UN Declaration, Regular, Constant Global Migration = Insurgency

Posted on January 12, 2018January 12, 2018 by Denise Simon

Berlin – A new series launched by the Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) of IOM, the UN Migration Agency, aims to summarize the existing evidence on migration in an accurate and accessible fashion, to support discussions and any follow-up activities of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

Note the words orderly and regular….if the United Nations and peacekeeping operations as well as the aid, education, construction and protection campaigns were successful, migration would not be required especially in non-war torn countries. Right? Or how about all these other global human interest organizations….they failing too? Those like the Clinton Foundation or hey how about the Gates Foundation, which is a private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It was launched in 2000 and is said to be the largest private foundation in the US, holding $38 billion in assets, improving lives from Seattle to South Africa….ahem.

Image result for global migration

Check here for the largest 10 organizations…. if all this work and money and resources were effective, then why the migration at all?

More here.

The New York Declaration

For the first time on 19 September 2016 Heads of State and Government came together to discuss, at the global level within the UN General Assembly, issues related to migration and refugees. This sent an important political message that migration and refugee matters have become major issues in the international agenda. In adopting the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the 193 UN Member States recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility and enhanced cooperation at the global level.

What are the aims of the global compact for migration?

The global compact is framed consistent with target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in which member States committed to cooperate internationally to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration and its scope is defined in Annex II of the New York Declaration. It is intended to:

address all aspects of international migration, including the humanitarian, developmental, human rights-related and other aspects;
make an important contribution to global governance and enhance coordination on international migration;
present a framework for comprehensive international cooperation on migrants and human mobility;
set out a range of actionable commitments, means of implementation and a framework for follow-up and review among Member States regarding international migration in all its dimensions;
be guided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and
be informed by the Declaration of the 2013 High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.

The development of the global compact for migration – an open, transparent and inclusive process

The Modalities Resolution for the intergovernmental negotiations of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration outline the key elements and timeline of the process. The global compact will be developed through an open, transparent and inclusive process of consultations and negotiations and the effective participation of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, academic institutions, parliaments, diaspora communities, and migrant organizations in both the intergovernmental conference and its preparatory process.

Trump’s EO Halting Insurance Subsidies Comes from Boehner

Posted on October 13, 2017October 13, 2017 by Denise Simon

photo

CNBC: The Trump administration will immediately stop making critically important payments to insurers who sell Obamacare health plans, a bombshell move that is expected to spike premium prices and potentially lead many insurers to exit the marketplace.

The decision to end the billions of dollars worth of so-called cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments came after months of threats by President Donald Trump to do just that. The news came only hours after Trump signed an executive order that Obamacare advocates said could badly harm the individual insurance marketplaces.

Advocates, along with insurers, health-care provider groups, patient groups and officials in many states, have expressed concerns for months that the cost-sharing reimbursements would be cut off by Trump.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sharply criticized Trump in a series of Twitter posts late Thursday.

Two months ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that individual health plan premiums would be 20 percent higher than originally projected if the payments ceased. It also projected that premiums would be 25 percent higher than they otherwise would be by 2020, and that the federal deficit would be increased by almost $200 billion if the subsidies ended.

The payments, worth $7 billion or so to insurers this year and up to $10 billion or more next year, reimburse insurers for discounts in out-of-pocket health costs they give to low-income Obamacare customers. The discounts must be offered by law.

However, congressional Republicans successfully challenged in a lawsuit the Obama administration’s decision to make the reimbursement payments to insurers without getting the express budgetary authorization from Congress.

Now, both California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said they would file lawsuits seeking to prevent Trump from ending the subsidies.

The two were part of a group of 18 state attorneys general who were given permission this year to intervene in the pending appeal of the federal court decision that had ruled the payments were illegal given their lack of congressional authorization.

*** While the democrats are crying sabotage, they refuse to tell you that there is a legal ruling that says this funding is illegal. The Obama administration via the Treasury Department essentially stole money from various government agencies to subsidize insurance providers since Congress did not appropriate the funds.

