Answer:
d. The U.S. government's policy of relocating the North America's indigenous population to reservations in the West.
Explanation:
In the field of human geography, push factors refers to the reasons why people emigrate out from one place to another. Their opposites are the pull factors, which are the reasons why people immigrate to a new place coming from another.
There are three main push factors: economic, environmental, and cultural. In the provided answers, option a is an example of an economic push factor, as Mexican laborers moved to the US in search of the job opportunities given to them during World War II. Option b is clearly an environmental factor. Option c is another example of an economic factor, as Europeans farmers were motivated to emigrate looking for better economic conditions in the New World. Option e is another clear example of an environmental push factor.
Option d is the one cultural factor. Starting in 1830 with the passage of the Indian Removal Act, <u>the United States government forcibly relocated most of North America's indigenous population to reservations in the sparsely populated western part of the country</u>. In this case, discrimination against Native Americans was a huge cultural push factor. While many Indians tribes had already started to assimilate into American culture of the time, they were still widely seen as alien nations that had no real place in the United States, and they were forced to move in order to give their lands to white settlers.
A federal judge ruled about Japanese relocation 40 years after the fact, in 1986, that it was overall an unconstitutional action on part of the Roosevelt Administration.
Answer:
I believe it's all of the above but I'm not 100% sure but most of the time it will be all of the above
NO OTHER country puts as much emphasis on “freedom” as the United States. Patrick Henry demanded “liberty or death”. The national anthem calls America “the land of the free”. Great reformers from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King have urged America to live up to its ideal of “freedom”. When a group of French Americanophiles wanted to flatter the United States, they sent the Statue of Liberty.
And no other country boasts as much about its mission to give freedom to the rest of the world. Woodrow Wilson thought that he had a God-given duty to bring liberty to mankind. George Bush regards his foreign policy as a crusade for freedom—“the right and hope of all humanity”.
But how good is America at living up to its own ideals? A new study by Freedom House tries to answer this question. The fact that Freedom House has devoted so much attention to the United States is significant in its own right. Founded in 1941 by a group of Americans who were worried about the advance of fascism, Freedom House is now the world's leading watchdog of liberty. The fact that “Today's American: How Free?” is such a thorough piece of work makes it doubly significant.
The judicious tone of “How Free?” will undoubtedly disappoint leftists. Freedom House bends over backwards to give the authorities the benefit of the doubt. Other countries have recalibrated the balance between freedom and security in the face of terrorists who want to inflict mass casualties on civilians. America's recent sins, however, are minor compared with those of its past. Newspapers have published highly sensitive information without reprisals. Congress and the courts have repeatedly stepped in to restore a more desirable constitutional balance.
But the verdict on the Bush years is nevertheless sharp. “How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping. It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005—a 60% increase over three years. Decade-old information has been reclassified. Researchers report that it is much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Government whistleblowers have repeatedly been punished or fired—even when they have been trying to expose threats to national security that their bosses preferred to overlook. Richard Levernier had his security clearance revoked for revealing that some of the country's nuclear facilities were not properly secured. Border security agents have been punished for pointing out that the border is inadequately monitored, and airport baggage-handlers and security people for pointing to weaknesses in the security system. The Office of Special Counsel, which was established to enforce laws designed to protect the rights of such people, is widely regarded as “inept and even hostile to whistleblowers”.
“How Free?” also has some hard things to say about America's criminal-justice system. The incarceration rate exploded from 1.39 per 1,000 in 1980 to 7.5 in 2006, driven, among other things, by the war on drugs. America now has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world: 5.6m Americans, or one in every 37 adults, has spent time behind bars. Even though prison-building is one of the country's great growth industries, overcrowding is endemic, with federal prisons operating at 131% of capacity. America is also one of the few countries to ban felons and, in some states, ex-felons from voting. At any one time 4m Americans—one in every 50 adults—is disenfranchised because of past criminal convictions. This includes 1.4m blacks, or 14% of the black male population.
Freedom House's strictures are, if anything, too soft. America insists on criminalising victimless crimes such as prostitution. Last week Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, committed suicide; the government had thrown the book at her, including racketeering and mail fraud, because it really wished to penalise the arranging of assignations between consenting adults. In her suicide note to her mother she wrote that she could not “live the next six-to-eight years behind bars for what you and I have both come to regard as this 'modern-day lynching'.”
New York was. Initially, it was called New Netherlands, because the Dutch had control of it first. But, as the latter half of the 17th Century wore on, it gradually came under the control of the British, a force so powerful that the Dutch dared not try to fight back.
