The Yemen Crises Won’t Disappear

Yemen is in danger of an imminent return to devastating levels of hunger and food insecurity, according to new analysis released by the UN agencies, the World Food Programme (WFP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Unicef.
They say that the percentage of the population predicted to face acute food insecurity in southern areas of the country will rise from 25% to 40% by the end of the year.
The escalating problems have been blamed on a combination of economic shocks, conflict, floods, desert locusts and now coronavirus, which Unicef said was “creating a perfect storm” that threatened to reverse recent efforts to stabilise food security in the country.
Areas forecast to experience the worst deterioration over the next six months include Abyan, Aden, Ad Dhale, Hadramaut, Lahj and Taizz, with the number of those affected in the region expected to go from 2 million people to 3.2 million out of a surveyed population of 7.9 million. The survey, carried out in 133 districts in southern Yemen, forecasts an alarming increase in the numbers of people expected to face high levels of acute food insecurity, including IPC phase 3 – “in crisis” – and phase 4 – “emergency” –by the end of the year.
The report says economic issues are one of the main concerns, with local currency in freefall, rampant inflation and rising food prices, and a near depletion of foreign exchange reserves. The country’s continuing conflict is cited as one of the main causes, with coronavirus also affecting food availability, access and market supply, and income-earning opportunities and wages. Compounding all these issues have been the recent swarms of desert locust and armyworm infestations that have hit crops, with cereal production this year forecast at 365,000 metric tonnes – less than half prewar levels.
David Beasley, executive director of WFP, described the situation as “heartbreaking”.
“Unless the international community steps up with an urgent injection of funds, we are going to find ourselves right back where we were in 2018, when we had to fight our way back from the brink of a full-scale famine. The Yemeni people have already been ravaged by years of conflict-fuelled hunger and malnutrition, and now Covid-19 is ratcheting up their misery. The world needs to open its eyes to this unfolding humanitarian disaster before it’s too late.”

Slave-Labour and the Uighur People

Many of the world’s biggest fashion brands and retailers are complicit in the forced labour and human rights violations being perpetrated on millions of Uighur people in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China, says a coalition of more than 180 human rights groups.



“Virtually the entire [global] apparels industry is tainted by forced Uighur and Turkic Muslim labour,” the coalition said in a statement.



 It says many of the world’s leading clothing brands continue to source cotton and yarn produced through a vast state-sponsored system of forced labour involving up to 1.8m Uighur and other Turkic and Muslim people in prison camps, factories and farms in Xinjiang. It says that the forced labour system across the region is the largest internment of an ethnic and religious minority since the second world war.



Global fashion brands source so extensively from Xinjiang that the coalition estimates it is “virtually certain” that as many as one in five cotton products sold across the world are tainted with forced labour and human rights violations occurring there.



China is the largest cotton producer in the world, with 84% of its cotton coming from the Xinjiang region. Cotton and yarn produced in Xinjiang are used extensively in other key garment-producing countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam. Xinjiang cotton and yarn are also used in textiles and home furnishings. 



The coalition has published an extensive list of brands it claims continue to source from the region, or from factories connected to the forced labour of Uighur people, including Gap, C&A, Adidas, Muji, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein.



The coalition says many more leading clothing brands also continue to maintain lucrative strategic partnerships with Chinese companies, accepting subsidies from their government to expand textile production in the region or benefiting from the forced labour of Uighur people transferred from Xinjiang to factories across China.



“There is a high likelihood that every high street and luxury brand runs the risk of being linked to what is happening to the Uighur people,” says Chloe Cranson, business and human rights manager at Anti-Slavery International. “This isn’t just about direct supply chain links, it’s about how the global apparels sector is helping prop up and facilitate the system of human rights abuses and forced labour,” says Crason. “There needs to be a deep and thorough interrogation of how brands and retailers are linked to what is happening at scale to the Uighur people.”



