Answer:
<h3>to members and non-members of a club.</h3>
Explanation:
Domestic policy is a public policy under which rules can be exercised to all the members, citizens as well as foreigners, living within a specific territory or jurisdiction.
Every member and non-members who live within a controlled territory must follow certain rules of that territory. Thus, domestic policy can be compared to rules that apply to both the members as well as non-members of a club. In other words, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
However, once a non-member leaves the territory of a specific club, he/she does not become subjected to any rules of that club.
The legislative branch would have two houses each state would also have two representatives, and it didn't matter how big or small the states were.
Answer:ok..................
Explanation:
In general terms one can think of expansionism, that is occupying land that were deamed not productive in order to cultivate or explore -- onje can check the American expansion to the West, this shows that the settlers had little to no regard to the first settlers.
After the consolidation of the American territory, latinos and native Americans were relegaded as second class citizens, along with ex-slaves, most lations and Afroamericans occupied big centers but mostly in the outskirts, and Native Americans now are over 5 million people, a few more than a half this number live in Alaska alone.
Nowadays there is the problem with the border with Mexico and one can say that there is justified fear of human traficking and smuggling with immigrants who seek a better life in the US, the problem is, there are good people who want to work and prosper in the US but they are blended together with evil-doers, still showing a general suspicion to Latinos as a group.
It depends on what you understand from tolerance. It is true that the Ottoman administration usually did not care about ethno-religious groups’ internal affairs, and left them alone to a large extent. Nevertheless, non-Muslims were second-class citizens. Heterodox Muslims, such as the Alevis, the Druze and Alawites, were collectively considered to be heretics and they were not recognised as a group of people, and thus were deprived of any rights. Sometimes this utter intolerance toward ‘heretic’ Muslim groups extended to include many Sufi branches of Islam (especially during Kadizadeliler’s reign of terror) many of which would be considered mainstream by many Turks today,
Although the Millet system is celebrated for being tolerant, it caused these groups to have isolated modi vivendi. Armenians, Jews, Greeks and and Muslims had separate quarters, separate schools, separate legal systems and separate ethnarchs (like the Chief Rabbi or the Greek Orthodox Patriarch). This social and legal division prevented the Empire to assert a sense of “Ottoman Citizenship” in the late 19th century, and many millets wanted to have a separate country of their own. This resulted in many wars in the Balkans in late 19th and early 20th centuries, and of an Armenian sepaor the U.S.
ratist revolt supported by Russia in 1915 which the nationalist junta at the time (the C.U.P) used as a pretext for starting the Armenian genocide.
Today, Turkey is religiously very homogenous as non-Muslim minorities were driven out throughout the decades following the commencement of WWI.
So, “tolerance” was not always there (we’re talking about a 600 year-old empire, mind you) and it didn’t resemble modern open societies like Canada or the U.S.
i hope this helped bc it sure did take a while. lol
