>What issues are brought to bear with immigration?
>The same issues that faced refugees in their home countries?
> Issues brought on by colonization, and the weakening of a
>societal structure?

The reason behind the increasing migration to developed countries is because of an unequal distribution of wealth, power and opportunities (to some extent) in the world. Though, although many believe that the opposite of this unequality is total equality, that is not what i am trying to say. What i am thinking about is this: The underlying reason behind migration to the developed world touches the very root of this unequality, because of how it is a product of this supernatural creation of power, this unequal distribution of rights and control. This root is a tender point because it is the foundation on which the power of the western world is built.

Abit Fanon-ish, perhaps. People of the undeveloped world, the people of the oppressed and exploited world, threaten the developed world just by showing up. Just by showing they exist, and no more through the camera of a CNN team, no, now they can suddenly appear outside your doorstep! Just by wanting to take a part in the developed world in order to make a better future, sometimes simply in order to survive (refugees), they threaten the very foundation of the developed world. By touching this tender point, the foundation.

That is what i mean with migration being a clear example. Often this direct confrontation between the developed world and the undeveloped world is purposely hidden, because it shows the truth too clearly. But they cannot completely stop migration, the UN human rights pact and the "international community" have agreed to be humane at least to some extent when it comes to migration, first of all refugees.

They try though.. Through the Schenden deal in europe, aka Festning Europa (Fort Europe)... And of all these european countries the majority of them is only closing their borders more and more. In some countries (i think Germany for example) the new immigration laws contradicts the constitution itself. The UN safety council's anti-terror convention (not sure about the name or whether it has been introduced) is so vague that it can actually be used against the human rights, specially when used against immigrants and refugees. Spain has made the fight against terrorism the same as the struggle to stop immigration from North Africa (one year, while i was living in spain, spain spent more money on high-tech equipment to stop immigrants.. chopters, infrared cameras along the coast, high speed patrol boats, fences.. than the entire military budget). Greece has made a border security deal with Turkey, with a special focus on stopping illegal afghan immigrants. Great Britain has created a new anti-terror, law punishment and security law that has brought with it stricter border control and more limitations for immigrants and refugees. Italy's prime minister Berluscini(sp) has several times confused the terms "illegal immigrants" and "islamic terrorists", and have stated that "The western countries' respect for the human rights characterizes a sivilization supreme to the islamic." Norway was this close -><- to changing their Foreigner Law so that it would contradict its own constitution. In other words, that it was ok to ignore the human rights as long as you do it in the name of the fight against terrorism.

The immigration politics of the developing world is often more about protecting themselves against refugees and asylum seekers than it is about giving protection to people on the run.

This, while "Studies of conflicts in Africa show that there is a far greater possibility for break-out of conflict in a country where exports of oil, minerals or other raw materials make up a large share of the economy than in countries with little export of raw materials." (- Norwegian Refugee Council)



>The thing of
>it is-how can another country, even a superpower possibly
>support this new influx?

Yep, it won't because that would mean the break down of its power and wealth....
It goes against its nature. But that is why i see it as an important truth.

"The majority of refugees worldwide can be found in undeveloped countries. The rich countries dont accept them to the same extent.. not even close to the same extent as poorer countries, who in many cases more or less have completely open borders." (paraphrasing the norwegian refugee council)

>Especially while they (Countries/states) are undergoing
>financial stress. Does this add to the dilema in the Gulf,
>and in Central Asia?

You mean more immigrants means more bad economy, and that adds to the "need" of war in the middle east? Hmmh it is interesting, didnt think about it in that way. I know too little to say anything about it...what do you have on your mind?

>I mean...raw materials are often
>renewable, but not readily available without maturation.

Sorry, dont understand this.. dont see where it links with migration affecting foreign politics. :) (Like it aint complicated enough already!)