“Global brands need to ask themselves how comfortable they are contributing to a genocidal policy against the Uighur people. These companies have somehow managed to avoid scrutiny for complicity in that very policy – this stops today,” said Omer Kanat, executive director of the Uyghur Human Rights Project. There is mounting global outrage over the atrocities being committed against the Uighur population in the region, including torture, forced separation and the compulsory sterilisation of Uighur women.



https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/23/virtually-entire-fashion-industry-complicit-in-uighur-forced-labour-say-rights-groups-china

Over-Population – A Convenient Alibi

There exists an often unchallenged view that overpopulation is among the primary drivers of the planet’s ecological and climate crises. It is a misconception. “There are just too many people is simplistic and a misdiagnosis of the problem but it is a widely held analysis, rather than there are too many people it is to the endless pursuit of profit that environmentalists must look in order to save nature. An economic system that prizes endless short-term profit maximisation above all else is incompatible with ecological processes.
 Overpopulation is not responsible for the current devastation of nature. Understanding that would also allow us to focus on the real problem problem. It is both convenient and beneficial to blame overpopulation as the problem instead of the  economic system. Doing so protects the interests of those who benefit from it, the powerful. The use of overpopulation to explain the ills of hunger demonstrate this. There is, in fact, an abundance of food and much of it wasted, yet there is hunger. This contradiction points towards the deficiency in the distribution of food, a result of food being produced for profit. Conveniently for the farming industry and agricultural corporations that profit from food, overpopulation is there to obscure things.
Today’s world is based on the imperative for endless growth through market-based economies. We are talking about capitalism. 
The earth’s resources are finite, they tell us, and we human beings are using them up. The more human beings there are, the more pressure on these resources, and unless population growth is stopped, the planet will be destroyed. But this reasoning is as false. Yes, the earth’s resources are finite. But this does not mean that human activity is anywhere near reaching those limits, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Often arguments by the greens are centred on emissions by individuals, their carbon footprints. This gives the illusion that converting to vegetarianism or using electric cars are somehow going to transform modern industrial society is going to save the world.
The overpopulation argument, historically and as primarily used today makes “the poor” the main culprit for all the problems of the world. In 2015, Oxfam released data should surprise nobody who is familiar with inequality statistics, nonetheless, they are still shocking. The richest 10% of people produce 50% of all emissions, while the reverse is also true, that the poorest 50% produce just 10%. Crudely put, in terms of population, a poor person must reproduce themselves 25 times to account for the emissions impact of one of the richest.
If people are hungry and there are food riots , this is because of the inability of the poor to pay. In other words it is because of capitalist economics and capitalist politics.
We cannot entirely dismiss overpopulation as something that we should not be concerned about. There are 163,000,000 million people living in Bangladesh — half the population of the United States — all crowded on a land area the size of the state of Illinois. How could that ever be sustainable? But it is the manner in which the current economic system operates that requires to be radically challenged to avoid ecological collapse. This will happen when we break from the endless search for profit maximisation towards prioritising the needs of nature and the well-being of people. Capitalism, not population is the main driver of planetary collapse. But if we don’t overthrow capitalism, Nature is going to solve the overpopulation problem in a most unpleasant manner. Those who cite population reduction as a way to stop climate change are really saying they find it easier to conceive of “losing” a few billion of people, rather than contemplate overthrowing capitalism.

No Homes for Cambodians

Brand new luxury condominiums are springing up across the capital Phnom Penh, but the average Cambodian cannot afford to live in them.



Phnom Penh’s  old buildings are rapidly being replaced by new ones. But many of the glistening new condos are sitting empty.



One of Koh Pich’s condos is on the market for $1,500 (€1,322) per square meter. The total price of the eight-story building is around $1.8 million. Dubbed The Elysee, the street was inspired by French architecture to try and draw in new residents. The neighborhood has even erected a replica of the Arc de Triomphe, in the hopes residents feel they have been transported to Paris.



Sreynik Seng, who runs a small coffee shop in the area, told DW that most of the property there is owned by Chinese citizens. “Some of them try to rent out rooms. Others only seem to have it purely for the sake of owning it. I don’t think it matters to them when their building is empty,” Seng said. 



Foreign direct investment (FDI) is considered very important for Cambodia’s developing economy. Last year, the country received around $3.5 billion in FDI. 43% of the investment came from China — making China by far Cambodia’s largest foreign investor.



Kim Heang, the CEO of Khmer Real Estate, told DW that once construction is completed, many of the Phnom Penh condos are purchased by people from China, Taiwan and Singapore. Many of them don’t live in Cambodia permanently. 



“Between 2013 and 2017, most buyers were foreigners. But they don’t come to stay here,” Heang said, adding that it leaves many condos seemingly deserted. “2013 to 2016 was a golden time for condos. Some people made a lot of money with profits going up to 300%. Five years ago, the profit went down to about 200%. Now it’s 30-40%,” he said.