In part it played out this way:

When House Republicans first came up with the idea to take the president to court nearly two years ago, they planned to sue the administration over a completely different part of Obamacare. Then-Speaker John Boehner was, as usual, facing pressure from conservatives who were frustrated at Obama’s liberal use of executive authority and their inability to derail the hated health-care law. So he and his leadership team hatched a plan to file a lawsuit accusing the president and his administration of exceeding their authority by unilaterally delaying the implementation of the employer mandate in Obamacare. The requirement that businesses with more than 50 employees provide insurance to their workers had long been a big target for Republicans and one of the more contentious policies in the law. It was the middle of the mid-term congressional campaigns, and Republicans suspected the administration was delaying the mandate to put off the political pain of compliance until after the election.

“The president changed the health-care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,” Boehner said in a statement at the time. “That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own.” The irony was that House Republicans had repeatedly assailed the employer mandate as a jobs killer, and yet here they were suing to force the administration to implement it faster. Read more here.

Charlie’s Parents End the Fight for his Life

Posted on July 24, 2017July 24, 2017 by Denise Simon

Charlie Gard case: Parents withdraw application to bring sick baby to US

FNC: With tears streaming down their faces, the parents of terminally ill baby Charlie Gard on Monday withdrew their application seeking to take the child to the United States for an experimental medical treatment, with the couple’s lawyer announcing “the window of opportunity has been lost.”

Attorney Grant Armstrong said at London’s High Court it was too late for the 11-month-old child to receive treatment. Recent medical tests revealed Charlie has irreversible muscular damage.

“It’s too late for Charlie,” Armstrong said. “The damage has been done.”

Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, cried in the courtroom as the lawyer announced the news — their last bid to seek permission to take their child to the U.S. for treatment.

“As Charlie’s devoted and loving parents we have decided that it’s no longer in Charlie’s best interests to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels,” Yates said in court.

The couple was expected to present new evidence in court on Monday, but they arrived in court to say the dragged out case has wasted “time. A whole lot of wasted time.”

“Had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy,” Yates said, referencing the recent medical test that ultimately led to the couple’s decision to withdraw.

“I only wanted to give him a chance at life,” Yates said. “We will always know in our hearts that we did the very best for Charlie and I hope that he is proud of us for fighting in his corner.”

Charlie, who was born on Aug. 4, 2016, suffers from a rare genetic condition, Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. He has brain damage and is unable to breathe on his own. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie has been treated since last October, have been locked in a prolong court battle, claiming more treatment would only cause pain to the child. They have argued to switch off Charlie’s life support to allow him to die peacefully.

But Charlie’s parents dispute the claim and have argued that their child should receive every possible treatment until his death.

Obamacare Rising Costs Here and Details of New Proposal

Posted on June 1, 2017June 1, 2017 by Denise Simon

Brady: “Obamacare is imploding, and we’re just seeing prices skyrocket”

Our health care system continues to deteriorate under Obamacare. Americans are facing fewer choices, higher costs, and less access to the care they need. Just look at the news from last week:

Premiums have more than doubled under Obamacare. According to data from the previous Administration, millions of Americans are now paying twice as much—on average $3,000 more—for insurance on the individual marketplaces than they were in 2013.
25 more counties will have zero Obamacare insurance options. The last Obamacare insurer in parts of Missouri, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, announced its decision to withdraw from Obamacare’s individual marketplace in 2018. That leaves hundreds of thousands more Americans with few, if any, places to turn for coverage.

Describing the urgent need to repeal and replace Obamacare, economist Stephen Moore wrote in The Washington Times:

“If we stay with Obamacare, within a few years tens of millions will have no insurance at all that is even remotely affordable. Aetna, Humana, and other major insurers in just recent months have fled Obamacare. The Titanic has hit the iceberg and it is rapidly sinking … Here’s a prediction: by the end of the year we could have nearly half the country without insurers if this spiral continues.”

House Republicans took action to rescue the American people from this failing law by passing the American Health Care Act, which the Congressional Budget Office confirmed:

Lowers average premiums in the individual marketplace by 4 to 30 percent or more, depending on the state.
Delivers nearly $1 trillion of relief from Obamacare taxes.  
Provides individuals and families freedom to choose a health care plan that is right for them.Obamacare keeps wreaking havoc across the country:
- Major insurers continue to abandon the individual insurance market in different states, making it more difficult for Americans to access coverage.
- Humana and Aetna announced they would withdraw from Obamacare’s individual exchanges entirely in 2018.
- The last remaining insurer in Iowa could exit the exchanges next year—leaving families in 94 out of 99 counties without a single insurer to turn to for their coverage.
- Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Virginia have already projected double-digit premium rate increases for next year.
As Ways and Means Republicans explain, Obamacare’s latest failures underscore the urgent need for the American Health Care Act—legislation passed by the House to fix our broken health care system:

