Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Immigration and Nationalism: Does our foreign policy support only our…

- - - - Many cite the win to the war, gaining popularity as the iron lady and the GOTCHA! Sun caption, referencing the sinking of the Belgrano as the key to her success.
- - - - Wars can often lead to higher public approval, such as Bush waging the War on Terror, resulting in was with Afghanistan and the Iraq War, which led him easily passing his No Child Left Behind legislation through both the Senate and House in December 2001 - 381 YEAs in HoR (41 NOs), 87 YEAs in Senate (10 NOs).
        
        Also can be used to bomb terrorists, with Trump gaining popluarity after saying he'd bomb the sh*t out of ISIS. He did, dropping a 20,000 lb bomb on their main cave in 2016.
      - Immigration legislation can often be done for the sake of winning elections
        
        Trump promising a "Big, beautiful wall", resulting in 17 miles of new concrete wall being built. Was to gain the vote of anti-immigration, far-right republicans.
        
        Kamala Harris and Biden going to South American countries such as Guatemala and Venezuela to tell people "do not come", because they don't have the facilities for all of the immigrants, and also to quell anti-immigration democrats.
    - - The 2003 Iraq War led to American oil firms such as ExxonMobil and Chevron having dominance over the Iraqi oil fields, previously nationalised.
  - - - Margaret Thatcher called the 1983 General Election after the 1982 Falklands War, resulting in a landslide Tory win with 397 seats won, compared to 209 won by Labour.
        
        Many cite the win to the war, gaining popularity as the iron lady and the GOTCHA! Sun caption, referencing the sinking of the Belgrano as the key to her success.
    - - Factortame v Secretary of State for Transport 1991 - A case over Spanish fishermen fishing in UK waters, which UK law prohibited but EU law didn't. The House of Lords found for the fishermen and in this watershed case, the Court viewed that they were empowered under EC law to restrict parliamentary legislation and disregard it where it juxtaposed with EC law.