However, supply has grown much faster than demand. In 2016, there were less than 5,000 luxury flats in Phnom Penh. By late 2019, there were over 18,000, according to the CBRE Group, an American commercial real estate investment firm. In a 2019 report, CBRE warned of the risk of saturation in the condominium market. “Whilst supply is accelerating rapidly, the affordability of these segments has not adjusted to fit the local context and hence caused increased dependency on international investors,” the report said.



Financial crime watchdogs have also raised concerns about how exactly the million-dollar condos are being financed. Fearing that money was being laundered on a large scale, the anti-money laundering organization Financial Action Task Force (FATF) urged the Cambodian government to implement risk-based supervision for real estate and casinos. The European Union also listed Cambodia as a high-risk country for money laundering and financing terrorism. 



But it’s not only money laundering that has sparked concerns. Non-governmental organizations and labor unions also worry about the quality control of some of Cambodia’s newest buildings. Last year, an unauthorized seven-story building under construction collapsed in the coastal town of Sihanoukville, killing 28 people.



 San Chey, the director for Cambodia of the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability, told DW that widespread corruption creates a gateway for illegal and unsafe construction. “It’s not just about money, it’s about ignoring the legality of a project. There’s a failure of monitoring and a failure to take legal actions. It can lead to people getting killed.”



https://www.dw.com/en/cambodia-foreign-investment-phnom-penh/a-54255280



Is this our future?

“…When business as usual resumes, so does the air pollution that kills more people every year than Covid-19 has yet done, and exacerbates the impacts of the virus. Climate breakdown and air pollution are two aspects of a wider dysbiosis. Dysbiosis means the unravelling of ecosystems. The term is used by doctors to describe the collapse of our gut biomes, but it is equally applicable to all living systems: rainforests, coral reefs, rivers, soil. They are unspooling at shocking speed due to the cumulative effect of “normality”, which entails a perpetual expansion of consumption.
This month we learned that $10bn-worth of precious metals, such as gold and platinum, are dumped in landfill every year, embedded in tens of millions of tonnes of lesser materials, in the form of electronic waste. The world’s production of e-waste is rising by 4% a year. It is driven by another outlandish norm: planned obsolescence. Our appliances are designed to break down, they are deliberately engineered not to be repaired. This is one of the reasons why the average smartphone, containing precious materials extracted at great environmental cost, lasts for between two and three years, while the average desktop printer prints for a total of five hours and four minutes before it is discarded.
The living world, and the people it supports, cannot sustain this level of consumption, but normal [capitalist] life depends on it. The compound, cascading effects of dysbiosis push us towards what some scientists warn could be global systemic collapse…”
Taken from

Conservatives and Motherhood

Around the world there is no shortage of conservatives who want women to bear as many babies as they physically can. They oppose contraception and are against safe, legal abortion. Motherhood is extolled.



You would think, given obsession with motherhood, thy would have campaigned to ensure childbirth is a safe and positive experience for women. Instead, they have paradoxically left such campaigns to the feminists and global health experts who they vehemently oppose.  Many have attacked the World Health Organization (WHO) – the global health body that is standing up for women’s rights to timely, quality and respectful care in childbirth. Globally, “pro-life” and “pro-family” movements have been busy campaigning – not to protect the rights of pregnant women and new mothers. Their focus has been on limiting women’s choices.



Many women have endured unacceptable dangers and mistreatment giving birth. The pandemic appears to have made this much worse. The United Nations warned that COVID-19 restrictions and lockdown disruptions could result in seven million unintended pregnancies in just six months. For a heartbreaking number of women, they have had no choice but to continue these pregnancies or seek unsafe abortions.



 Since March, women in at least 45 countries have faced childbirth experiences during the pandemic that defy international guidelines as well as national laws and policies. In countries around the world, women have been forcibly separated from newborns; required to give birth “alone” without support from partners or relatives; denied pain medication. At some hospitals, all women have been subjected to “mandatory” caesarean sections. Those who have arrived at maternity wards to give birth during the pandemic have faced other restrictions that top doctors and lawyers denounced as “unnecessary” and part of an “alarming pattern of women’s health and rights being deprioritised”. 



A week after the pandemic was declared, the WHO even issued specific guidance on childbirth during COVID-19 – insisting, among other things, that women giving birth be treated with respect and dignity; be allowed birth companions, and; be supported to breastfeed and have skin-to-skin contact with newborns. (Yes, the very same WHO that the “most pro-life president” Trump has sought to savagely defund.)



In the US, conservative states moved quickly to “ban” abortions by classifying them as non-essential services. Last week, the Supreme Court upheld Trump administration rules allowing employers to opt out of including birth control in an employee’s health insurance plan.



