering terrorism in the Sahel – the vast Northwest desert region of Africa. Macron has taken the lead earlier this year in forming what is known as the Group of Five (G5) countries straddling the Sahel region, comprising Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania.


The leaders of the G5 were hosted by Macron at a chateau near Paris on December 13. Also in attendance were German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italy’s premier Paolo Gentiloni. Significant too was the attendance at the summit by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


In a brazen appeal for financial funding, Macron asked the Saudis and Emiratis to stump up money for the G5 military force. Both the oil-rich states responded with pledges of $100 million and $30 million, respectively. Other donors to the G5 “anti-terror operations” were the EU and the United States, each pledging $60 million. In other words, the Saudis and Emiratis are bankrolling the G5 “anti-terror” military coalition to the tune of nearly half its total budget.


The G5 comprises some 4,000 troops from the five mentioned African countries – all of them former French colonies. The French forces in the region are believed to number around the same. There are also American special forces operating, as was shown by the dramatic deadly shootout in Niger in October when four US troops were killed in an ambush.


What Macron is claiming to do is to replace the French forces with local troops from the G5. That move will save Paris millions of euro it is currently shelling out on the presence of its military in the Sahel. Knowing that these poor African countries would never be able to finance the operations, the French president is deftly involving the Saudis and Emiratis in the funding.


Macron’s proposal beggars belief. Given the record of the Gulf Arab hardline Sunni regimes in sponsoring terrorism across the Middle East, it is absurd to propose that these same regimes could support “anti-terror” operations in the Sahel.


The contradiction raises the real issue and purpose. France, Germany and Italy, on behalf of the EU, are actually using the moral and political cover of “fighting terrorism” in Africa to further their agenda of stemming the flow of migrants from the continent to Europe. And getting the Gulf Arabs to pay for it. The latter get PR value in return.


It is reckoned that the total African population will double in the next three decades to some 2.5 billion people. That presents European leaders with a formidable headache of worsening migration flows. Already in the last two years, there is estimated to have been 1.5 million refugees entering the EU, many of them from Africa. That phenomenon has, in turn, fueled anti-immigrant political parties across Europe who blame the EU political establishment for the problem. The populist backlash poses a threat to the cohesiveness of the EU. It was one of the issues that drove the British electorate to vote last year for leaving the bloc.


Rather than sniffing at “populist” politics in Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands and Germany – and denigrating it as “fascist” – European leaders need to question their own responsibility. It is understandable that European communities can feel unnerved by the sudden influx of foreigners into their country. Given the relentless socio-economic austerity imposed on communities by Neo-Liberal capitalist governments, the anxieties over scarce public resources are accentuated, and understandable.


Moreover, the European members of the US-led NATO military alliance bear direct responsibility for opening the migration floodgates when they destroyed the state of Libya in an illegal war for regime change in 2011. France, Italy, Britain and Germany, among others, were complicit in that criminal war.


France too went on an illegal military expedition in Mali in 2013 to “defeat terrorism” – and its forces remain in that country today.


The real reason for that French intervention may likely have been securing uranium ore mines in Mali and Niger.


All those illegal military interventions by the Europeans in Northwest Africa unleashed militants, migration and human trafficking on a massive scale.


A report last week by Amnesty International also openly condemned European governments for colluding with human traffickers in Libya by forcibly sending would-be migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean back into the clutches of the traffickers on land.


Europe is so desperate to stem the flow of migrants because it is destabilizing the internal politics of the EU. So desperate is Europe that it is willing to force refugees back into the human trafficking networks to a fate of slavery in order to impede the flow into Europe.


Macron’s military “solution” for the Sahel is part of the same futile problem-solving. The French president, with the support of Germany, Italy and the rest of the EU, is using military force to combat “terrorism and human trafficking” which he equates as the same.


Furthermore, Macron and the EU are trying to do it on the cheap, by getting the Saudis and Emiratis to pay a large part of the budget.


This militarist policy is nothing short of a Neo-imperialist agenda in Europe, which can only make matters much, much worse.


European powers, as with the Americans, must stop interfering militarily in the affairs of Africa.


What is needed is a radical new economic and political model of massive public investment in Africa and Europe. The money is there, from the trillions of dollars that European corporations have stashed away in global tax havens. In short, what is required is a repudiation of neoliberal capitalism and the militarism that goes with it.


But there can be no solution under the current political leadership in Europe, as epitomized by French President Emmanuel Macron. Under the cynical guise of being a “liberal progressive”, he is offering the same old destructive policies that end up digging ever deeper holes for societies and the wider world.


So much for his recent corny slogan copying Trump, “Make the Planet Great Again”.


The false solution of dealing with European migration as a military problem of “terrorism” and “human traffickers” only lets the real perpetrators of the problems off the hook. France and the other European NATO powers have created their own problems from illegal wars and predatory economic policies. Now they want to “solve” those problems by adding more of the same problems. Make the Planet Groan Again.









Japan Births Plunge To Lowest Level Ever Recorded As "Celibacy Syndrome" Takes Its Toll

Back in 2013 we asked "Why Have Young People In Japan Stopped Having Sex?" And while that might sound like nothing more than a clever headline intended for The Onion, it was prompted by a very serious survey conducted by the Japan Family Planning Association which found that 45% of Japanese women aged 16-24 and 25% of men were "not interested in or despise sexual contact"...a growing trend that has revealed itself via the nation"s persistently declining birth rates.  In fact, "celibacy syndrome" has become of such great concern for the Japanese government that it is considered a bit of a looming national catastrophe....a catastrophe that seems to be getting worse at an accelerating rate.