On Delivering Relief from Obamacare

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), Budget Committee Chairman, in RealClearPolitics: “Obamacare is a disaster, and in Tennessee, its collapse is creating dire circumstances for our citizens. Massive premium increases are making insurance unaffordable for more and more Tennesseans and rising deductibles are making it harder to get health care, even for those who have insurance. Doing nothing is not an option. Congress has taken the first step to keep our promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Ways and Means Committee Chairman, in the Conroe Courier: “Although this is just the first step, it is a giant pivot in the right direction so that Americans no longer have to struggle under the $1 trillion in tax hikes brought on by Obamacare. Under the bill, Americans, especially small businesses, will no longer be forced to buy healthcare they do not want or cannot afford.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) in the South Bend Tribune: “Obamacare came with a lot of promises. But these promises were broken, and now many Hoosiers face higher premiums, fewer options, and a collapsing system … [AHCA] rescues Americans from the instability of Obamacare and begins a stable transition to a better system. It will lower premiums and strengthen markets so patients have real options they can actually afford. It will empower patients, not bureaucrats, to make health care decisions.”

On Protecting Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions

Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Nothing in this bill would allow an insurance company to deny someone coverage, including to those with a preexisting condition. Nothing would allow an insurance company to cancel someone’s insurance policy should they become sick. Despite claims from opponents, the bill does not classify sexual assault as a preexisting condition. For those who maintain continuous coverage, the bill does not allow insurance companies to charge an individual more simply because they have a preexisting condition. It’s also worth noting that this bill includes $138 billion to assist states in making sure everyone, including those with preexisting conditions, has access to high-quality, affordable health care.”

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) in the Grand Island Independent: “I firmly believe we can protect access to care for those with preexisting conditions while lowering costs for the millions of Americans currently facing premiums and deductibles they cannot afford. Passing the American Health Care Act in the House was the first step, and we will continue our work in Congress to revive the health care marketplace.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) in the South Bend Tribune: “This bill maintains critical protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. I have always said any replacement must protect these patients, and we make sure no one can be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. States can obtain a waiver of some individual and small group insurance regulations to help lower premiums or increase the number of people with coverage, as long as they implement plans—such as high risk pools—to ensure affordable coverage for those with costly medical conditions. Under these waivers, insurers can only charge high-risk patients more if they have a two-month lapse in coverage, and the bill dedicates $8 billion to help patients in such situations.”

On Putting the American People Back in Control of Their Care

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) in the Miami Herald: “I made a promise that I would fight for better healthcare for our country, for a market-based system where Americans, not special interests, are in control and can make the best healthcare choices for themselves and their families. The legislation before Congress today gets us closer to such a system.”

Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “[This debate] is about Nyla, a recently widowed mother of four who saw her premiums jump to $1,000 per month with a $13,000 deductible… this debate is about Taryn, who, after being diagnosed with a brain tumor, suddenly had her plan canceled when her insurer pulled out of the market … [AHCA] is aimed at addressing many of the shortcomings of the ACA by stabilizing insurance markets and beginning to bring down premiums. Rather than the one-size-fits-all Washington approach, we can empower states and consumers to take control of their own health care outcomes.”

CLICK HERE to read Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady’s statement on the AHCA.

CLICK HERE to read a summary of the AHCA.

CLICK HERE to read the section-by-section description of the AHCA.

European Union’s Attention and Dollars on Failing Africa

Posted on April 10, 2017April 10, 2017 by Denise Simon

The European Commission has launched an “Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa”, made up of €1.8 billion from the EU budget and European Development Fund, combined with contributions from EU Member States and other donors. The Trust Fund will benefit a wide range of countries across Africa that encompass the major African migration routes to Europe. These countries are among the most fragile and those most affected by migration. They will draw the greatest benefit from EU financial assistance. The countries and regions are:

The Sahel region and Lake Chad area: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, the Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.

The Horn of Africa: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.

The North of Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.

Neighbouring countries of the eligible countries may benefit, on a case by case basis, from Trust Fund projects with a regional dimension in order to address regional migration flo ws and related cross- border challenges. Read the full document here.

