Wars cause direct physical and economic destruction. However, other less obvious factors can also severely damage an economy. Experts, observing cases like Japan, understand that population decline often leads to economic stagnation. Demographics and population growth are crucial for a healthy economy.
For example, Brazil has a large underemployed population (approximately 40 million people). A 10% population decrease in Brazil would be harmful but not catastrophic to its economy. In contrast, if the U.S. were to lose 10% of its population over 10 to 20 years, the consequences would be devastating. The U.S. economy would likely stop growing and enter a period of stagflation.
Some experts predict that the United States, and indeed the world, could face another Great Depression by 2033 due to demographic decline. Artificial intelligence projections show that if the U.S. were to completely stop immigration, the population would decrease by 107 million people between 2024 and 2100, leaving a population of just 226 million. This dramatic decline could cripple the U.S. economy, potentially leading to a collapse similar to that of the Roman Empire or Ancient Egypt.
In the late 6th century, the population of Rome had dwindled to approximately 35,000, down from its peak of 1 million. During its peak, Rome attracted people from all over, fueling its economic growth and prosperity. After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, it took 125 years for the population of Rome to decline to its low point. This illustrates how population decline can be both a cause and a consequence of economic collapse.
If the U.S. economy collapses due to demographic decline, it will lose its appeal to immigrants because job opportunities will disappear. Currently, only a few countries act as “immigrant magnets”: the United States, England, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, France, New Zealand, and Portugal. Dubai also attracts immigrants, but primarily wealthy Russians seeking refuge, or low end laborers from Pakistan and India.
I recently spoke with some Brazilians living in Portugal. They expressed a preference for the United States over Portugal, citing better work opportunities and higher wages. Conversely, some Portuguese citizens complained that Brazilians come to Europe for welfare benefits, while they go to the United States to work. This suggests a perception that Europe attracts those seeking social support, while the U.S. attracts those seeking employment.
The conundrum is the United States needs between 1.1 million and 1.6 million immigrants each year to maintain the US workforce and to maintain the economy. Today over 31 million immigrants are in the US workforce, making up 19% of that workforce. I have no exact numbers of the immigration during President Biden’s term from 2021 to 2024 however based on semi-official numbers it is about 10 million. I have no doubt that is why the economy is so juiced up right now and why there is a 3 million home deficit, as there is not enough housing for everyone who has shown up.
The changing demographics of American society are a concern. In 1980, Latin Americans comprised 6.4% of the U.S. population. Today, that number exceeds 23%. While I personally have no issue with this (my wife is Latin American), many people are anxious about these changes to the composition of American society.
The potential impact of continued Latin American immigration is significant. If the U.S. continues to rely heavily on Latin American immigration to meet its need for 1.6 million immigrants annually over the next 75 years, the demographic landscape of the U.S. could be drastically different by 2100. The population could consist of roughly 200 million Latin Americans, 150 million ethnic Europeans, and 30 million Black Americans. This projection highlights the potential for significant demographic shifts depending on future immigration policies.
Canada’s strategy to prevent a demographic decline to boost their economy involved admitting a disproportionate number of Indians. This is one example of how countries use immigration to prevent economic decline. Canada has officially admitted 1.3 million Indians and Sri Lankans, though the unofficial number may be as high as 2.3 million. They approved people with advanced degrees, and India has an educational system that advances millions, thus qualifying them as candidates for immigrating to Canada.
During my recent visits to Windsor and Niagara, Ontario, I noticed a predominance of Indians working in the service industry. This observation, along with conversations with local business contacts, suggests that India may be attracting higher educated Indians, while their offspring are not seeking to achieve the same level of education.
Similarly, France has experienced social tension due to a large Muslim population (over 8.8 million), with notable unrest in 2023. Concerns have arisen about the integration of this population into French society.
The United States faces a similar situation. We need 1.6 million immigrants annually to maintain economic growth. However, with a significant Latin American population already present (around 60 million), there’s an argument for diversifying immigration sources.
Historically, the U.S. has enjoyed natural population growth and hasn’t needed to rely on immigration to maintain its workforce. However, changing demographics necessitate a more strategic approach to immigration policy.
Thus, this brings us to Russia, a country that is also facing a more serious demographic decline than the United States. The United States could easily exploit this weakness for its own benefit.
Here’s how the United States could significantly weaken Russia by exploiting its demographic challenges:
Russia’s Demographic Crisis
Projections indicate that Russia is heading towards a demographic collapse. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has exacerbated this trend.
- Military Losses: Over 500,000 Russian casualties have occurred in the war.
- Brain Drain: An estimated 900,000 of Russia’s best and brightest, primarily male and college-educated, have fled the country.