According to data released today by Japan"s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, child births in Japan will drop to just 941,000 in 2017, the lowest since data first started being recorded in 1899, and nearly 65% below the peak birth rate from the late 1940"s.



As the Financial Times notes today, the persistent declines in Japanese birth rates come despite the best efforts of central planners to encourage population growth via a litany of government entitlement programs aimed at helping young families cover the cost of childrearing...








The government of Shinzo Abe, prime minister, has made raising Japan’s birth rate a priority. On Friday it approved a budget that takes the first steps towards providing free pre-school, private high school and university education in an effort to reverse the trend.


 


Unless the low birth rate is reversed, the only option to increase Japan’s population would be for it to take in more immigrants. Yet despite high inflows of guest workers drawn by the strong economy, Japanese politicians have been reluctant to debate the subject.


 


Mr Abe’s government has instead set a target to raise the total fertility rate to 1.8. Officials hope the strong economy, combined with measures making it easier for women to combine work and childcare, will encourage families to have more children.


 


“We’d like to halt the decline by advancing our strategy to support children and make an easier environment for giving birth,” the ministry said.



...they"ve basically thrown in everything except a pony.


Meanwhile, Japan"s aging population means that the number of deaths will likely rise by 3% YoY in 2017 to 1.34 million, a post-World War Two high, resulting in the largest ever natural population decline of just over 400,000.   



Unfortunately, the crisis is only expected to get worse over time as projections from the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research suggest the pace of population declines will accelerate and that by 2045 Japan will be losing about 900,000 residents a year.  On current trends, the population is set to fall from 126.5m to 88m by 2065 and to just 51m by 2115.


All of which means there is really only one thing left to do...instruct the BOJ to print even more money and start passing it out to expecting parents...which we"re pretty sure will solidify Haruhiko Kuroda"s official title of "biggest pimp in the world".









China"s Raging Against Dying Of The Light (Or Why Peak Employment Is Imminent)

Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,


China"s working age population is clearly defined as those aged 16 to 50 years old for females (55 for "white collar" females) and 16 to 60 years old for males.  China mandates retirement at these outer age limits.  Perhaps of some interest should be that this working age population peaked in 2011 and has been declining since.  This decline will continue indefinitely as China has a collapsing childbearing population (detailed HERE), net emigration (outflow), and a still decidedly negative birthrate.


There is no evidence to believe the working age declines will abate any decade soon.  As the chart below shows, China"s potential workforce will be shrinking indefinitely... and by 2030 China"s potential workforce will be over 100 million fewer than the 2011 peak (an 11% decline)...and only further down from there.




China has one of the youngest average retirement ages in the developed world.  On average, according to a recent study (HERE), Chinese leave the work force by age 55 compared to age 63 in the US (Norway has the latest average departure at age 67).  So, perhaps China will be raising the retirement age to curb the ballooning 60+yr/old population entering retirement (chart below)?  More on that later.



Comparing the working age population versus the 60+yr/old population (chart below).  A shrinking potential workforce since peaking in 2011 and a rapidly growing elderly population.



Below, that elderly growth versus the working age depopulation as a % of all adults (chart below)...think hockey stick.  After nearly six decades of maintaining a consistent 60+yr/old % of the adult population...the elderly explosion is just beginning.



If we take the now declining total potential working age population vs. China"s still rising total number of employed individuals (according to Statista)...the chart below shows that if China adds just a mere million employees a year (about a third of the annual average employment growth seen from "06 through "16)...that by 2030 China"s employment will exceed 100% of the potential workforce.  Wait...what?!?  Or perhaps working from the premise that people who don"t exist can"t be employed...it"s time to start considering China"s employed population is set to begin falling.



This idea that there are "millions upon millions of Chinese just waiting to be incorporated into the workforce"...not so much.  While a continuing shift from rural to urban is likely, China has already or will soon experience peak employment. Simply put, there will be fewer consumers of everything (homes, cars, appliances, etc.) every year than the year before. 


Whatever overcapacity exists now will be joined by massive increases in excess housing, excess production, excess shopping malls as this depopulation plays out over the coming years and decades.


Five big points here:


1) China ends one child policy, with little to no impact...



  • Although China implemented its one child policy in 1979 and officially phased it out in 2015, China"s birthrate was actually consistently higher than most of the other major economies in East Asia (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...chart below) and only N. Korea"s fertility rate is currently higher.





  • None of these other East Asia nations ever implemented birth restrictions.  Instead, their populaces chose not to replace themselves responding to the availability of birth control, surging costs of child rearing, and inclusion of females into the workforce, etc.  Simply put, the one child policy was inevitable and has now organically gone global.  The phase out of this policy will have little to no impact of China"s fertility rates.



2) China to raise retirement age, but no time soon...