EU Economic and Military Investments in Africa Increase
Africa faces a number of security challenges, from terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and al Shabaab, to civil wars and violent conflicts in South Sudan and Libya, to severe droughts causing hunger crises in Somalia and Yemen.

This instability contributes to migration from Africa to Europe. In addition, a demographic boom is taking hold in Africa, stoking concerns about future mass migration. “Today, Africa is twice the population of Europe. In 2050, it will be four times the population of Europe, and it is projected at the end of this century to be 10 times the population of Europe. … There is a sense in many political circles in Europe that what’s happening today is just the beginning of a much bigger movement that could reach Europe tomorrow,” Philippe Fargues, founding Director of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute in Italy, told The Cipher Brief.

The European Union is intervening. On the migration front, the EU is engaged in Partnership Framework Agreements with several African countries to stem the flow of migrants. “This was followed up with the setting up of the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (a €2 billion aid program aimed at securing African countries’ cooperation in tackling irregular migration), leading to the initial signing of bilateral agreements with Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Ethiopia” says the Abuja, Nigeria-based Director of the Centre for Democracy and Development, Idayat Hassan.

Niger, for example, is receiving €610 million to keep migrants from reaching Europe, Hassan says, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has pledged €17 million to Niger to help develop the Agadez region, a major route for West African migrants.

Germany seems to be leading European action in Africa. Last year, German Development Minister Gerd Müller unveiled a “Marshall Plan” for the continent. “Germany and Europe have an interest to save people’s lives, to limit the effects of climate change and avoid ‘climate refugees,’ to prevent mass migration and to help create a future for Africa’s youth,” said Müller.

Asmita Parshotam, a researcher under the Economic Diplomacy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs, tells The Cipher Brief that this plan is intended to “cover a broad range of issues such as trade, increased private investment, bottom-up economic development, entrepreneurship, and job creation and employment.”

In addition to Germany’s unilateral aid to Africa, the EU recently announced its EU External Investment Plan that will help expand Africa’s private sector, with €3.35 billion in funding until 2020 and €88 billion if EU member states fully match that contribution.

The European Development Fund and African Investment Facility also provide economic development assistance from the EU to Africa.

In the development-security aid realm lies the EU Sahel Strategy, launched in April 2015. “The enhancement of security in the region through the fight against terrorism, illicit trafficking, radicalisation and violent extremism, remains the key objective of the EU,” according to a memo on the EU Sahel Strategy from the Council of the European Union.

EU member states also host a number of military bases in Africa. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain all have boots on the ground in Djibouti. France’s presence there is now around 1,700 personnel.

About 3,500 French troops operate in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, and Gabon is a key base that France has used to send troops to interventions in the Central African Republic. France last year boosted its military presence in Cote d’Ivoire to about 900 men to serve as a forward operating base for West Africa.

The French, along with the Germans, are also in Niger. Germany has an air transport base at the Niamey international airport that supports its increasing troop contribution to the UN’s peacekeeping mission in Mali, a country that underwent a rebellion and coup in 2012 and a serious deterioration in the security environment in January 2013 when terrorist groups – Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, in addition to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb – advanced south.

A majority of UN peacekeeping missions, in which many Europeans are involved, are in Africa.

The question remains, will the EU’s economic and military investment in Africa work in stabilizing a continent plagued by terror, war, drought and famine, extreme poverty, and inadequate governance?

Müller’s “Marshall Plan” acknowledges that African governments must take responsibility for fighting corruption, ensuring good governance, and improving opportunities for women.

The EU has made much of its development aid contingent on African governments’ cooperation in addressing the EU’s security concerns. For example, on migration, Parshotam notes that an EU-Mali deal will give Mali aid in exchange for Mali taking back all citizens whose asylum claims were rejected.

But with African countries that have no stable government to work with, it becomes harder for the EU to invest in and create stability. “Libya is a failing state – there’s no central authority,” Leonard Doyle, Spokesperson of the Director General at the International Organization for Migration, told The Cipher Brief. “So the Europeans have not been able to reach a coherent agreement with Libya [on migration]. Although there is a lot of pressure now, especially militarily, to stop the smugglers, and economically as well, to help Libya get back on its feet,” he said.

“I think we are completely wrong in our policies,” said Fargues. “The amount of money contributed to African development is too small, but also in the short term and medium term, development will not curb migration,” he said, because the African population continues to grow, while Europe’s continues to shrink. “We have to get prepared for migration.”