Answer:
Migration is variously characterized as an important determinant of violent conflict and political instability, national power, imperial expansion, ethnic conflict, radicalism, terrorism, environmental degradation, and economic growth or stagnation. In high immigration receiving states such as Australia and the United States—among the world's most inclusive migrant incorporation regimes—immigration increasingly complicates foreign policy making choices, and may present challenges to each host nation's internal cohesion.. Issues such as dual nationality, social exclusion, multiculturalism, and fear of international terrorism—especially in a post-9/11 context—generate considerable political heat and public debate.
2nd paragraph: Combatants in the immigration debate start from very different world views – not only emphasizing different values but almost speaking different languages. To avoid destructive backlashes, reformers must understand and respect the values and perspectives of all groups involved in public debates.Immigration—and public policies to manage it—arouses strong emotions and fierce social and political battles, not just in the United States but in most other countries across the world. Why is this true? Each nation has its own issues that inspire or enrage, of course, but there are widespread, underlying patterns that can be identified and taken into consideration by reformers.
Answer:
Down south was were most slaves were held most of them in plantations and or to Rich people in general: Please give brainliest im close to the next rank.
Im 100% sure
Explanation:
Large numbers of slaves lived in the states along the border between the Union and Confederacy. Approximately 500,000 slaves lived in Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland; border slave states, which did not join the Confederacy.
The group that supported his son-in-law Ali was D. the Shi'ites
Opposite to them, the Sunni Muslims believed that Abu Bakr should be the righteous leader.
The simple answer to your complex question is NO. This is assuming that you live in a country where there are good laws (remember that history is full of bad governments that implemented bad laws) and that law enforcement is effective. Simplisticly, you should only ask yourself this question when your or your families life is being threatened and law enforcement is not around. Your response must still be within the constraints of your laws or you will find yourself in hot water. I'm not even going to try to discuss the ethics and morals that can apply as the situation can vary immensely. Keep it simple - don't operate outside the law, rather fight against unjust laws.
Self defense because in order for them to seem more powerful and they also needed i to gain more protection.
