A United Nations document from 2000 exposes “The
Great People Replacement” as their final solution.
Offered as a solution for the unsustainable entitlement states
of Europe, it is now being implemented by the EU superstate as “refugee
quotas.” But it’s not about responding to unforeseen tragedies and wars that
create refugees.
David Knight breaks down the UN’s plan for a 21st Century
invasion and subjugation of the West.
Text of the UN Plan in red, which dates to the year 2000,
my comments in green
Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution
to Declining and Ageing Populations?
United Nations projections indicate that over the
next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as
Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of
declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of
many established policies and programmes, including those relating to
international migration.
Focusing on these two striking and critical
population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight
low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe
and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international
migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population
ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
(Page 1 of 5)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United Nations Population Division monitors fertility,
mortality and migration trends for all countries of the world, as a basis for
producing the official United Nations population estimates and projections.
Among the demographic trends revealed by those figures, two are particularly
salient: population decline and population ageing. Focusing on these two
striking and critical trends, the present study addresses the question of
whether replacement migration is a solution to declining and ageing populations.
Replacement migration refers to the international migration that would be
needed to offset declines in the size of population and declines in the
population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a
population. The study computes the size of replacement migration and
investigates the possible effects of replacement migration on the population
size and age structure for a range of countries that have in common a fertility
pattern below the replacement level.
Eight countries are examined: France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
Two regions are also included: Europe and the European Union.
The time period covered is roughly half a century, from 1995
to 2050.
According to the United
Nations population projections (medium variant), Japan and virtually all the
countries of Europe are expected to decrease in population size over the next
50 years. For example, the population of Italy, currently 57 million, is
projected to decline to 41 million by 2050. The population of the Russian
Federation is expected to decrease from 147 million to 121 million between 2000
and 2050. Similarly, the population of Japan, currently 127 million, is
projected to decline to 105 million by 2050. In addition to the decrease in
population size, Japan and the countries of Europe are undergoing a relatively
rapid ageing process. In Japan, for example, over the next half century the
median age of the population is expected to increase by about eight years, from
41 to 49 years. In addition, the proportion of the Japanese population 65 years
or older is expected to increase from its current 17 per cent to 32 per cent.
Similarly, in Italy the median age of the population is expected to increase
from 41 years to 53 years, and the proportion of the population 65 years or
older is projected to rise from 18 per cent to 35 per cent.
Building upon these estimates and projections, the present
study considers six different scenarios with regard to the international
migration streams needed to achieve specific population objectives or outcomes
for the eight countries and two regions mentioned above. These are not meant to
be recommendations in any way, but illustrations of hypothetical scenarios.
The six scenarios are described below:
Scenario I. This scenario is based on the medium variant of
the projections from the United Nations World Population Prospects: 1998
Revision (henceforth referred to as the 1998 Revision).
Scenario II. This scenario is based on the medium variant of
the 1998 Revision, amended by assuming zero migration after 1995.
Scenario III. This scenario computes and assumes the migration
required to maintain the size of the total population at the highest level it
would reach in the absence of migration after 1995.
(Page 2, Statistic Chart omitted)
Scenario IV. This scenario computes and assumes the migration
required to maintain the size of the working-age population (15 to 64 years) at
the highest level it would reach in the absence of migration after 1995.
Scenario V. This
scenario computes and assumes the migration required to prevent the ratio of
the size of the population aged 15-64 to the size of the population aged 65 or
over, called the potential support ratio (PSR), from declining below the value
of 3.0.
Scenario VI. This scenario computes and assumes the migration
required to maintain the potential support ratio (PSR), at the highest level it
would reach in the absence of migration after 1995.
(Page 3)
Except
for the United States, the numbers of migrants needed to maintain the size of
the total population (scenario III) are considerably larger than those assumed in the medium variant of the United
Nations projections (scenario I).
In Italy,
for example, the total number of migrants is 12.6 million (or 251
thousand per year) in scenario III versus 0.3 million (or 6 thousand per year)
in scenario I.
[[[In other words, the United Nations must flood Italy with
3,765,000 Muslims minus the 6,000 per year for 15 plus years in order to play “catch
up”. 90,000 from 3,765,000 and then a
constant rate of 241,000 per year. It is
a FULL BLOWN invasion of barbarian hordes who will kill the men out and breed
out the populations by raping and procreating by force or submission any native
populations there.
Italians would do
well to take self determination through rising up at every front, politically and physically.
I suspect that in future news reports, by obvious predictions, if they should, we might expect to see news reports of some arming up and taking their boats to sea and sinking the vessels of Muslim invaders in the
UN supplied rafts in coordinated 9 miles off the coasts of Libya and Tunisia in deep but international waters, and I suspect that other reports may speak of those who allegedly do like the Kali death cults of
India (in that the graves of the victims are pre-dug) and done to various barbarian crap in the street and demand to rape natives and be paid by the host country for even being there and being illegal entry Muslims already invading their Italian shores.
It is self-determination from extinction and
survival that should the Italians engage in, then we should condone as law of nature and law of nations justifiable, and we should return to self-determination as found in a pre-United Nations world...which the United Nations would rather erase and rewrite the entire past of human history in a post-genocide of all Caucasians / White humanity with fiction, and very likely they dream now of writing a version of one as if we never really ever existed should they be successful.
Italy and every other European Nation has ALREADY been betrayed to a
plan of genocide by United Nations coordination, and they had better start
doing something radical to STOP the hostile military age barbarian horde
invasions.]]]
For the European Union, the respective numbers are 47 million
versus 13 million (or 949 thousand per year versus 270 thousand per year). In
scenario IV, in order to keep constant the size of the working-age population
(15 to 64 years), the numbers of migrants are even larger than those in
scenario III.
