This article examines present attempts to construct immigration as a social problem by studying the language and rhetoric of restrictionist groups on the World Wide Web in the aftermath of 9/11. The analysis of these websites reveals a variety of discourses that both describe and evaluate the consequences of recent immigration. The reasons against immigration currently being put forth include: defending the environment, enhancing national security and protecting jobs for native-born Americans. While the case can be made that these arguments are not based on hostility toward any specific group defined in terms of its racial, ethnic, cultural or religious characteristics, a case that typically is asserted by restrictionist groups themselves, my analysis reveals the existence of an alternative discourse defining those unworthy of participation in American society. My research also reveals that the most overtly nativist groups have the greatest number of web-links to other restrictionist groups, suggesting an attempt to appropriate multiple sources of restrictionist discourse to bolster and legitimize their own positions.
The justices ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act in
regards of the supreme court decision is six. The Affordable care is a kind of
health care reform law in which has the primary goal of providing health
insurance to be affordable and to make it available to people who can’t afford
of providing or having health care.
Taking into account its syntactic function, the word inculcate is a transitive verb that is followed by an object. This object could be a noun, a phrase or a pronoun. For example: <em>Your parents inculcate good values to their children. </em>In addition, the transitive verbs need the object to make sense. On the contrary, intransitive verbs are not followed by any object.
