This is an important issue for the USA, Joe Biden called for “refugees” to surge the border in a Democratic primary debate.
He said that women who got beat up by their man could use that as refugee status, and you only need to have a child with you, and you’re in.
US set to collapse under UN ordered mass migration from the third world, which he calls an invasion, which if it was really 600 million people would quite obviously destroy the country, or change it forever.
That page attempts to link to a UN document called Replacement Migration: Is it a solution to declining and ageing populations, but they must have changed the URL, because it was a 404 error when I clicked on that, so I had to search for it on Google, and it did exist, they just changed the URL.
They also seem to have changed the URL for the other link on that page which was specifically to do with the United States in which it listed a bunch of different scenarios for migration.
The 600 million it refers to probably means this:
(g) Scenario VI
Scenario VI keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 5.2 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. In order to keep the potential support ratio constant at that level, it would be necessary to have 593 million immigrants from 1995 to 2050, an average of 10.8 million per year. By 2050, out of a United States total population of 1.1 billion, 775 million, or 73 per cent, would be post 1995 immigrants or their descendants.
What they appear to be saying is that the population is ageing, the birth rate is declining, because of their planned eugenics program, feminism, so in order to keep the same rate of young people to old people ratio, they would have to import more young people than the entire US population.
I mean did you catch what they just said there? There are going to be so many old people over 65 living longer than ever, and so few people being born compared to the baby boomer era, they would have to increase the US population to 1.1 billion by 2050, with almost three quarters coming from other countries to keep the old to young ratio the same.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to do that, but it gives you a look at how they view these issues. We have an ageing population, and there are only two ways to deal with that considering the cost/benefit analysis of the problems with that scenario.
You either spend all your time and money on caring for older people, paying for their health care and social security, and import young migrants to take care of them in the vast numbers needed, or encourage young people in the country to get together and have more kids.
Considering they’re still pushing the eugenics agenda of breaking up marriages and couples with feminism, it seems they’re going with the option of mass migration from the third world, or they’re going to kill the old people.
What was the real purpose of releasing a biological weapon which almost primarily targeted old people? Killing the old people, obviously.
It’s just they have to tell you that the goal is saving the old people, so that you can first argue against losing all your freedom and your job or small business, to allow the old people to live another year if they were lucky, on average, from this specific biological weapons attack.
They have to first put the argument into the minds of millions that it’s not worth it to keep the old people around, because when looking at the trillions they spent on the lockdowns, on top of the cost of end of life medical care and social security, the millions of migrants you have to import to work in aged care, it’s just not worth it.
That’s what they want you to think, that’s what Bill Gates mentioned himself, that with the money you spent on taking care of those old people at the end of their lives, you could pay many teachers.
He didn’t say that’s what he wanted to do, kill the old people and spend the money on the teachers, he just posed the question, and said that’s the death panel debate, we’re not supposed to talk about that.