By not using their power to make a difference for women in childbirth conservatives reveal how their interests actually lie elsewhere – in promoting and defending childbirth as “women’s work”, something that women must do in patriarchal societies, and that they should not “complain” about. This is bad news for women.



This pandemic should teach us we have more in common than we do not – and help  protect women’s rights and lives.



https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pro-life-activists-won-protect-women-childbirth-200720112359653.html

Canadian Sanctuary for Asylum Seekers

Canada’s federal court has ruled that a pact with Washington which prevents migrants from seeking asylum when they attempt to enter the country from the US is invalid because it violates their human rights.



Under the so-called Safe Third Country Agreement between the two neighbors, asylum seekers at a formal border crossing traveling in either direction are turned back and told to apply for asylum in the country they first arrived in. Lawyers for refugees who had been turned away at the Canadian border challenged the agreement, saying the United States does not qualify as a “safe” country under Donald Trump.



More than 50,000 people have illegally crossed the Canada-US border to file refugee claims over the past four years, with some walking through waist-deep snow and fording icy rivers. Canada sought to stem the number of asylum seekers that flowed into the country starting in 2016, after Trump promised to crack down on illegal immigration into the US. 



Federal court judge Ann Marie McDonald ruled that the agreement was in violation of a section of Canada’s charter of rights that says laws or state actions that interfere with life, liberty and security must conform to the principles of fundamental justice.



Born to Wealth

One in 10 of UK adults born in the 1980s will inherit more than half as much money from their parents as the average person earns in a lifetime, according to a new report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of the nation’s leading economics thinktanks.
It said wealth passed down from one generation to the next was fast-becoming the most important determinant of how well-off people will become.
On average, the inheritances of adults born in the 1980s will be worth as much as 14% of their overall lifetime earnings from work, compared to 8% for people born in the 1960s.
The thinktank found the median inheritance for those born in the 1980s is estimated to be £136,000, compared to £107,000 for those born in the 1970s and £66,000 for those born in the 1960s. This represents a more than doubling in the size of inheritances, at a time when incomes have barely risen for young adults compared to previous generations.
The IFS said people born in the 1980s had accumulated no more wealth than adults born in the 1970s had done by the same age, but that their parents were 40% better-off in comparison.
The IFS said adults born in the 1980s currently earn less than adults born just 10 years earlier had done by the same age. However, it found that while one in 10 of those born in the 1960s would inherit an amount equal to at least 32% of average lifetime earnings, one in 10 of those born in the 1980s will inherit more than 52% of average lifetime earnings.
David Sturrock, a senior research economist at the IFS, said: “So what we see today as differences in wealth between different generations is on course to have important implications for social immobility within younger generations.”
Robert Palmer, executive director of the campaign group Tax Justice UK, said: “This report is further proof of the scale of wealth inequality with inheritances set to grow in coming years.”
Official figures show that the income of the richest 20% of people in Britain was more than six times the poorest 20% in the last financial year.

Australian athletes abused

The blog has posted on the abuse of female athletes in the UK and in Japan and now stories are emerging from Australia of similar behaviour. 



Dozens of Australia’s former top gymnasts have spoken out to allege instances of mental and physical abuse within the nation’s elite programme. Many argued that coaches normalised a “toxic” environment.

Generations of former gymnasts have posted publicly about damaging experiences. Their allegations include:

Pressure over their weight and incidents of food deprivation; some detailed experiences with bulimia Pressure to train and perform through injuries such as broken bones Being coerced to perform stunts beyond their ability Widespread violations of adult-child supervision guidelines A “toxic” environment of criticism and negativity

Chloe Gilliland, a gold medallist at the 2006 Commonwealth Games, said she had felt depressed and anxious at her “peak”, and left the sport for her own wellbeing when she was 17. She said was regularly insulted by her coaches, called stupid and overweight, and isolated from her teammates. She added she had suicidal thoughts.
Olivia Vivian, who began in the sport when she was nine, said she learnt as a child to hide experiences from her parents. She represented Australia at the 2008 Olympics but after reaching that level became “a broken athlete and a broken person,” she wrote.
 Many said they wished to change the environment for other children and teenagers currently in the sport.
“I am scared to share my story, but at some point, someone has to stand up for the athletes,” said Mary-Anne Monckton, who won two silver medals at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. “The abuse (physical, mental and emotional) needs to stop, or at least be stamped out of our sport,” she said.
A young South Korean triathlete has taken her own life after lodging a number of complaints over alleged abuse from her coaching staff.
Choi Suk-hyeon, 22, said she endured years of abuse, but that her complaints to sporting authorities were ignored, reports say. She was selected for the national triathlon team in 2015 as a teenager. A number of sportswomen have reported abuse in South Korea over the years.
All this abuse for the sake of promoting national prestige by gaining medals in international competitions. 