In Germany, for instance, the total number of migrants is 24
million (or 487 thousand per year) in scenario IV versus 17 million (or 344
thousand per year) in scenario III.
[[[For Germany, there is a UN plan to flood that nation with
7,000,000 MORE barbarian horde Muslims than ere present in 2015, and then to
force and maintain a flooding of 487,000
a year until all native Germans are killed and bred out into extinction.]]]
Figure 1 provides a
standardized comparison by presenting the migration flows expressed in per
million inhabitants in 2000. This comparison shows that relative to country
size the number of migrants needed between 2000-2050 to maintain the size of
the working-age population (scenario IV) is the highest for Italy, with 6,500
annual immigrants per million inhabitants, followed by Germany, with 6,000
annual immigrants per million inhabitants. Among the countries and regions
studied in this report, the United States would require the smallest number of
immigrants, approximately 1,300 per million inhabitants, to prevent the decline
of its working-age population. In scenario V, to prevent the potential support
ratio from reaching below 3.0, the dates when migrants would be needed would
occur later than in scenario IV, but the numbers of migrants that would be
needed are much larger than that in scenario IV. In France, for instance, the
total number of migrants is 16 million in scenario V versus 5 million in
scenario IV, and in Japan it is 95 million versus 32 million. The numbers in
scenario VI, which keeps the potential support ratio constant, are
extraordinarily large. In Japan, for example, the total number of migrants in
scenario VI is 524 million (or 10.5 million per year). For the European Union,
the total number of migrants in this scenario is 674 million (or 13 million per
year).
… Major findings of this study include the
following:
1. During the first
half of the twenty-first century, the populations of most developed countries
are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement
fertility and increased longevity.
2. In the absence of
migration, the declines in population size will be even greater than those
projected, and population ageing will be more rapid.
3. Although fertility may rebound in the coming decades, few
believe that fertility in most developed countries will recover sufficiently to
reach replacement level in the foreseeable future, thus making population
decline inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.
4. The projected population decline and population ageing will
have profound and far-reaching consequences, forcing Governments to reassess
many established economic, social and political policies and programmes, including
those relating to international migration.
(Page 4, graph omitted)
… 5. For France, the United Kingdom, the United
States and the European Union, the numbers of migrants needed to offset
population decline are less than or comparable to recent past experience. While
this is also the case for Germany and the Russian Federation, the migration
flows in the 1990s were relatively large due to reunification and dissolution,
respectively.
6. For Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Europe, a level
of immigration much higher than that experienced in the recent past would be
needed to offset population decline.
7. The numbers of
migrants needed to offset declines in the working-age population are
significantly larger than those needed to offset total population decline. Whether
those larger numbers of migrants are within the realm of options open to
Governments depends to a great extent on the social, economic and political
circumstances of the particular country or region.
8. If retirement ages
remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working-age
population through international migration is the only option in the short to
medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.
9. The levels of
migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support
ratios) are extremely high, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration
than has occurred in the past.
10. Maintaining potential support ratios at current levels
through replacement migration alone seems out of reach, because of the
extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required.
11. Possible future increases in economic activity rates for
people aged less than 65 years cannot, on their own, be a solution to the
decline in the active support ratios caused by population ageing.
(Page 5)
12. In most cases, the potential support ratios could be
maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age
population to roughly 75 years of age.
13. The new challenges
being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective,
thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social
and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to
incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those
reassessments include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types
and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c)
labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers
and employers to support retirement and health-care benefits for the increasing
elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international
migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large
numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
[[[Obama, a foreign Muslim subversive who is incapable of proving a United States Natural Born Citizenship in a U.S. Court of Law, and relied of judicial corruption to shut down legal challenges and any judicial examination and scrutiny on his FORGED and MANUFACTURED birth documents, pushed a Muslim inflow as well as Islam to be a State Religion under his illegal 8 years of Presidential Office and Executive Branch occupation, setting precedent for foreign rule, contrary to the United States Constitution with the collusion of U.S. Intelligence Agencies, the Military, and espcially Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the UN document, it is stated that the United States is already effectually breeding itself out because we sustain a 1.1 million and above inflow of migrants from all over the world, so there is no need to FORCE a migration in the think-tanking of the policies as of then...
but under new provisions, reported on in part, based on the European model, the United Nations in 2015 - 2016 was under the intent to eventually push anywhere from 15 million Muslims to triple that number in a 5 year invasion cycle that was allegedly supposed to begin under a President Hillary Clinton to enable and force a Democrat controlled Executive Branch of the U.S. Government back a Muslim population inflow in the millions at a rate of 3-4 million a year minimum to move in, take over, dispossess and activate a Federal Government backed Sharia transformation of culture and to breed out whites in America into extinction here as well.
Meanwhile, tens of billions of dollars would have flowed into the Clinton Global Initiative coffers from Saudi Arabia, and various Arab Middle east nations,
which is another reason why Hillary fell to the floor on election night, flopped demon possessed and was biting at a rug (allegedly) and too infuriated to make an appearance, allegedly).
Tens of billions of dollars (allegedly) in lost criminal payoffs is a BIG F**KING DEAL.
Had Hillary won in the November 2016 U.S. Presidential election, Hillary would have activated a literal civil war in which she was fully prepared to neutralize that threat with a nuclear first strike on Russia.
If any researcher would just do a thorough historians headlines and first two paragraphs examination in the Mainstream US and British News for October to December 2016, they will certainly take note of the unmistakeable nuclear war mongering desire by her, the DNC, and fellow turncoat Republican traitors to the Constitution like Senator John McCain (brain tumor excuse or not) staring them right in the face in plain sight before their eyes as well.]]]
No comments:
Post a Comment