The proponents of nativism wanted the US government to favor the interests of native-born people over the interests of immigrants. They did not want the immigrants to take their jobs. The natives felt that the immigrants were taking their jobs and land which would lead to overpopulation thus felt this would overburden the government if they were unable to take care of their families.
The main way in which Congress can <span>exercise its power over the president in the case of an undeclared war is by ensuring that any troops sent overseas only remain there for a limited amount of time without Congressional approval, since only Congress can declare war. </span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Here we have just a statement. There is no question. It seems that you forgot to include the question.
However, trying to help you, we did some deep search and can say the following.
The missing part is this: <em>"Is imperialism, in this case, justified, sometimes justified, or never justified and why?"</em>
If that is the case, then the answer would be "no." There is not a valid justification for imperialistic practices anymore. That is a questionable practice from the superpower nations that in the past invaded and colonized many territories. They could say whatever wanted to say, but the real reason behind colonizing was not to help the underdeveloped country progress. No.
The real reason for colonizing was simply to exploit the many raw materials and natural reo¿sources of the colony.
I think that there are many examples through history, One notable, the Scramble for Africa from 1881 to 1914.
Because people had to surrender reference books and nonwhites had a restriction of traveling in South African government