Replies

More on the WMO

Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "a man is of all sorts of luggage the most difficult to be transported." Retired UN official Bimal Ghosh agrees with Smith, but believes that a New International Regime for Orderly Movements of People, NIROMP, would help to manage increasing international migration.

Ghosh lays out the three pillars of the new regime (p227): shared objectives, harmonized goals and new institutions. There is no discussion of what the shared migration objectives and the harmonized migration goals should be, such as adding one percent a year to the population via immigration, as in Canada, but there is a discussion of the gains from adopting a new regime. Ghosh argues that a new migration regime would reduce the costs of immigration enforcement and asylum applicant processing and enhance economic efficiency and global output, since labor would be allocated more efficiently if it moves from low to higher wage places. Ghosh ends with a plea for "a joint endeavor to promote the optimal benefits for each participating state while protecting orderliness in movements as a valuable common global good." (p245).

Ghosh believes in yielding power to international organizations to solve international problems, and in this sense the call for NIROMP is analogous to pleas for new environmental regimes that, for instance, minimize cross-border pollution, save vanishing species or slow global warming.

***

The CFR being in-line with the unconstitutional and freedom stealing UN on this one.

FYI. The Rand corporation says that sending money back to "homeland countries"( a function of illegal immigration in America) may actually be fomenting global revolution instead of creating global stability, as our "free trader" friends would have us believe... but then again they may have an interest in fomenting this since the Department of Homeland Security came out of the Rand Corp. and they have many well paying contracts to implement it.
***

States are neither the only nor necessarily the most important sponsors of insurgent movements. Diasporas—immigrant communities established in other countries—frequently support insurgencies in their homelands.1 Despite being separated by thousands of miles, homeland struggles are often keenly felt among immigrant communities.
Indeed, insurgents in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, India
(Punjab and Kashmir), Indonesia (Aceh), Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Northern Ireland, and Kosovo have all received various and important forms of support from their respective migrant communities.

Significant diaspora support has occurred in every region of the globe, except Latin America.Migrant communities have sent money, arms, and recruits back to their home countries, which have proven pivotal in sustaining insurgent campaigns. This support has at times significantly increased insurgents’ capabilities and enabled
them to withstand government counterinsurgency efforts.

Reliance on diasporas to wage an insurgency may become an
increasingly common phenomenon in years to come. Such
fundraising efforts are hardly new: Palestinian movements have done so for decades as have the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the PIRA, which have long relied on Kurds in Germany and Irish- Americans, respectively, to provide needed funds. But diasporas may be more important should state funding stop or become unobtainable, forcing insurgent groups to look elsewhere to sustain their
struggle. The withdrawal of superpower support in the early 1990s has already caused the collapse of several insurgencies that depended on Moscow to survive. In addition, the increasing number of ethnic or communal insurgencies relative to ideological conflicts increases the relative prevalence of diaspora support.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1405/MR1405.ch3.pdf#search='migrant%20diaspora'

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1372760/posts#1