There is no population time bomb

Popular wisdom has it that the world population numbers are exploding. Recent projections show just how wrong that is – we are actually in a time of a population slowdown. It has been obvious for some time that the human population slowdown began many decades ago, but just how rapid that slowdown is has been apparent only very recently.

 In 2013 the United Nations upped its estimate of the future 2100 global human population total from 10 billion to 11 billion. And again in 2015 the UN said the global population would reach 11.2 billion by 2100, and then in 2017 it repeated exactly the same number. The UN methodology  had ignored a baby boom. Their models did not take into account the fact that birth rates between 2011 and 2019 were high because these were the great-grandchildren of so many people born worldwide shortly after the Second World War – the original peak was simply working its way through the generations. The UN also failed to recognize what had made fertility so high in African countries in recent years (on which more below) or that the world was still experiencing a huge cultural shift regarding the rights of, and respect for, women.


Jørgen Randers, a Norwegian academic in 1972  predicted a sharp rise to an unsustainable world population of 15 billion people by 2030. Darrell Bricker,and John Ibbitson in their book Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline’ now believe  that because fertility rates suggest that: ‘The world population will never reach nine billion people… . It will peak at eight billion in 2040, and then decline.’

Wolfgang Lutz, a well-respected demographer, along with his colleagues at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, also expect that the global human population will stabilize by 2050 and then begin to fall. In 2018 Lutz and his colleagues stated that they forecast the world population peak to occur shortly after 2070. Their projection would mean between two billion and three billion fewer humans by 2100 than the UN currently estimates.

 A recent Deutsche Bank report by Sanjeev Sanyal that suggests the peak in human numbers on Earth will be reached at just 8.7 billion in 2055, and decline to 8 billion by 2100.

Danny Dorling in 2013 wrote a book titled Population 10 Billion’ proposes that most likely at the time was that we would see a maximum of 9.3 billion around the year 2060, dipping perhaps to 7.4 billion by 2100.

When you can trust that society will look after you, then you can more happily choose to have no babies, or just one. You do not need the insurance policy of having children to look after you in the future – or a great number of children (which people have when their children’s individual chances of survival are poor). And when women are able to make their own choices about whether to have a child and how many to have, then – everything changes. Population growth was enormous worldwide in the 1940s, 1950s, and at the start of the 1960s: the growth rate itself was growing! But then, quite suddenly, but also remarkably smoothly, the rate of growth began to slow. Between 1980 and today, global human population growth rates became stable at around 80 million more people being added per year.

This stable growth is attributable to a combination of fewer births and, crucially, growth mainly because the people alive at that time were living longer. Next, because there are limits to the amount that life expectancy can increase, from 2020 onward that rate of worldwide population growth is itself projected to fall. The UN thinks that it will fall very steadily, to 70 million a year being added in 2030, 60 million in 2040, 50 million in 2050, 40 million in 2060, just over 30 million being added each year in 2070s, and then a little slowdown itself in the rate of slowdown. Why? Because the UN demographers currently believe that the whole world will move toward a two-child norm. However, that key assumption has no historical or scientific basis. Everything has changed so much that choosing to have no children, or just one child, is for the majority of women worldwide now just as easy as – if not easier than – choosing to have two.

CHINA

China’s population is now expected to peak in 2030 at 1.44 billion and then drop to below 1.4 billion in 2044, dip below 1.3 billion by 2060, below 1.2 billion just after 2070, below 1.1 billion in 2086, and fall below 1 billion around the year 2104 – but only if current projections turn out to be accurate. It could drop faster, since the relaxation of the one-child policy has not resulted in a substantial rise in births. Cultural attitudes to family size have changed in a way that would now be hard to reverse. China’s birth rate is currently dropping far more quickly than either the UN or official Chinese projections had envisaged.

