Answer:
Explanation:
By Tom Jawetz July 22, 2019, 4:45 am
Restoring the Rule of Law Through a Fair, Humane, and Workable Immigration System
Getty/Mario Tama
New U.S. citizens gather at a naturalization ceremony, March 2018.
OVERVIEW
Policymakers must break free of the false dichotomy of America as either a nation of immigrants or a nation of laws, and advance an immigration system that is fair, humane, and actually works.
PRESS CONTACT
For more information and updates on this topic, see CAP’s series: “Reframing the Immigration Debate.”
Introduction and summary
The immigration debate in America today is nearly as broken as the country’s immigration system itself. For too many years, the conversation has been predicated on a false dichotomy that says America can either honor its history and traditions as a nation of immigrants1 or live up to its ideals as a nation of laws by enforcing the current immigration system.2 Presented with this choice,3 supporters of immigration—people who recognize the value that immigrants bring to American society, its culture, and its economy, as well as the important role that immigrants play in the nation’s continued prosperity—have traditionally seized the mantle of defending America as a nation of immigrants.4 By doing this, however, rather than challenging the dichotomy itself, supporters have ceded powerful rhetorical ground to immigration restrictionists, who are happy to masquerade as the sole defenders of America as a nation of laws.5 The fundamental problem with this debate is that America is, and has always been, both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Debates over a liberal immigration policy actually predate the start of the nation itself; they infused the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, America’s founding document.6
GET THE LATEST ON IMMIGRATION
Email
Answer:What was the Scientific Revolution? It challenged Ptolemy's and the Churches' beliefs about the Earth being the center of the universe., It was when scientists, during the Renaissance started to find truth thought direct observations rather than only listening to the church.
Explanation:
His promise was to reduce the number of troops in Vietnam. This was popular because the public support for the war effort was becoming weaker and weaker and even those who used to be proud of those in Vietnam started losing respect for the government that sent them there. This won him a lot of votes, especially among republicans whose children were in the war.
