Answer:
B. Immigrants took jobs from Americans.
Explanation:
The arguments about immigration is typically not about legal immigrants, but rather, about illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are forced not to comply with the law, as, if they are found out, will be deported, forcing them to have to accept jobs that are paid less. However, workplaces who do not need a certain skill set may actively seek out illegal immigrants, as they can be paid for less then the minimum wage, as well as allowing work conditions to be more lenient (which typically means under the federal safe levels). This creates a market where jobs that are typically filled out by native born or legal immigrants are taken away, forcing those who are in the country legally to be jobless and have to heavily rely on the government just to survive. Also, illegal immigrants
There are arguments about legal immigrants as well, that go along the same line of taking jobs, though they are much more fewer then illegal immigrants. Also, Illegal immigrants is the second highest group that commit crime, over the legal immigrant group. A. is also an argument, though rarely used, as illegal immigrants tend to send money away from the US, causing a leakage in the ordinary cash flow, leading to less money in the US overall.
Answer:The Seven Years' War ended with the signing of the treaties of Hubertusburg and Paris in February 1763. In the Treaty of Paris, France lost all claims to Canada and gave Louisiana to Spain, while Britain received Spanish Florida, Upper Canada, and various French holdings overseas.
Explanation:
Sorry if i was late!
The middle ages in Europe were pretty terrible. Politically, kings ruled directly over groups of people, or over whole countries. The kings answered to the Pope generally. Economically, the kings and their nobles owned most of the profits of hard labor, while the townspeople after were treated to low wages. A sizable gap between classes was seen economically, and there was little room for changes in a persons economic class. Socially, the structure went like this: beggars and thieves, serfs (or non land owning peasants), knights, nobles and bishops, kings, the Pope.
1. Before watching the film, I understood that the war on drugs and war on crime were attempts by the government to stop the illegal consumption and distribution of hard drugs that endangered the lives of the youths, whether they were Whites or people of color.
2. I was surprised to learn that the legislative policies and the active role that the state played in criminalizing and deliberately targeting communities of color had racial underpinnings. Who could have imagined racial hatred drove all the governmental efforts against criminality?
After all, drug dealing and other forms of criminality have not helped people of color in any positive way. They have cut short the aspirations of many. Somebody like Robert DeShaun Peter lost his brilliant future and life in such acts.
3. The immediate reaction was that governmental powers should never be used to <em>malign a race</em>. While drugs and crimes have not helped the youths in making societal progress, the <em>war against drugs and crimes</em> should not be against the black race but criminality.
Thus, such partial wars targeting a racial community were not necessary. <em>Wars against illicit drugs and crimes</em> should be waged holistically for corrective effects and <em>not internalize hatred.</em>
Learn more: brainly.com/question/15702214