  • In early 2015, China suggested it would detail in 2017 (which I still have not seen) a gradual, multiyear process to raise the retirement age (China"s version of political suicide).  Suggestions focused on slowly, incrementally, raising female retirement ages to match males and likewise, pushing retirements out by a month or two per year.  However, none of this was even suggested to start within the next five years and like most things, almost surely be back-end loaded so any real impacts are overstated.  Regardless Communist or "Capitalist" politicians, the game is the same.  A little "razzle-dazzle" that ensures any negative policy impacts never occurs on your watch.



3) China to institute Universal Pension Plan...



  • In late 2015, China said "We will achieve a basic pension for all employees nationally".  Currently, about 800 million of China"s 1.3 billion are eligible for state pensions.  According to Sinosphere, pensions for non-state employees vary widely, as high as 3000 RMB ($480) month in Beijing to as little as 80 RMB for rural farmers.  Civil Servants pensions are generally higher than those of non-state employees.  The party statement said, China would be;



    • “Building a fairer and more sustainable social welfare system.



      Implementing plans for every person to take part in social insurance.




      Diverting capital from state-owned enterprises to social security funds.





      Offering all urban and rural residents insurance for serious illness.”









4) Chinese wages & average per capita disposable income rising but gains are hugely variable...







  • While Chinese factory wages in tier 1 urban areas are now inline with Portugal or S. Africa, this terrific rise has created it"s own problems.  The rise in wages has been met with inflationary spikes in rents, fuel, food, etc. etc.  Average disposable income has risen in the urban areas but flat at best across rural China.  However, the response of employers to the spectacular rising wages has been automation, a shift away from labor intensive production, and outsourcing to lower cost countries.  This is at odds with the generally low skill/low education rural population looking for opportunity in the urban areas.  The breadth and size of further gains in disposable income is likely to be limited.  Economically, a declining total number of workers making marginally more money will not provide the desired growth.



5) China cannot export its way out of this...



  • The annual change to the 0-64yr/old combined populations of the 35 OECD nations (US, Canada, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia/NZ) plus China, Brazil, and Russia begin declining in 2018 (chart below).  The core populations of the nations responsible for consuming 80%+ of all Chinese exports have peaked and begin shrinking.  Fewer consumers every year than the year before, indefinitely.  As for the nations that are doing all the growing, India and Africa, they consume about 4% of all Chinese exports.  BTW, the chart below shows when each nation/region 0-64yr/old population began declining.




Simply put, China is offering to increase and broaden it"s pension system to a ballooning population of elderly but will have a decreasing potential number of employees from which to pay for that increase?!? 


How will China achieve this?  Well, as the chart below shows, as Chinese core population growth has been decelerating, Chinese debt growth has been accelerating. 


While China"s GDP and energy consumption have led the world, they have not responded in kind to China"s debt explosion and exponentially more will be necessary to continue to show "growth".  Over a third and perhaps half of all the debt has been mal-invested in a housing bubble for a population that is never coming. 


What comes next isn"t going to be good for China nor the rest of the world as China looks to flood a depopulating nation with new debt only creating more housing overcapacity... China will look to beat the Japanese at the debt game.



For instance, the Chinese public-pension system as of 2014, took in 2.33 trillion yuan in revenue and paid out almost 2 trillion...with 3 trillion in net funds.  The net outflows and drawdown of those net funds is imminent.


But not to worry, the Communist Party explained that..."We will look at some opportunities with higher yields but will contain risk".  Again, no details were offered.  However, one asset it is clear the Chinese will not be buying...US Treasury"s (chart below, showing the net purchases since the debt ceiling debate of July 2011 according to TIC).  Since that date, China has been a net seller of US Treasury debt despite running record US dollar surplus" (BLICS = Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Island, Switzerland).



From 2000 "til July 2011, China recycled 50% of its dollar trade surplus into US Treasury debt accumulating over $1.3 trillion.  Since July 2011, China has net sold over $100 billion and as of October, held about $1.2 trillion (chart below).



But I"m pretty sure those dollars aren"t sitting fallow and are finding their way into some asset, probably one in particular that is selling on the cheap about right now.




 









American Life-Expectancy Falls For Second Straight Year As Drug Overdoses Soar

The twin scourges of opioid addiction and worsening wealth inequality are literally draining the lifeblood from the American public. Case in point: The Centers for Disease Control confirmed earlier today that the average life expectancy at birth declined in 2016 for the second consecutive year - the first multiyear decline since 1963, when a flu epidemic led to a rash of deaths as hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans succumbed to the virus.


The increase has been fueled by a 21% rise in drug overdose deaths, according to the Washington Post.


Let that sink in for a second: In 1963, penicillin was a relatively recent innovation. We live in an age of unprecedented medicinal efficacy. Despite this, Americans are sicker than ever before.


And as if that weren’t enough, they’re also spending more on health-care than ever before. Data from the NHE shows the US spent a staggering $3.3 trillion on healthcare in 2016, equivalent to roughly 18% of GDP.



“I think we should take it very seriously,” said Bob Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch at the National Center for Health Statistics, told the Washington Post. “If you look at the other developed countries in the world, they’re not seeing this kind of thing. Life expectancy is going up."


As we’ve highlighted time and time again, more than 42,000 Americans died of opioid overdoses alone in 2016 - a 28% increase over 2015. When deaths from drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and benzodiazepines are included, the overall increase was 21%.



A multiyear decline in life expectancy is more commonly associated with AIDS epidemics in southern and eastern Africa or wars in Syria and Afghanistan, said Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London who has studied life expectancy.


“The story does come down to young people,” he said. “It’s the overdose story, to a large extent."


Last year - when the CDC data showed the first annualized drop in life expectancy since the early 1990s - public health observers declared that this could be the beginning of a seriously troubling trend that could have far reaching repercussions for the US economy. Experts, including Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton, examined the impact of so-called “diseases of despair” - drug overdoses, suicides and alcoholism - as well as small increases in deaths from heart disease, strokes and diabetes as the Baby Boom generation ages into retirement.


Furthermore, the 2016 data shows that just three major causes of death are responsible: unintentional injuries, Alzheimer’s disease and suicides, with the bulk of the difference attributable to the 63,632 people who died of overdoses. That total was an increase of more than 11,000 over the 52,404 who died of the same cause in 2015. This trend was largely driven by deaths from fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, which more than doubled from the previous year. Heroin and prescription opioid overdose deaths also rose, but more modestly.


At the same time, a long decline in deaths from heart disease continued a six-year trend of leveling out, Anderson said. The small decrease last year in the rate of the nation’s leading cause of death no longer canceled the drug epidemic’s impact on life expectancy, Anderson said.


“The key factor is the increase in drug overdose deaths,” he said.


Overall, life expectancy dropped by a tenth of a year, from 78.7 to 78.6. It fell two-tenths of a year for men, who have much higher overdose death rates, from 76.3 to 76.1 years. Women’s life expectancy held steady at 81.1 years.



While drug mortality has been increasing among all age groups since 1999, it’s highest among those ages 25 to 54. Their fatal overdose rate for all drugs was roughly 35 cases per 100,000 individuals in 2016, compared with 12 deaths per 100,000 for people under 24 and six deaths per 100,000 among seniors 65 and older.


Examining this data through the lens of gender reveals another startling detail: The bulk of this increase is driven by a spike in overdose deaths among men.


As WaPo points out, men of all ages (26 deaths per 100,000) are twice as likely to die of a drug overdose as women (13 per 100,000). At the state level, West Virginia stands alone as the epicenter of overdose mortality, with 52 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2016. The next two states, New Hampshire and Ohio, each saw 39 deaths per 100,000 last year.


“This is no longer an opioid crisis,” said Patrick Kennedy, a former Rhode Island congressman who was a member of President Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. “This is a moral crisis . . . we know how to answer this problem, but we can’t get around our own prejudices."


During the campaign, President Trump promised to do everything in his power to combat the opioid epidemic. But so far, his actions have fallen far short of the recommendations from a committee that he created in March to study options to suppress the crisis. Most notably, Trump ignored a recommendation from the committee to declare the opioid crisis a national emergency - a designation that would’ve allowed the hardest-hit states to access federal disaster-relief funds. Instead Trump declared it a national health crisis, leaving states empty-handed.


Another factor that shows just how damaging opioids have been to the American public: last year, rates of heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, strokes, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, and kidney disease fell, as did the nation’s overall death rate. But this wasn’t enough to offset the impact of opioids.


Increasing incidences of Alzheimer’s disease have also contributed to this trend.


“As people avoid [cancer and heart disease], they’re going to survive long enough to die of Alzheimer’s,” he said.



And while only limited provisional data is available for 2017, things don’t look any better.


“My guess is that when all of the data are in that the [2017] trend line will be at least as steep as for 2016, if not steeper,” Anderson said.



And in case you wondered what all this has to do with me... apart from it"s "your" life expectancy, well this is what happened to the only thing that really matters to everyone... The Dow... the last time that US life expectancy dropped for two straight years...










Saturday, December 23, 2017

Bombshell Report Reveals Up To 30% Of Federal Inmates Are Illegal Immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released its findings on the immigration status of federal prison inmates, as mandated in a controversial Executive Order signed during the President Trump"s first week in the White House.  The report reveals that of the 37,557 confirmed immigrants in the federal prison system, 35,334 (94%) of them are in the United States illegally - which means out of a total of 185,507, federally incarcerated individuals, over 19% are confirmed illegal immigrants - which, in 2014, cost U.S. taxpayers $1.87 billion to house.



It should be noted that the 19% figure is based on known illegals in federal prison - while 58,766 individuals are "known or suspected" to be illegal. If we apply the 94% confirmed illegal rate to the "known or suspected" population, it brings the total number of potential incarcerated illegal immigrants to 55,240 - or 30% of federal incarcerations. 




(DHS Alien Incarceration Report , Q4 2017)


The report also points out that the federal prison population is roughly 10%, with state and local facilities containing the vast majority of incarcerated individuals in the U.S. 


"The American people deserve a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions, adding "But at the border and in communities across America, our citizens are being victimized by illegal aliens who commit crimes. Nearly 95 percent of confirmed aliens in our federal prisons are here illegally.  We know based on sentencing data that non-citizens commit a substantially disproportionate number of drug-related offenses, which contributes to our national drug abuse crisis. The simple fact is that any offense committed by a criminal alien is ultimately preventable."


Immigrant rights groups predictably had a major problem with the report, claiming racism and manipulated data. 


"The report proves one thing only: The administration will take any opportunity possible to twist facts to demonize immigrants," said Tom Jawetz, VP for immigration policy at the very liberal Center for American Progress, adding "The vast majority of immigrants in federal prison are there for crimes that only immigrants can be charged with - illegal entry and illegal entry after removal. When you cook the books you shouldn"t pretend to be surprised by the results." 



