Answer: Improvements in agriculture.
Explanation:
The United States experienced major waves of immigration during the
colonial era, the first part of the 19th century and from the 1880s to
1920. Many immigrants came to America seeking greater economic
opportunity, while some, such as the Pilgrims in the early 1600s,
arrived in search of religious freedom. From the 17th to 19th centuries,
hundreds of thousands of African slaves came to America against their
will. The first significant federal legislation restricting immigration
was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Individual states regulated
immigration prior to the 1892 opening of Ellis Island, the country’s
first federal immigration station. New laws in 1965 ended the quota
system that favored European immigrants, and today, the majority of the
country’s immigrants hail from Asia and Latin America.
Answer:
i think they should be able to. we just need a different bed room for them or sum.
you want zoom?
993-2087-328 and pw is: 2HXuqV
Explanation:
Given limited supplies of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and ventilators, non-pharmaceutical interventions are likely to dominate the public health response to any pandemic, at least in the near term. The six papers that make up this chapter describe scientific approaches to maximizing the benefits of quarantine and other nonpharmaceutical strategies for containing infectious disease as well as the legal and ethical considerations that should be taken into account when adopting such strategies. The authors of the first three papers raise a variety of legal and ethical concerns associated with behavioral approaches to disease containment and mitigation that must be addressed in the course of pandemic planning, and the last three papers describe the use of computer modeling for crafting disease containment strategies.
More specifically, the chapter’s first paper, by Lawrence Gostin and Benjamin Berkman of Georgetown University Law Center, presents an overview of the legal and ethical challenges that must be addressed in preparing for pandemic influenza. The authors observe that even interventions that are effective in a public health sense can have profound adverse consequences for civil liberties and economic status. They go on to identify several ethical and human rights concerns associated with behavioral interventions that would likely be used in a pandemic, and they discuss ways to minimize the social consequences of such interventions.
The next essay argues that although laws give decision makers certain powers in a pandemic, those decision makers must inevitably apply ethical tenets to decide if and how to use those powers because “law cannot anticipate the specifics of each public health emergency.” Workshop panelist James LeDuc of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and his co-authors present a set of ethical guidelines that should be employed in pandemic preparation and response. They also identify a range of legal issues relevant to social-distancing measures. If state and local governments are to reach an acceptable level of public health preparedness, the authors say, they must give systematic attention to the ethical and legal issues, and that preparedness should be tested, along with other public health measures, in pandemic preparation exercises.
LeDuc’s fellow panelist Victoria Sutton of Texas Tech University also considered the intersection of law and ethics in public health emergencies in general and in the specific case of pandemic influenza.
The washington presidency was a precedent cabinet.<span />