- Military Recruitment Challenges: Putin is increasingly relying on soldiers from poorer, remote regions, and even foreign fighters (like North Koreans). This is likely because he does not want to recruit from his likeness, which is the western Slavic ethnicity of blond hair and blue eyes.
The U.S. Advantage
The United States can capitalize on Russia’s demographic weakness. By implementing policies that attract young, skilled Russians, the U.S. can further deplete Russia’s workforce and hinder its economic situation.
Policy Plan
The U.S. could offer attractive immigration pathways and expedited greencard and eventual citizenship to Russians, particularly those in the age (18-29) and those with any skills. This would incentivize a significant exodus from Russia, weakening its military and economy.
Why this Works
Russia’s population is already shrinking. By siphoning off its most productive citizens, the U.S. can accelerate this decline and hinder Russia’s ability to recover from the war in Ukraine and maintain its global standing.
Russia faces a critical shortage of fighting-age men. There are only 7 million Russian men between 18 and 29, compared to over 22 million in the United States, despite Russia having roughly half the U.S. population. This means that even now, Putin cannot initiate a large-scale draft (1-2 million men), it will severely impact Russia’s economy and long-term demographic prospects. These men will be removed from the workforce and will be unable to contribute to the next generation.
This demographic crisis is projected to cause Russia’s population to plummet from approximately 142 million today to 120 million by 2060. Imagine if it plummeted from 142 to 100 million by 2060. Peter Zeyhan, an author on geo-political projections, has stated that by 2060 most likely Russia will collapse due to this demographic bomb.
While Russia could try to mitigate this decline through immigration, it faces significant challenges. Although it attracts some immigrants from former Soviet states. Russia could attract the Chinese, however there’s refusal to allow large-scale immigration from China due to fears of a “soft invasion” and potential annexation of Eastern Russia.
Given these constraints, Russia’s population decline seems inevitable. However, the United States can accelerate this decline and capitalize on it through strategic immigration policies.
A new legal immigration law could serve U.S. interests by strategically targeting specific populations.
Option 1: Targeted Immigration
- Open the door to Slavic Russians from Western and Northwestern Russia with a quota of 700,000 per year for 20 years. Targeting Putin’s bread and butter Russians.
- Extend the same offer to Belarus, with a quota of 200,000 per year.
- Prioritize immigrants with college degrees or trade skills. Married couples with children who can fill manufacturing jobs would also be desirable.
Option 2: Accelerated Weakening of Russia
- Remove the quota and expand the age range to 0-35 years old for immigrants from Western Russia and Belarus. (Belarus only 10 million people, thus a hollowing out of their country would result in an even more immediate collapse)
- This could potentially lead to an exodus of 10 million people from Russia, crippling its economy and forcing it to impose travel-exit restrictions similar to North Korea.
Overall Immigration Strategy
The United States needs 1.6 million immigrants per year. Instead of relying on asylum seekers, which primarily benefits the Democratic party, a Republican-led initiative could design a system that provides geopolitical advantages.
- Offer 10-year work visas to immigrants.
- Grant citizenship to those who fulfill their work obligations and remain crime-free.
This approach would address the U.S. labor shortage while strategically weakening a geopolitical rival. It would de-fang what is left of Russia where they will never be able to invade another country again.
Increased Russian immigration to the United States could help ease tensions between the two countries. A large Russian diaspora in the U.S. could foster better understanding and cooperation. It’s important to remember that nationalistic conflicts are primarily driven by governments, not everyday citizens.
Benefits for the United States
The simple question is: What other country from a geo-political perspective makes more sense to accept immigrants from? Only Russia has a huge geo-political win.
The U.S. would gain a significant boost to its economy by welcoming a educated and motivated workforce from Russia. However, even with a large influx of Russian immigrants, the U.S. would still need to attract immigrants from other regions to meet its annual need of 1.6 million to maintain economic growth.
Deterrence, – We need to come up with 106 million people over the next 75 years. Thus if 30 million came from Russia there is a chance Russia and the USA will be close allies by 2060.
We need more than just Russia
To address this remaining needs, the U.S. should consider increasing immigration from European countries with high unemployment rates. Prioritizing immigrants of childbearing age would also help ensure continued population growth in the U.S.
The Need for Urgent Action
The declining U.S. population under 5 years old signals a looming demographic crisis. Congress and the President need to act decisively to prevent economic disaster. The United States must develop a strategic immigration policy to avoid economic decline and maintain a thriving population.
The key question is: what kind of immigration does the U.S. want? Should the focus be on accepting more low-skilled immigrants from Latin America, or should the priority be on attracting skilled workers and individuals from Europe who can contribute to long-term economic growth and demographic stability?
