Russia and How to Flee the Western Neoliberal Agenda

The West is becoming increasingly polarized in its views on many issues, a great number of which are issues of morality.  The left believes that the right are actually "far right" and that they are racist, misogynistic, homophobic and religious ignoramuses and that they are "progressive" while the right believes that the left is pretty much responsible for the decay of society, the death of the family and the massive influx of illegal immigrants.  This polarization has become worse and worse over the past 10 years as left- and right-leaning politicians play on our differences.

 

There is, however, one nation that still retains its religious roots and is willing to allow Westerners who are disillusioned with the neoliberal agenda access to their traditional spiritual and moral values as you will see in this posting.

  

Here's how Russia's state news agency TASS reported these changes to Russia's immigration policies:

 

 

Here is the decree "On providing humanitarian support to persons who share traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" in Russian:

 

Here are some quotes from the decree starting with its intent:

 

"In order to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms, support individuals who have made a free choice in favor of spiritual, cultural, legal connection with Russian Federation..."

 

The decree changes Russia's immigration laws substantially as follows:

 

"Grant the right to apply for a temporary residence permit without taking into account the approved Government of the Russian Federation quotas and without submitting a document which:

 

1.) confirms proficiency in the Russian language

  

2.) confirms knowledge of the history of Russia and the basics of the legislation of the Russian Federation"

 

Eligible applicants include "foreign citizens and stateless persons who have expressed a desire to move to the Russian Federation to live from foreign countries citizenship or permanent residence based on non-acceptance of the policies implemented by these states, which impose destructive neoliberal ideological guidelines that contradict traditional Russian spiritual and moral values."

 

The decree goes on to state that there is a list of foreign states (which will be supplied by the government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within 30 days) that are implementing policies imposing destructive neoliberal ideologies which contradict traditional Russian spiritual and moral values and have been approved by the Government.

  

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russia Federation will issue a temporary residence permit to applicants provided that there are no grounds for refusal.  The Ministry will issue a single-entry ordinary private visa for three months on the basis of a decision of the head of a diplomatic mission or consular office of the Russian Federation to issue a visa to a foreign citizen or stateless person.

While the Western media has us believing that Russia is part of the evil empire, in fact, in my two visits to the nation and areas well outside of the normal tourist attractions, I found that there was very little difference between life in Russia and life in the West other than language.  Russians were helpful when we needed assistance (or even when it appeared that we needed assistance and actually didn't) and were most curious about life in the West and how we viewed their nation and their leader.  Of all of the nations that I have visited and lived in during my lifetime, I would say that Russia has the potential to be quite a livable destination and were I at a different point in my life, the offer of a 3 month visa would be worth considering even as an exercise to gain a better understanding of Russia, its unique people and their spirituality and morality.

The Democrats - Using Illegal Immigrants as an Electoral Pawn

Immigration has become one of the key hot button issues in the 2024 election cycle, particularly across the southern border of the United States.  For one political party, immigration policy has been a key to the political landscape in the United States as you will see in this posting.

  

Let's start with this graphic from U.S. Customs and Border Protection showing the number of land border encounters along the southwest frontier by month for the past year:

 

In fiscal 2023 (October 2022 to September 2023 inclusive), there were 2,475,669 encounters with immigrants attempting to enter the United States along the southwestern border and, so far the first three months of fiscal 2024, there have been 785,422 encounters, an increase of 66,405 over the previous year.  It is also notable to observe that encounters hit a new record of 302,034 in December 2023.

 

Here is a graphic from the Center for Immigration Studies showing how the population of illegal immigrants has changed over the Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations:

 

 

Back in April 2013, this report appeared on the Center for American Progress website:

 

 

As background and for those of you who aren't aware of the Center for American Progress, it claims to be "...an independent, nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country."

 

This liberal-leaning think tank was founded by the well-known Democrat, John Podesta, in 2003.  Podesta was the White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and Chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign so it is very clear that he leans very strongly to the Democratic side of the spectrum.

The report opens with this (my bolds):

 

"In the wake of the overwhelming Latino and Asian American support for President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election—support that was critical to his re-election—the political winds on immigration have shifted significantly to favor immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country. A full 71 percent of Latino voters and 73 percent of Asian American voters supported the president in the election, and poll after poll illustrates that these groups strongly opposed the “self-deportation” policies of Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and instead supported President Obama’s immigration-reform efforts. Changing demographics, especially the rapid growth of the Latino population and their power as voters, ensured that key swing states such as Florida, Colorado, and Nevada voted for the president."

 

Here is a quote from Marco Rubio (R-FL) that is used in the report as a reason why immigration forms a key part of electoral victory in America:

 

“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their grandmother.”