The January 25th Executive Order, 13768; "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," was designed to use all available resources to deport incarcerated illegals and enforce existing immigration laws. The order states "We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States."


The order calls for the hire of 10,000 additional immigration officers, allows for issuing fines and penalties to unlawful aliens, allows State and local law enforcement agencies to act as immigration officers, and yanks Federal grant money from sanctuary cities - which was later reversed nationwide by a Chicago judge and ruled unconstitutional by Santa Clara County, CA  judge William Orrick III. 


What wasn"t killed by activist judges, however, was the Executive Order"s mandate to provide quarterly reports on incarcerated immigrants. The EO reads: 








To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:


 


(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;


 


(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and


 


(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.



The Order also sets out enforcement actions, which "shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress... ...removable aliens who: 








(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;


 


(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;


 


(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;


 


(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;


 


(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;


 


(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or


 


(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.



One oustanding question now is what will a seemingly sleepwalking Jeff Sessions do about it?


In May, Sessions announced the expansion and modernization of the Justice Department"s Institutional Hearing Program, which is responsible for deportation hearings of incarcerated individuals. The measures are intended to fast-track the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, which according to Sessions, will speed up the process by removing the criminal immigrant as soon as their sentence is complete - as opposed to sending them to another facility to await deportation. 


"We owe it to the American people to ensure that illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in our federal prisons are expeditiously removed from our country as the law requires," Sessions said in a statement.


Sessions" May proposal established 14 federal prisons and six contract facilities for deportation proceedings, which the Attorney General says is a top priority going forward.









"The World Is Criminally Corrupt & Broken" - A Surprising Dinner Conversation With The Younger Generation

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,


Dressed in red velvet, she trampled under her reckless feet the stray flowers fallen from other heads, and held out a salver to the two friends, with careless hands. The white arms stood out in bold relief against the velvet. Proud of her beauty; proud (who knows?) of her corruption, she stood like a queen of pleasure, like an incarnation of enjoyment; the enjoyment that comes of squandering the accumulations of three generations; that scoffs at its progenitors, and makes merry over a corpse; that will dissolve pearls and wreck thrones, turn old men into boys, and make young men prematurely old; enjoyment only possible to giants weary of their power, tormented by reflection, or for whom strife has become a plaything.


 


– Honore De Balzac, The Magic Skin



I don’t get out all that much these days, but last evening I had a really engaging and illuminating dinner conversation. In attendance was a 47-year old commercial real estate investor and fellow Boulder resident who I’ve become friends with, a 32-year old professional poker player looking to move here, and 28-year old tech startup founder. Although I hadn’t met the younger attendees before, it became immediately apparent that everyone in attendance was highly intelligent and very engaged with the world around them.


We discussed religion, philosophy, crypto assets, the importance of nature to humans, travel and more. That said, the reason I’m writing this post is due to some of the generational observations I came upon. It confirmed the overall thesis I discussed in detail within last month’s post, The Generational Wheels Are Turning.


Here are a couple of passages from that piece to refresh your memory:


The Baby Boomer generation, which has dominated so many aspects of our country for so many decades — including the overall narrative of everything — is finally heading off into the sunset.


 


It’s not so much that they’re physically expiring, but their influence is beginning to wane significantly. It’s not completely obvious just yet since our world continues to be defined by the institutions and ideals they championed, but in the hearts and minds of so many, particularly the younger generations, the world they left us is hopelessly corrupt, archaic and can’t be displaced quickly enough.



While at dinner last night, I tried to listen as closely as possible to how the younger guys saw the world and where it was headed.


I wouldn’t say their views of the future were wildly optimistic, but there wasn’t a sense of dread or pessimism either. There was a vibe of, yeah our generation was screwed, the government sucks and so do all these corrupt institutions, but we’re gonna get out there and do our best. I’ve noticed this worldview consistently over the years from people roughly tens years younger than me, i.e., the heart of millennial generation. Not only is my wife in that age group, but so are many of my close friends at this point, and this ethos has been pretty consistent from my experience.


They don’t trust government, corporations or anyone with power to do the right thing. This is why they didn’t enthusiastically buy the Hillary Clinton kool-aid, despite not liking Donald Trump either.


It seems being thrust into adulthood with terrible employment and wage prospects resulted in a very healthy dose of cynicism about how things work. There’s a very clear appreciation that the world as is functions today is criminally corrupt and broken.



When I go out and chat with people my age and older, I notice a completely different tone compared to when I engage with younger generations. One thing is crystal clear. Older friends of mine not only think the status quo will strike back against extremely disruptive forces like Bitcoin and crypto assets, they also think the status quo will win. They expect a return to the gold standard, or some IMF-globalist one world digital currency to provide a framework for the post-dollar reserve currency system. Generally speaking, the biggest difference between the two groups is that one expects the current power structure to cunningly survive this current period, while younger people think the world can, and will, be fundamentally changed for the better. You know which camp I’m in.