AFRICA

By 2020 Africa’s population will have grown to 1.35 billion people, which means it will still be less than that of China at 1.42 billion. However, very soon after 2020, as China slows down, and as most African countries are expected to continue to experience population acceleration, the continent as a whole is projected to far outstrip China in population. This will be the first time in many thousands of years that there will be more people living in Africa than in China. Recent years, 2000-15, had seen unusually high population growth across Africa. It is the projection forward of that unusual and very recent high rate of growth that drove the UN projection model published in 2017. The projected future rise of the population of so many African states relies on a demographic model that is beginning to look very questionable. It is certainly true that Africa is home to many of the countries that currently have the highest fertility rates in the world. But the supposition that birth rates across Africa will in future slow down only slightly is dubious. It assumes that what is going on in the rest of the world will have little effect on the continent. With much of the rest of the world approaching a population shortage, out-migration from Africa may well rise in future in response to the growing need for younger people around the rest of the planet. This would further dampen the rate of acceleration of population growth across Africa below that which is currently predicted by the UN. With higher adult out-migration from Africa, fewer children would be born within Africa.

Furthermore, migrants who leave countries of high fertility tend to have fewer children over the course of their lives than those who remain. This, of course, also assumes that removal (by emigration) of some fraction of a peer group has no effect on the pace of fertility decline among those remaining. But what if conditions for those remaining also improve, access to secondary and tertiary education improves, and the reasons so many people had for leaving are reduced?

There is growing evidence that the most recent years in Africa have been an aberration. In February 2019, research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was widely reported around the world. The researchers found that it was most likely a disruption in access to decent education in many African countries in the 1980s, especially for girls, that led to young women having more children, producing this recent (and very possibly temporary) aberration in what had previously been a faster rate of slowdown.

In the past 20 years, access to education for girls across Africa has improved markedly. None of this is taken into account in the UN’s models. The disruption to education in the 1980s was during the worst recorded period of economic decline that the countries of Africa had ever collectively suffered, a decline that occurred under the structural adjustment policies introduced by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Girls who couldn’t attend school in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to structural adjustment became women who on average had children earlier and more children overall. Poverty, despair and ignorance increase fertility. The damage wreaked on the continent by those structural adjustment programmes was devastating.

INDIA


Improved infant survival chances after Indian independence meant that the population of the new state of India grew by more than 20 per cent every decade from 1951 onwards, right through until 2001-11, when growth slowed to just under 20 per cent in the final 10 years for which we have an accurate count. The population of Pakistan grew by just as much but slowed to 20.1 per cent growth between 2001 and 2011, and it has been estimated to be decelerating throughout the most recent years. Most important, Bangladesh has slowed down the fastest, with its population growing by only 16.9 per cent between 2001 and 2011, mostly due to people living longer, rather than more births, and with its rate of population growth also falling each year within that period due to the decline in births.


The period of acceleration of the population growth of the Indian sub-continent as a whole ended in 1995, when 24 million people were added in just one year. The slowdown has already begun. It started a quarter of a century ago in India, but it is currently projected to be a slow slowdown, with growth falling below the addition of 20 million people a year in 2020, below 10 million a year in 2043, and reaching zero growth – peak Indian subcontinent population – in 2063 (or 2059, according to the 2019 UN estimates). After that, the 2017 UN projections suggest the population will shrink by more than seven million people a year for the first time in 2094, when the total is still above two billion people, one billion having been reached in 1987. However, there are very good reasons to believe that the slowdown could be quicker than that, with the very recent falls in fertility being the most obvious sign that the UN’s projections, those made in both 2017 and 2019, overestimated future population in its ‘most probable’ outcome. But the stories of other countries are telling, too. We can learn much from the recent past of other countries – as long as we look.


USA


Migration into the US that had taken place between 1990 and 2017 came from neighbouring Mexico (12.7 million people). This resulted in Central America and the Caribbean accounting for just over 47 per cent (22.4 million) of the total migration to the United States in that period. Mexico was followed by China, India and the Philippines in importance, each contributing over two million people to the in-migration count. Six other countries contributed more than one million people to the US’s immigration numbers: Puerto Rico, Vietnam, El Salvador, Cuba, South Korea and the Dominican Republic.


US politicians reacted to this acceleration with sanctions. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was signed into law in September 1996. Deportation from the United States went from being a rare phenomenon to a relatively common one. More immigration enforcement is one big reason why there are so many unauthorized immigrants in the US today. People were actually more likely to remain in the United States because of the difficulty they encountered going back and forth to their country of origin, and obtaining legal status became much more problematic.
Unlike the rest of the Americas, in 2100 the US is still predicted to be growing in population size.  UN projections are especially over-optimistic as far as the United States is concerned and its population will actually fall at some point during this coming century.


Full article at