From 1942 to 1947, only a relatively small number of braceros were admitted, accounting for less than 10 percent of U.S hired workers. Yet both U.S and Mexican employers became heavily dependent on braceros for willing workers; bribery was a common way to get a contract during this time. Consequently, several years of short-term agreement led to an increase in undocumented immigration and a growing preference for operating outside of the parameters set by the program. Moreover, Truman's Commission on Migratory Labor in 1951 disclosed that the presence of Mexican workers depressed the income of American farmers, even as the U.S Department of State urged a new bracero program to counter the popularity of communism in Mexico. Furthermore, it was seen as a way for Mexico to be involved in the Allied armed forces. The first braceros were admitted on September 27, 1942, for the sugar-beet harvest season. From 1948 to 1964, the US imported on average 200,000 braceros per year.
1. The selling of indulgences (claimed to be tickets straight to heaven if you gave money)
2. Greed (heavy taxation, took money that was used for luxuries rather than charity)
3. Abuse of power (lack of separation of church and state)
I believe the answer is B
It is important to understand that the construction of identities, when analyzed in contemporary times, must be viewed from two dimensions: “Conflicting diversity within the nation-state (regions, ethnic issues, etc.) and the emergence of transnational identity references. For example, the world of consumption. Different social groups can thus appropriate globalized symbolic references (from Madonna to hip-hop) to construct their own image, their “identity”. There is, therefore, a situation within which different "identities" complement or enter into dispute. The monopoly that the state had (or thought it had) collapsed. The construction of national identity must now be done in a context of diversification that previously did not exist, technological transformations are obviously important, but one should not fall into a reductionist temptation that gives technologies a transformative capacity that they do not possess. The world will no longer be democratic because the technologies we have are more sophisticated. Today there is a certain technological panacea that often deludes us. Social problems will not be solved with 'more technology' or 'less'.