 

The report clearly notes that the Democrats need the Latino vote to keep them in office, thus, promoting a pro-immigration stance was/is/would be a key tool for ensuring electoral victory in the future.  

 

Here is a graphic from the report showing how the estimated number of Latino voters is projected to increase in 12 states when comparing the 2014 midterm election to the 2016 presidential election:

 

The authors of the report examined the relationship between the increase in the growth of the Hispanic community in Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia and how this growing population supported President Obama in 2012.  They also looked to the future, laying claim to short-term future wins in Arizona and North Carolina and long-term wins in Georgia and Texas all because of the Hispanic demographic shift.

 

The report closes with this:

 

"Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won 332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.

 

Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share of the total voting population. These voters care deeply about how both parties talk about immigration, and use it as a litmus test for how candidates from either party feel about their communities as a whole. In fact, immigration reform has become the number one political issue for Latino voters. The voters have spoken, and the message is clear: Getting right on immigration and getting behind real and enduring immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future."

 

It's pretty clear that the Democratic Party believes that illegal immigrants can be used as a pawn.  In the opinion of their experts, a relaxed immigration policy will lead to electoral wins which may, in part, explain their current reluctance to act on the crisis along the southwest frontier of the United States.  What the Biden Administration seems to be failing to grasp is that today's illegal immigrants are no longer mainly Latino, in fact, they represent nations from Asia, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa who may not share the political views of earlier unauthorized immigrants.

George Soros and Neoliberalism - Taking on Europe's Populist Resurgence

The recent populist "gilets jaunes" movement in France and the 2016 British referendum on Brexit are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what lies ahead for Europe.  As you will see in this posting, there is one gentleman who thought that he had the ultimate solution to what ailed Europe. I would like to apologize in advance for the length of this posting, however, to help put everything into context, it is important that you understand the background behind the key player and his comments.

Let's start by looking at the classic and very basic definition of populism as proposed by political scientist Cas Muddle:

"Populism is a thin-centred ideology that divides society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: “the pure people” on the one side and “the corrupt elite” on the other."

Cas Muddle notes that there is no single definition of populism that will describe all populists and that populism is not about being rich or poor, rather, it is cultural as shown in this quote about Donald Trump:

"His connection to the people is actually cultural, not through money—it is through eating at McDonald’s and putting ketchup on your steak and not being interested in high culture. That is how he says, “I am one of you”. Sure, I am way richer than you, but that’s irrelevant, because populism is not about money, it is about values." (my bold)

According to the Guardian, the populist movement in Europe has been consistently on the rise; in 1998, populist political parties were a marginal force that accounted for only 7 percent of votes cast across Europe.  In 2018, 27 percent of votes were cast for populist parties in the last parliamentary election with far-right populists accounting for 14 percent of votes, far-left populists accounting for 6 percent of votes and other populists accounting for 7 percent of votes.  A prime European example of populism is found in the wake of the Brexit vote.  As you well know, the populist movement in the United States is largely what resulted in the Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 as tens of millions of voters have grown increasingly disgusted with business as usual in Washington.

This posting requires additional background to help you put everything into its proper context.  Since the main subject of this posting is George Soros, let's look at some background on one of the world's most wealthy individuals.  For those of you that are not aware, according to Forbes, Mr. Soros is the 60th richest man in the world with a net worth of $8.3 billion as shown here:

According to Bloomberg, here is what has happened to his wealth since 2012:

It is important to note that Mr. Soros donated $18 billion to fund his Open Society Foundation in October 2017, a donation that accounts for the drop in his net worth.

Mr. Soros is very politically involved as you can see here:

...here:

...and here:

In the 2016 presidential election cycle, Soros Fund Management donated $10,556,793 to Hillary Clinton's campaign, making it Hillary Clinton's sixth largest contributor.

With all of that as background, let's look at a July 2016commentary entitled "This is Europe's Last Chance to Fix Its Refugee Policy" by George Soros on the situation in Europe and its ongoing struggle with immigration.  Here is the opening:

"The refugee crisis was already leading to the slow disintegration of the European Union. Then, on June 23, it contributed to an even greater calamity — Brexit. Both of these crises have reinforced xenophobic, nationalist movements across the continent. They will try to win a series of key votes in the coming year — including national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany in 2017, a referendum in Hungary on EU refugee policy on Oct. 2, a rerun of the Austrian presidential election on the same day, and a constitutional referendum in Italy in October or November of this year.

