I am just guessing but I doubt this guy is a friend of the DR... .if he gets involved let us pray he is not some Afrocentist Nut although and I am again guessing but he was probably a big suckup of Clintons when he sent the troops in to Haiti and screwed everything up

[QUOTE=Atabey]
[[B]B]Generoso and friends,


[URL]http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/broker[/URL]

Based on the population projection of the above site, International Data Base (IDB), the situation looks ominous indeed.


[ In million]

------------------2010 ----------- 2020------------- 2030--------------2040---------------2050

Cuba-------11.477 [1]------11.646-----------11.567 [3]--------11.196 [3]---------10.540 [3]
DR----------- 9.794 [2]-------11.235----------12.567 [2]--------13.715 [2]---------14.657 [2]
Haiti----------9.203 [3]------ 11,010----------12.876 [1]--------14.567 [1]---------16.115 [1]



To recap, according to the projections based on the United States Census Bureau, the following statistical profile is possible. In 2010, the largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba, had the largest population of inhabitants followed by the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. By the year 2020, the same order remained but with the added proviso that the populations of all three were roughly equal in number. In 2030, the populations are now reversed in order with Haiti having the largest population, the Dominican Republic the second largest, and Cuba, the leader in 2010 and for most of the last 200 years in Caribbean history, last with 11.567 million inhabitants. By the year 2040, the populations continue their numerical separation with Haiti gaining more inhabitants than the DR and Cuba combined! Finally, the last year of the statistical analysis shows Haiti widening its lead over the Dominican Republic and Cuba. The final tallies: Haiti 16 million, Dominican Republic 14.6 million, and Cuba with 10.5 million people. Cuba would then have a population numerically the same as in 1990!, but with the added condition that unlike in the 1990, its population by 2050 would be much older in composition. Haiti would have grown 2.5 times its 1990 population of 6.288 million. The Dominican Republic would have doubled its population from 7.082 to 14.657 million people. Another way of looking at these dreadful trends is to notice that if they come to pass the island of Hispaniola would have over 30 million inhabitants by 2050! That's more than all the rests of the Caribbean nations put together. Talk about a coming disaster. [/B][/B]
[/QUOTE]


It was before the earthquakeé

Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move
Danny Moloshok/Reuters
Page 1
Gordon Brown’s rant about a “bigoted” voter sped his exit from the British prime minister’s post. What punctured his cool? Her complaint about immigrants. When an earthquake shattered Haiti, Dominicans sent soldiers and Americans sent ships — to discourage potential immigrants. The congressman who shouted “You lie!” at President Obama was upset about immigrants. “Birthers” think Mr. Obama is an immigrant.

FROM THERE TO THERE An estimated 214 million migrants can be found worldwide.
There was also the Hamas rocket that landed in Israel this spring, killing a farmworker. Not so unusual, except that the worker was Thai.

Perhaps no force in modern life is as omnipresent yet overlooked as global migration, that vehicle of creative destruction that is reordering ever more of the world. Overlooked? A skeptic may well question the statement, given how often the topic makes news and how divisive the news can be. After all, Arizona’s campaign against illegal immigrants, codified in an April law, set off high-decibel debates from Melbourne to Madrid. But migration also shapes the landscape beneath the seemingly unrelated events of the headlines. It is a story-behind-the-story, a complicating tide, in issues as diverse as school bond fights and efforts to isolate Iran. (Seeking allies in Latin America this month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to emphasize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Tehran while fending off complaints about the Arizona law.)

Even people who study migration for a living struggle to fully grasp its effects. “Politically, socially, economically, culturally — migration bubbles up everywhere,” James F. Hollifield, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University, said. “We often don’t recognize it.”

What prompted Google to close an office in China, rather than accept government censorship? Many factors, no doubt. But among those cited by Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, was the repression his family suffered during his childhood in the Soviet Union before they immigrated to the United States.

One realm where migration has particularly powerful if largely unstated effects is school finance. Political scientists have found that white voters are more likely to oppose spending plans when they perceive the main beneficiaries to be children of immigrants (especially illegal immigrants). The outcome, of course, affects all children, immigrant or 10th generation.

“When you get increased diversity, you weaken support for the common good,” said Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California.

Professor Myers studied Proposition 55, a 2004 ballot initiative in California that sought $12.3 billion in bond sales to relieve overcrowding and upgrade older schools. Publicly, most opponents framed their concerns in economic terms, saying the government wasted money and ran unsustainable debts. Still, anger about illegal immigration was, as one opponent put it, the “elephant in the living room.” School crowding, he wrote in a letter to The Riverside Press Enterprise, was “solely caused by America’s foolish open-borders policy.”

Holding all else equal (like other political views), Professor Myers found, voters who saw immigration as a burden were nearly 9 percentage points more likely to oppose the measure than those who called immigration a benefit. “That’s a big effect — it was almost enough to take it down,” he said. The measure squeaked through, with barely 50 percent of the vote.

Immigration also quickened the bitter split in the American labor movement. In 2005, a half dozen unions left the venerable A.F.L.-C.I.O. to form a rival federation, Change to Win. (The dissident unions included the Service Employees International Union and UniteHere.)

On the surface, the fight was mostly about the pace of organizing, with the breakaway group pledging more aggressive moves to enlist members. But the dissidents also counted more low-wage immigrants in their membership.

As Daniel B. Cornfield, a labor scholar at Vanderbilt University, said, the immigrants’ marginal (and sometimes illegal) status created a constituency for a more aggressive approach. “I don’t think it was a split about immigration, but immigration shaped the split,” he said.

The split, in turn, has had repercussions beyond the labor movement. Janice Fine, a political scientist at Rutgers University, noted that the Change to Win unions played an important (some have argued decisive) role in the early stages of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign.

“If they were inside the larger bureaucracy, it would have been harder for them to make an early endorsement and move money his way,” Professor Fine said.

Theorists sometimes call the movement of people the third wave of globalization, after the movement of goods (trade) and the movement of money (finance) that began in the previous century. But trade and finance follow global norms and are governed by global institutions: the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. There is no parallel group with “migration” in its name. The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.

While global trade and finance are disruptive — some would argue as much as migration — they are disruptive in less visible ways. A shirt made in Mexico can cost an American worker his job. A worker from Mexico might move next door, send his children to public school and need to be spoken to in Spanish.

One reason migration seems so potent is that it arose unexpectedly. As recently as the 1970s, immigration seemed of such little importance that the United States Census Bureau decided to stop asking people where their parents were born. Now, a quarter of the residents of the United States under 18 are immigrants or immigrants’ children.

The United Nations estimates that there are 214 million migrants across the globe, an increase of about 37 percent in two decades. Their ranks grew by 41 percent in Europe and 80 percent in North America. “There’s more mobility at this moment than at any time in world history,” said Gary P. Freeman, a political scientist at the University of Texas.

The most famous source countries in Europe — Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain — are suddenly migrant destinations, with Ireland electing a Nigerian-born man as its first black mayor in 2007.
Continued .....on page 2

Page ....2 As heirs to an immigrant past, Americans may have an edge in a migrants’ age. As contentious as the issue is here, the Americans’ capacity to absorb immigrants remains the envy of many Europeans (including those not inclined to envy Americans). Still, today’s challenges differ from those of the (mythologized) past. At least five differences set this age apart and amplify migration’s effects.

First is migration’s global reach. The movements of the 19th century were mostly trans-Atlantic. Now, Nepalis staff Korean factories and Mongolians do scut work in Prague. Persian Gulf economies would collapse without armies of guest workers. Even within the United States, immigrants are spread across dozens of “new gateways” unaccustomed to them, from Orlando to Salt Lake City.

A second distinguishing trait is the money involved, which not only sustains the families left behind but props up national economies. Migrants sent home $317 billion last year — three times the world’s total foreign aid. In at least seven countries, remittances account for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product.

A third factor that increases migration’s impact is its feminization: Nearly half of the world’s migrants are now women, and many have left children behind. Their emergence as breadwinners is altering family dynamics across the developing world. Migration empowers some, but imperils others, with sex trafficking now a global concern.

Technology introduces a fourth break from the past: The huddled masses reached Ellis Island without cellphones or Webcams. Now a nanny in Manhattan can talk to her child in Zacatecas, vote in Mexican elections and watch Mexican television shows.

“Transnationalism” is a comfort but also a concern for those who think it impedes integration. In the age of global jihad, it may also be a security threat. The Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty last week to the attempted bombing of Times Square said that jihadi lectures reached him from Yemen, via the Internet.

At least one other trait amplifies the impact of modern migration: The expectation that governments will control it. In America for most of the 19th century, there was no legal barrier to entry. The issue was contentious, but the government attracted little blame. Now Western governments are expected to keep trade and tourism flowing and respect ethnic rights while sealing borders as vast as the Arizona desert and the Mediterranean Sea. Their failures — glaring if perhaps inevitable — weaken the broader faith in federal competence.

“It basically tells people that government cannot do its job,” said Demetri Papademetriou, a co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington research group. “It creates the anti-government rhetoric we see, and the anger people are feeling.”

Still, rich, aging countries need workers. People in poor countries need jobs. And the rise in global inequality means that migrants have more than ever to gain by landing work abroad. Migration networks are hard to shut down. Even the worst economy in 70 years has only slowed, not stopped, the growth in migration. And it is likely to grow, in numbers and consequence.

When scholars get to feeling expansive, they call today’s migration networks a challenge to the order set by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which established the territorial sovereignty of the nation-state. Judging by the wall rising along the Mexican border, nation-states do not appear to be going away. Their people, increasingly, do.

any thoughts on this

Bill Clinton gets tough as donors fail to honour $5bn Haiti pledge
Countries which pledged billions of dollars in aid to earthquake-ravaged Haiti but have yet to deliver the money told to pay up

A view over Port-au-Prince showing damage caused by the Haitian earthquake. Photograph: Mustafa Khalili/guardian.co.uk
Bill Clinton has promised to get tough with countries which pledged billions of dollars in aid to earthquake-ravaged Haiti but have yet to deliver the money they promised.

Six months after the disaster that killed 220,000 people and left more than 1.5 million homeless, only $506m of $5.3bn raised at an international donors' conference in March has been handed over, according to the United Nations Development Programme.

Only four countries – Australia, Brazil, Estonia and Norway – have so far given anything at all, the UN says. Two of the biggest promised contributions, $1.15bn and $1.32bn from the United States and Venezuela respectively, have been held up by delays in Congress and political red tape.

A frustrated Clinton, the UN's special envoy to Haiti, said he would pick up the phone to world leaders to try to get the funds flowing more quickly.

"I'm going to call all those governments ... I want to try to get them to give the money, and I'm trying to get the others to give me a schedule for when they'll release it," Clinton told CNN earlier this week. The American news broadcaster first brought the shortfall to light during a study of figures provided by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission and a survey of donor nations.

He accepted that the aftermath of a lingering global recession had played some part in countries not yet delivering on their pledges. "I think that they're all having economic trouble, and they want to hold their money as long as possible," he added.

Glenn Smucker, an anthropologist who advises aid and development groups in Haiti, said: "President Clinton raises a legitimate concern. It's easy to make pledges and harder to find the money, and you can't take it for granted that all of the money will come through. But if you had all $5bn together in one place at the same time it would still be a tremendous challenge to spend it in an efficient and effective way.

LETTERS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
A New Beginning for Haitians
Published: August 12, 2010


Regarding the article “Don’t let Haitians help themselves” (Views, Aug. 6) by Joel Brinkley: In January, an earthquake rocked the foundations of Haiti — the poorest country in the Western hemisphere. Haiti now has the opportunity to build foundations for a new society based on human rights, equitable justice and a fairer distribution of wealth.

Several approaches to rebuilding have been considered. One called for the process to be managed solely (or mostly) by international institutions and organizations — to take advantage of “advanced technical skills” and guard against potential corruption.

The other main idea offered an indigenous process that threw off dependence on international aid and focused on the mobilization and effective use of national (human, natural, mineral and financial) resources.

What we ended up with was supposed to look like a compromise. We now have a multidonor trust fund managed by the World Bank and an International Commission for the Reconstruction of Haiti (composed of members of donor countries and institutions, international organizations, the Haitian government, the private sector and civil society). What’s the problem with it? The crucial principles of participation, transparency and accountability have been ignored.

It is rather naïve to assume that corruption and mismanagement are the sole preserve of national governments, even “weak” ones.

For any reconstruction to be sustainable and effective, national ownership of the process is a prerequisite, an indispensable condition.

The best guarantee against waste, corruption and mismanagement is local participation. It is the Haitians who have a stake in ensuring that there is a direct correlation between what was pledged and what is actually done.

Through dialogue, participation, transparency and clear mechanisms of accountability the Haitian national government can demonstrate leadership and lobby for direct management of aid processes.

In so doing, the government will not only address the physical reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure, but also the construction of a society rooted in a new, democratic model of governance.

This is an opportunity for all Haitians. Urgent action must be taken if it is not to be wasted.

Jean Claude Fignole, Port-au-Prince, Haiti

Country director, ActionAid, Hait