a is the answer (at least that's what i believe)
The nativists believed that immigrants would destroy America. So, option (b) can be considered as the suitable option.
<h3>Why do nativists oppose immigration?</h3>
Joel S. Fetzer claims that conflicts over national, cultural, and religious identity frequently lead to hostility to immigration in many nations. Particularly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as in continental Europe, the phenomenon has been examined. As a result, the term "nativism" has evolved to refer broadly to opposition to immigration motivated by worries that newcomers may "distort or corrupt" preexisting cultural norms. Nativist movements try to stop cultural change when immigrants outnumber native-born people by a wide margin.
Many of the following arguments against immigrants are used to support immigration restrictionist sentiment :
Economic :
- Employment : Immigrants take occupations that would have been open to native citizens otherwise, which reduces native employment. They also produce a labor surplus, which drives down wages.
- Immigrants incur a cost to the government since they do not pay enough taxes to pay for the services they need.
- Social welfare systems are heavily utilized by immigrants.
- Housing : As vacancies are reduced by immigrants, rents rise.
Cultural
- Language : Immigrants refuse to pick up the native tongue and withdraw into their own communities.
- Culture : As immigrants outnumber the local populace, their culture will take its place.
- Crime : Compared to the native population, immigrants are more likely to commit crimes.
- Patriotism : Immigrants erode a country's feeling of ethnic and national identity.
To know more about, immigration, visit :
brainly.com/question/17124402
#SPJ9
The Second Barons' War (1264–1267) was a civil war in England between the forces of a number of barons led by Simon de Montfort against the royalist forces of King Henry III, led initially by the king himself and later by his son, the future King Edward I. The barons sought to force the king to rule with a council of barons rather than through his favourites.
<span>The formal amendment process is an excellent example of the concepts of federalism and popular sovereignty. The formal amendment process includes the physical change in actual in the Constitution wording. It is one of the two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution and the other one is the Informal amendment.</span>
An individual's ability to speak from a position of power and gain a listening ear is <em>B. bully pulpit.</em>
- When an individual occupies a public office, the person can use that office as a platform to speak. Speaking on issues from a position occupied gives the individual the public's attention.
- Ordinarily, people would like to hear what a leader's thoughts are. The individual leader may not have this power without the office.
- This ability to speak publicly from a position of power and be listened to is not federalism (a governmental system of federating units), plural executive, nor ceremonial figurehead.
Thus, bully pulpit is the correct term that describes an individual's ability to speak publicly from their position of power and get listening ears.
Read more about bully pulpit at brainly.com/question/24086276