Rather than uniting to resist this threat, EU member states have become increasingly unwilling to cooperate with one another. They pursue self-serving, discordant migration policies, often to the detriment of their neighbors…

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive policy ought to remain the highest priority for European leaders; the union cannot survive without it. The refugee crisis is not a one-off event; it augurs a period of higher migration pressures for the foreseeable future, due to a variety of causes including demographic and economic imbalances between Europe and Africa, unending conflicts in the broader region, and climate change."

So, what is Mr. Soros solution?  

"First, the EU and the rest of the world must take in a substantial number of refugees directly from front-line countries in a secure and orderly manner, which would be far more acceptable to the public than the current disorder. If the EU made a commitment to admit even just 300,000 refugees each year, and if that commitment were matched by countries elsewhere in the world, most genuine asylum-seekers would calculate that their odds of reaching their destination are good enough for them not to seek to reach Europe illegally, since that would disqualify them from being legally admitted. If, on top of this, conditions in front-line countries improved thanks to greater aid, there would be no refugee crisis. But the problem of economic migrants would remain." (my bold)

Obviously, there is a substantial cost to this solution.

"At least 30 billion euros a year will be needed for the EU to carry out a comprehensive asylum plan. These funds are needed both inside the union — to build effective border and asylum agencies and ensure dignified reception conditions, fair asylum procedures, and opportunities for integration — as well as outside its borders — to support refugee-hosting countries and spur job creation throughout Africa and the Middle East. Robust border and asylum agencies alone could cost on the order of 15 billion euros." (my bold)

Mr. Soros solution to raising the necessary funds is through what he calls "surge funding" which "...entails raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU’s relatively small budget, rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year...".  He notes that Europe should have no problem raising its debt level since it already has a "remarkably low amount of debt given its budget".

Here is a map from Eurostat showing the gross debt-to -GDP for all European nations:

As you can see, debt-to-GDP ranges from a low of 8.3 percent for Estonia to a high of 179.7 percent for Greece.  In the second quarter of 2018, the Euro19 had a debt-to GDP of 86.3 percent and the Euro28 had a debt-to-GDP of 81 percent.  One would have to wonder exactly what Mr. Soros terms as high debt given that he feels that a debt-to-GDP in excess of 80 percent is "remarkably low".

Here is Mr. Soros ultimate solution to fixing Europe and the funding of his proposed asylum plan:

"To finance it (the comprehensive asylum plan), new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later."

And, there's the problem.  The situation in France is proving that Mr. Soros "simple solution" of raising taxes is not so simple after all.  The gilets jaunes movement began as a protest against the government tax reforms which disproportionately burdened lower and middle income classes in addition to the increase in fuel taxes.  Raising money through higher taxes may seem like a simple solution to Mr. Soros, however, millions of voters across Europe would strongly suggest otherwise.

Let's close with this photo:

That's Canada's photogenic Prime Minister Justin Trudeau benefitting from George Soros views on the world at the Davos meeting in 2020.  What this tweet didn't show was the other person in attendance at the meeting of the minds, Canada's foreign minister and Soros acolyte, Chrystia Freeland who posted this photo of the meeting on her parliamentary website:

Given that Justin Trudeau stated this shortly after he took office in October 2015:

‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.  There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.’’

...I think that it's pretty certain what direction Canada will be heading in should Justin Trudeau win the next federal election.  Welcome to the Europe of North America.

Immigration, Religion and Population Growth - Where Is America Headed?

Updated August 2017

Immigration has been a hot topic in the United States, particularly in the months leading up to and since the election in November 2016 and with the announcement of the end of DACA, it is certain to remain front page news for some time.  Many of us have certain preconceived notions about the people groups that make up the majority of the immigrant population in each state; a recent publication by Bank of America Merrill Lynch includes a map that tells the real immigration story, a map that clearly outlines non-Christian religious affiliation and data that shows us where the United States is headed demographically speaking, an issue that will affect how the Washington of the future handles immigration.

Let's start by looking at immigration.  Here is the map from the BofAML's publication showing the non-Mexican source of immigrants for each state:

It is rather surprising to see how many states have an immigrant majority that is sourced from India.

The states with the highest immigrant populations include California (Filipinos), New York (Chinese), Texas (Indians) and Florida (Cubans).  Roughly 500,000 immigrants arrive in the United States each year.  According to statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal 2015, a total of 1,051,031 persons obtained lawful permanent residence status in the United States, up from 990,553 in fiscal 2013.  The majority of these persons were from Asia (405,854) with just over 185,000 coming from China, India and the Philippines combined.  A total of 439,228 came from the Americas including 157,227 from Mexico, 146,086 from the Caribbean and 54,178 from Cuba.  A total of 98,677 came from Africa and 90,789 came from Europe.

