Which of the following statements explains the political cartoon's message about immigration in the early 1920's?

1 answer:

7 0

The right answer is A: Governmental laws, supported by Nativists, limited the number of immigrants coming into the US. This political cartoon, which appeared in <em>The Literary Digest</em> in 1921, shows a funnel extended across the Atlantic Ocean, with its wide opening in the European side, overflowed with emigrants, and its small opening in the American side, where Uncle Sam, holding a tag that reads "gate" with a "3%" tag attached to it, is allowing just a few of them to enter the country. The imagery, as well as the title of the cartoon ("The Only Way to Handle It"), are a direct reference to the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which limited the annual number of immigrants admitted into the United States from any country to 3% of the number of residents from those countries that were already living in the U.S. as per the census of 1910.

You might be interested in

Witch congressional chamber has the power to override a presidential veto

8090 [49]

The Legislative branch

7 0

3 years ago

What were the pastoralists masters of?

maks197457 [2]

Answer:

they were masters of commanding horses and animals. they were also known for their military strength.

Explanation: hope this helps, pls mark brainliest

7 0

3 years ago

Describe the legacy by Byzantine civilization

algol [13]

They had kept greek n roman culture alive for a 1,000 years after the fall of the roman empire in the west. which had preserved this cultural legacy until it was taken up in the west during the renaissance.

5 0

3 years ago

Which is the best example of a thesis statement for a literary analysis?

sleet_krkn [62]

The answer is 4 if so dont blame me

8 0

3 years ago

in the text the author discusses some of the ways the first amendment has been interpreted. in the context of our current americ

NNADVOKAT [17]

Answer:

This question is really geared more towards your own interpretation, so there isn't necessarily going to be a right or wrong answer. I would say that today the first amendment protects when people are speaking out against policies and general injustices in the American society today, and for instance, on social media I have seen people say "f trump and f america." The first amendment is protecting them, so that nobody can hold that statement against them and press charges. If we lived in russia, the russian secret police would find you, and kill you for that. Personally, I believe that if someone wanted to burn an american flag on their front lawn, and curse america, they should not be protected by the first amendment. that should be a crime. However, the first amendment does protect them, so there is nothing anyone could do about that legally.

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago