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
The plot thickens. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. This definitely puts a different spin on all that is happening.
While Countries and entire nations are distributing wealth the MAIN LOSERS in this game will be the Citizens of the USA.
The American Citizen is losing more than first thought because of the illegal
http://www.isteve.com/2001_Arabs_and_Nationalism.htmvaders.
This may explain the Catholic Church involvement:
The struggles between the Catholic Church's political allies, such as the sprawling Holy Roman Empire, and the rising "nation-states" such as England helped mark the transition between the universalist medieval Europe and the nationalist modern Europe. (A nation-state is one government ruling one relatively sizable self-aware people. They might be united by genealogy, language, or simply by what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave...")
The rise of local European languages to dominance, replacing Latin even among most Churchmen, doomed the Catholic Church's ambitions for continued control.
In contrast, Arabic plays an even more central role in Islam than Latin did in Catholicism. It is the original language of the Koran. The faithful believe Arabic is Allah's own sacred language, in which the divinity dictated the Koran to Mohammed. This tenet encouraged the spread of Arabic to newly Muslim lands.
Hence, Arabic is now spoken from Morocco to Iraq. Since all of these people can understand each other, the notion of permanently settled boundaries dividing them is less politically appealing than in other parts of the world where language diversity encourages local solidarity and broad-scale distrust.
National borders work to quarantine chaos. The lack of borders widely recognized by Middle Easterners to be fully legitimate contributes to the region's instability.
So for those that aren't concerned about 10-20 million illegal invaders better educate themselves about what the real purpose is to import poverty.
If Clinton advocates bringing in more illegals, do you really think its good for this nation?
Before the vast resurgence in American patriotism that followed the 9.11 atrocities, nationalism had largely fallen out of fashion among elites in the Western world. For example, with exquisitely bad timing, ex-President Bill Clinton told an Australian audience the day before the sneak attacks that he believed in "the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world."
Think this isn't a liberal idea? Guess again.