Now, let's look at non-Christian religious affiliation.  In this era where religious affiliation is often associated with violence in the homeland, let's look at the largest non-Christian religion by state:

As you can see, outside of Christianity, Islam in the most popular religion in 20 states mainly located in the midwest and southern states, followed by Judaism in 14 states located mainly in the northeast and Buddhism in 13 states located mainly in the western parts of the United States.  According to the Pew Research Center, there are roughly 3.3 million Muslims of all ages living in the United States (2015 data), making up roughly 1 percent of the total U.S. population.  Here is a graphic from Pew showing how the proportion of Muslims is expected to double as a percentage of the total U.S. population by 2025 while the proportion of Jews is expected to decline as a percentage of the total U.S. population:

Let's look at the third aspect of where the United States is headed racially speaking.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, on average in 2015, the United States was 61 percent white, 12 percent black, 18 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian.   As shown on this map, this percentage varies widely on a state-by-state level from a low of 37 percent in the District of Columbia to a high of 94 percent in Vermont:

Interestingly, California, the nation's most populous state by a wide margin, is only 39 percent white.   Again, according to Pew, this is what the composition of the United States looked like in 1960, 2011 and what it will look like in 2050 when the white population is outnumbered by non-whites 47 percent to 53 percent:

It is interesting to see how the demography of the United States has changed over the past three generations and how these changes are expected to continue despite the current administration's efforts to block immigration, particularly of certain people groups.  The traditional Christian and Jewish religious blocs are also seeing their traditional stronghold disappear to some extent with significant growth in Islam and Hinduism, a change that will certainly have an impact on how Washington handles the immigration hot-button issue in the future.

The Unintended Consequences of Deporting Unauthorized Immigrants

Updated April 2017

The moves by the Trump Administration to make almost all undocumented/unauthorized immigrants subject to deportation could have an unintended impact on the United States economy.  In this posting, I want to take a brief look at how many unauthorized immigrants there are living in the United States, what industries they work in and the economic impact of removing them all from American soil. 

According to a study by Pew Research, the number of unauthorized immigrants peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, falling back to the 2014 level of 11.1 as shown here:

This accounts for roughly 3.5 percent of the U.S. population, down from 4 percent in 2007.

Obviously, all of these unauthorized immigrants are not in the workforce.  Here is a graphic showing the estimated number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labour force since 1995:

In 2014, approximately 5 percent of the total workforce consisted of unauthorized workers, down from 5.4 percent in 2007.  Interestingly, in 2014, about two-thirds of the unauthorized adult immigrants had been in the United States for at least ten years with only 14 percent living in the U.S. for five years or less.  As well, in 2014, unauthorized adult immigrants had been living in the United States for a median of 13.6 years.

Unauthorized immigrants tend to make up a higher share of the workforce in certain occupations as shown on this graphic:

Here is a detailed table showing the total size of the workforce for major occupation groups, breaking the total into the number of U.S.-born, lawful immigrants and unauthorized immigrants:

As you can see on the bottom part of the table, certain occupations have an over-representation of unauthorized immigrants compared to U.S.-born workers; only in construction and farming jobs do unauthorized immigrant workers outnumber lawful immigrant workers.  As well, unauthorized immigrants were over-represented in production jobs including manufacturing, food processing and textile manufacturing were they comprised 9 percent of the total workforce.

Now, let's look at the economic impact of unauthorized immigrants on the U.S. economy.  According to a study by the Center for American Progress, the average annual nationwide loss in GDP if all unauthorized workers were removed from the United States would be $434.4 billion.  Here is a table showing the financial losses by industry over both the short- and long-term:

Here is a table showing the reduction in GDP contribution for each industrial sector over both the short- and long-term:

The economic impact of a mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants would grow over time as shown here:

If all unauthorized immigrants were deported, over the period from 2017 to 2026, the cumulative reduction in GDP would total $4.749 trillion or 2.0 percent of GDP.

As we can see, there is going to be a significant economic impact to the complete removal of all unauthorized immigrants from the United States.  In addition to the reduction in the size of the economy, there will be a significant cost to both execute and enforce a policy that sees the removal of over 11 million individuals from the United States.  A 2016 study by Ben Gitis at the American Action Forum found that it would take at least 20 years to remove all unauthorized immigrants from the United States at a cost of between $400 billion and $600 billion.

Obviously, the issue of unauthorized immigrants is far more complex than it appears on the surface and the implementation of mass deportations could have significant unintended consequences on the U.S. economy.  With weak economic growth levels since the end of the Great Recession and mounting federal debt levels, Americans will have to carefully examine the pros and cons of removing all undocumented workers from American soil.