Generally speaking, older people tend to be strongly anchored to the world paradigm as it exists, while those who are younger are naturally more open to massive disruption and upheaval. I’d argue that the current younger generation is even more willing to flip the table over and build entirely new structures than most people realize. The popularity of crypto assets amongst this generation is just one manifestation of this desire. That’s not to say us optimists are naive and expect this to be a smooth transition without a fight, but it’s to say we believe paradigm level, positive change is not only possible, but likely. Which is precisely the attitude you must have if you want to win. If you go into a battle expecting to lose, the result is obvious.


Most interesting to me was how the youngest member at the table responded when the subject of gold came up. He said something like, “I get the investment thesis, I get the concept of it, but it’s just not something I’m interested in.” He went on to describe why.


He likened it to buying an asset, holding it tight, and then waiting for the world to burn around him to profit. This blew my mind because I’ve heard this exact same sentiment, virtually word for word, from other people his age previously. They get gold and they understand the investment thesis, but they simply aren’t interested in it for very specific and interesting reasons. Many older people think millennials are just acting stupid and naive with their interest in crypto assets. They think these kids don’t know anything about gold or monetary history, which is why they’re attracted to these new digital forms of value, but if you actually talk to them, you’ll see that’s not the case. I’ve had too many experiences like the one described above with intelligent and aware millennials to be increasingly confident of this conclusion.


It reminded me of what I wrote last month:


This is where many older people who understand how fraudulent and terminal the current system is seem to get sidetracked. To them, the next logical step as we enter a new financial system has to be to go through gold. Far more ridiculously, some people even push the spectacularly idiotic idea that an SDR will become the accepted global currency of the future. While I don’t profess to know exactly how things will play out, I try to keep an open mind as others arrogantly dismiss Bitcoin completely.


 


It’s no coincidence that many of those who are particularly condescending toward Bitcoin are from older generations. They’re doing what humans tend to do, which is take their own understanding of the world and life experiences and extrapolate them into the future. Someone who lived 30 years or more before the internet came to dominate everything will naturally possess a radically different perspective of the world and where it’s headed than someone who never knew life without it. This is precisely why a younger person will inherently understand the value and utility proposition of something like Bitcoin far more easily than someone much older.



The only person at the table who owned no crypto assets was the oldest one in attendance (although he’s totally supportive of the space). This pattern is repeated over and over again in my experience. When I go out with friends my age or older they’re almost never involved, but when I go out with younger generations they almost always are. Some people will write the whole thing off as a fad, but my observations point me in an entirely different direction. The evolution and success of Bitcoin and crypto assets is not just a function of revolutionary technology being introduced into the world. Its blistering adoption rate is a reflection of a global consciousness developing amongst younger generations. It’s reflection of a burning desire for a more dynamic, trustless and decentralized world, and it will be up to them to ensure that it happens.


None of us know exactly how the future will unfold, but I’m going to take my cues from younger generations. Their values and desires will be what shapes the world as older generations retire and die off. If you aren’t talking to them and studying the way they see things, you’re going to be completely blindsided by the next 10-20 years.


*  *  *


If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.









Saturday, December 16, 2017

This Map Shows Where Millennials Are Buying Houses (And For How Much)

Millennial homeownership rates are essential to understanding the housing market because they facilitate additional home sales for other people.


How does this work? As HowMuch.net explains, suppose you make an offer on a house. The current owner is also probably on the market, and he or she likely has a contingent offer on another house. This sets off a chain reaction throughout the economy. Millennial homeownership rates are therefore an easy way to judge the economic vitality of any given area.


That’s why HowMuch.net created this new map...



Source: HowMuch.net


Our viz takes millennial homeownership data from Abodo and maps it by metro area across the country. Abodo adopted the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which regularly collects a variety of information about the population, including the age of homeowners, the estimated value of their homes, and how long it would take to accumulate a 20% down payment. Our numbers are from 2015. We then overlaid this information across metro areas with bubbles representing the portion of millennial homeowners in each market: the bigger the bubble, the more millennial homeowners there are. We also color-coded each bubble to represent the median value of their homes—dark red circles mean the homes are worth over $500k, and dark blue means under $200k. This gives you a quick snapshot of the overall economy and the housing market.


The first trend you can see on the map is a clustering of red circles on both the West Coast and along the Northeast.


The most expensive city in the country for millennials is San Jose, CA, where the average millennial buys a home worth $737,077. Seattle, WA in the Northwest is also relatively expensive at $342,769. These are population-dense areas with booming tech sectors. At the other end of the spectrum, you can see clusters of blue bubbles across the Midwest in old manufacturing cities like Detroit, MI ($148,404) and Cleveland, OH ($160,251). Memphis, TN is the cheapest place for millennials at $142,795. Southern states like Texas and Florida are also relatively affordable thanks in large part to their suburban sprawl, which Zillow predicts will expand next year.


It’s no surprise that homes are more expensive in California (think Silicon Valley) than the industrial heartland, but consider how homeownership rates change based on affordability. The red bubbles all tend to be smaller than the blue bubbles. This means that as homes get more expensive, millennials become increasingly unable to afford them. It’s not like there’s a surplus of ultra-rich millennials buying up all the houses in California and New York. Millennials are just as sensitive to high prices as everyone else.


Let’s break the map down into a top ten list of the urban areas with the highest rates of millennial homeownership, combined with the average price of their home. A full 42% of the millennials living in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN own their own home, the highest rate in the country.


1. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: 42.4% and $222,528


2. St. Louis, MO-IL: 40.2% and $167,791


3. Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI: 40.2% and $148,404


4. Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN: 38.5% and $158,974


5. Pittsburgh, PA: 37.5% and $152,731


6. Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN: 37.4% and $161,856


7. Kansas City, MO-KS: 37.1% and $170,254


8. Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN: 37.0% and $213,090


9. Oklahoma City, OK: 36.7% and $172,485


10. Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD: 36.3% and $272,805



Buying a home is often the biggest financial decision anybody makes, and that’s especially true for young people. And there’s a lot to consider when buying your first home, but one thing other than affordability to keep in mind is how many other millennials are in the same situation. If you’re a millennial looking to buy a home, and you want to live next to other young people, you just might have to move to the Midwest.









Sunday, December 10, 2017

Here"s How Much Retirees Are Spending To Support Their Adult Kids

At one point in time in America, living at home with mom and dad after crossing out of your teenage years and into your 20s was embarrassing and something that was generally avoided at all costs.  And while hard times come and go, 20-somethings who were forced back into their parents" care worked their tails off until they could save up enough money to once again regain their freedom.


But, these days millennials seem to be embracing the free room and board provided by their parents.  According to a new study from the Census Bureau, roughly one-third of all millennials live at home with their parents and one-fourth of them can"t be bothered with enrolling in school or finding a job.


Of course, while living at home can help millennials cut down on costs, according to a new study from Nerd Wallet, it can also have a devastating impact on the retirement savings potential of their overly accommodating parental units...to the tune of a quarter million dollars.  Here are some of the key takeaways from Nerd Wallet"s survey:








  • Parents could miss out on almost a quarter-million dollars in retirement savings by paying their adult kids’ expenses: According to NerdWallet analysis, a parent’s retirement savings could be $227,000 higher if they chose to save the money that would otherwise go to their child’s living expenses and tuition.

 


  • Parents paying college costs could be missing out on almost $80,000 in retirement savings: More than a quarter of parents of children 18 and older (28%) are paying or have paid for their adult children’s tuition or student loans. The average parent takes out $21,000 in loans for their child’s college education, but the hit to retirement savings is almost quadruple that amount.

 


  • Most adult children are living with their parents for more than a year after they turn 18: Almost 3 in 5 parents with kids 18 and older (59%) have had adult children living with them for more than a year; over 1 in 5 (23%) have had adult children living with them for more than five years. On average, these parents say the longest period of time they have had their adult children living with them is 4.5 years.

 


  • Parents expect their kids to help them financially during retirement: Almost a quarter of parents saving for retirement (23%) expect their children to provide financial support for them after they retire. Millennial parents are most likely to say this (44% vs. 25% of Generation X parents and 5% of baby boomer parents), despite saving more than parents from other generations.


So where is the money going..








Many parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for their adult children’s basic living costs, including groceries (56%), health insurance (40%) and rent or housing outside the family home (21%). Some parents are also covering or have covered their adult child’s cell phone bill (39%) and car insurance (34%). But it’s important for parents — especially those who are behind in saving for retirement — to note that those same dollars could significantly grow their nest eggs over time.


 


In addition to these living costs, some parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for other expenses, such as clothing (32%), entertainment (20%), an allowance (10%) or a car loan (10%).




So, how long can your adult children be expected to interrupt your golden years? According to Nerd Wallet, 1 in 5 households surveyed said their adult children lived with them for more than half a decade.



Frankly, we continue to be shocked that all of those kids out there with $250,000 Art and Anthropology degrees are finding it difficult to land their dream jobs...










Friday, December 8, 2017

Homeless Swedes Out In The Cold

Authored by Bruce Bawer via The Gatestone Institute,



  • One reason there are so many immigrants in Sweden, both legal and illegal, is that the country"s welfare system is a bonanza for foreigners. Far from not being covered by the system, immigrants often enjoy preferential treatment

  • These Swedes should not be sleeping on the streets. The Scandinavian welfare states were founded on a compact between the citizens and their government: the people would pay outrageously high taxes, and in return their government would guarantee them a magnificent safety net should they get sick or get fired. But ever since these countries chose to open their doors to mass Muslim immigration, that compact has been broken.

  • A state-employed paper-pusher who gives citizens something for which they have already paid can hardly feel particularly virtuous, whereas handing out free stuff to aliens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it can make that same government paper-pusher feel like a world-class Good Samaritan.

  • Even more shattering is that millions of those Scandinavian citizens accept it. Marinated from birth in multiculturalism, millions of them dare not demand what they have coming to them -- what they have paid for, what they deserve -- lest they be viewed by others, and even by themselves, as bigots.


The other day, I reported about the Church of Sweden"s strenuous efforts to appease Islam. Now comes the news that from December 15 to March 15, churches in the diocese of Gothenburg will be used at night as shelters for the homeless.


Lovely idea. But there is a catch. The only homeless people who will be allowed in are foreigners -- either immigrants from elsewhere in the EU, who are by definition legal, or illegal immigrants from outside the EU. In other words, native Swedes need not apply, even though the initiative is being paid for by taxpayer money.




A man begs on the street in Lund, Sweden, July 23, 2013. (Image source: Sigfrid Lundberg/Flickr)


The argument for this policy -- which represents an expansion and formalization of a practice that began two winters ago -- is that it is designed to help people who are not covered by the Swedish welfare system. But this argument does not hold up. One reason there are so many immigrants in Sweden, both legal and illegal, is that the country"s welfare system is a bonanza for foreigners. Far from not being covered by the system, immigrants often enjoy preferential treatment. Last fall, for example, it was reported that several Swedish municipalities were passing over hardworking citizens who had waited several years to rent government-owned housing, and were giving the homes instead -- for free -- to unemployed, newly-arrived immigrants. Some Swedes actually stirred from their torpor and angrily criticized this policy, but the protest was to no avail: the Swedish Parliament had passed a law compelling local governments to put foreigners at the top of their waiting lists.


That the Swedish Parliament could pass such a law is, of course, a scathing indictment of its welfare system"s priorities. So is the fact that there are, as it happens, a great many ethnic Swedes living and begging on the streets of its cities, and -- in the winter -- huddling in the doorways of stores and offices, wrapped in layers of blankets at night, in hope of keeping alive in the subfreezing cold. The same disgraceful situation can be observed in the major cities of Norway and Denmark.


These Swedes should not be on the streets. The Scandinavian welfare states were founded on a compact between the citizens and their government: the people would pay outrageously high taxes, and in return their government would guarantee them a magnificent safety net should they get sick or get fired. But ever since these countries chose to open their doors to mass Muslim immigration, that compact has been broken.


Yes, the citizens are still being forced to pay for the welfare system -- but that system no longer has their backs. The people in authority, from the highest-ranking national leaders down to the lowest local bureaucrats, would seem to have forgotten for whom they work. In a way, it makes sense: After all, a state-employed paper-pusher who gives citizens something for which they have already paid can hardly feel particularly virtuous, whereas handing out free stuff to aliens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it can make that same government paper-pusher feel like a world-class Good Samaritan.


What is even more shattering than this state of affairs is that millions of those Scandinavian citizens accept it. Marinated from birth in multiculturalism, millions of them dare not demand what they have coming to them -- what they have paid for, what they deserve -- lest they be viewed by others, and even by themselves, as bigots.


Fortunately, not all Scandinavians fit this description. When the alternative news website Samnytt reported that the churches in Gothenburg would be turning away homeless people who belong to that church in order to accommodate members of a religion that views Christianity as an abomination, dozens of readers reacted with outrage. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," wrote one. "The hatred toward ethnic Swedes knows no bounds," wrote another. A third suggested that the churches of Gothenburg will soon, in any case, be converted into mosques -- minarets and all.


At present, alas, that seems like the safe bet.









Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Refugee Admissions Into U.S. Plunge 83% In First Two Months Of FY18

As monthly refugee admissions into the United States lap the last few months of Obama"s administration, the stark changes enacted by the Trump White House are more apparent than ever with admissions down a staggering 83% in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.


As CNS News points out, a total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.



The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.








In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.


 


In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).


 


Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).


 


The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.


 


By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).


 


The religious breakdown of those 18,300 refugees was: 48.1 percent Christian, 43.6 percent Muslim, 2.4 percent Buddhist, 1.7 percent Hindu, 0.9 percent Kirat and 0.3 percent Jewish.




Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the initiative with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley saying it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”








Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.


 


In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”


 


“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal.”


 


Haley said Sunday the New York declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”


 


She said no country has done more that the U.S. in providing support for migrant and refugee populations across the globe, “and our generosity will continue.”


 


“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”



Of course, it"s just a matter of time until Chuck Schumer and/or Nancy Pelosi tell us that Trump"s efforts to not outsource decisions regarding American sovereignty to the U.N. is just more evidence of the inherent racism plaguing the current administration.









Friday, December 1, 2017

Pew Research Center Says EU Muslim Population Could Triple By 2050

Over the past couple of years, Europe has experienced a record influx of asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Syria and other predominantly Muslim countries. Not surprisingly, the massive wave of Muslim migrants has become a political hot topic, particularly in countries like Germany, U.K., France, Italy and Sweden which have taken in a combined total of nearly 3 million migrants over just the past couple of years.  Per the Pew Research Center (PRC):



Now, in an effort to quantify how this massive wave of immigration may transform Europe"s demographics over the next several decades, the PRC has released a study estimating how the size of Europe’s Muslim population may evolve depending on future levels of migration.


To start, PRC estimated that Muslims made up roughly 4.9% of Europe"s overall population at the end of 2016 with Bulgaria (11.1%), France (8.8%) and Sweden (8.1%) having the highest concentrations.



They then proceeded to analyze how those populations may evolve over the next ~30 years under various immigration scenarios with the highest migration estimates resulting in a tripling of Europe"s overall Muslim population.


The baseline for all three scenarios is the Muslim population in Europe (defined here as the 28 countries presently in the European Union, plus Norway and Switzerland) as of mid-2016, estimated at 25.8 million (4.9% of the overall population) – up from 19.5 million (3.8%) in 2010.


 


Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern.


 


A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050.


 


Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe.




And here"s a more granular look at each country assuming a "zero migration scenario"...



..."medium migration scenario"...



and "high migration scenario."



Per the charts above, under the "high migration scenario," Finland"s Muslim population alone could increase by more than 5.5 times, while the UK could see an increase of 2.7 times and Sweden nearly 4x.


Of course, it"s probably not that big a deal...what could go wrong?