The question about "American immigrants" has a blind spot in it: while roughly 250,000 Europeans may have come to the colonies under the conditions described in the answer, another 350,000 or more were brought here from Africa as slaves. Now your answer clearly does not ask about those brought here in chains, who paid for their voyage in a much different way, but they were nonetheless "immigrants" in the ordinary meaning of the word ("a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence"). I would rephrase the question to read "How did more than half of those persons who chose to come to the thirteen colonies prior to the Revolution pay for their expensive voyage?"
I don't think you can mix slaves and immigrants. I think the crucial difference is that immigrants are people who come under their own free will, while this obviously doesn't apply to slaves.
I did and I got the answer. But the question can still be improved upon. We can understand garbled words ("Aoccdnrig to a rseearch sduty at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.") but that doesn't mean we shouldn't correct them.
If someone kidnaps you and takes you to some random island in Indonesia and forces you to stay there for the rest of your life, are you an immigrant? Or just a displaced individual?
Sorry, but I beg to differ with you! - An immigrant is someone who VOLUNTARILY leaves his/her country of origin to settle in another.
That does not hold true for the slaves who were brought here against their will and in chains. As Malcolm X said: "WE did not land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock landed ON US!"
Yes, most of the time, when you say immigrant, it is referring to someone who willingly comes to a country. However, it may be used generally to refer to a non-native, as in "America is a country of immigrants".
I think the point is to make the question as clear and unambiguous as possible, and rewording it to restrict it to those who came willingly would do that.
I wouldn't say they migrated. They were abducted, imprisoned, removed, etc., but they didn't emigrate. It was an action done to them. Emigrate is an action one does; enslavement is done to them.
I read the question and still searched my brain for the major movie film makers of the 20th century. Later I googled the phrase "largest maker of film of the 20th century" and movie studios were the only answers that came up. Please make the clue more specific or else accept Twentieth-Century Fox as an additional answer.
"Miranda" is obviously the most precise answer, but "Constitutional" should be accepted as well—all Miranda rights are Constitutional rights (although the reverse is not true).
Not necessarily. The phrase Constitutional Rights is misleading because the Constitution does not grant rights but creates a system of government and places restrictions on that government. Whether the Constitution exists or not doesn't change the fact that rights exist, granted by God. The Miranda law only serves as a reminder to the accused of the possibility of self-indictment and the option of an attorney. Good question and answer.
The question and answer are fine as they are, but there are major errors in the rest of your comment. Constitutional amendments (e.g. the Bill of Rights) are as much a part of the US Constitution as the words "We the People..." Therefore the Constitution does indeed grant rights.
Also, rights are very much a human invention. There are a number of important mythological constructs that are essential to the functioning of a large, civilized society - rights, money, corporations, laws, etc. They're all just stuff we made up. And then we recognized that we can be far more successful as a species when we all, more or less, abide by them.
God has nothing to do with it. People can believe whatever they want about religion (this god, that god, no god) and as long as they still subscribe to these other ideas in common, society will still succeed. Put some authority (god or dictator) in the center that subverts a common understanding of these other features, things fall apart (Afghanistan).
I feel like "acetic acid" should be accepted in place of vinegar/distilled vinegar. I understand that by "acetic acid" you could think of more concentrated version, but they are still the same thing at the end of the day (at least - formula wise).
Roosevelt was a 19th century president, so I tried Roosevelt Franklin. Could ask for both Sesame Street characters with the same name as a 19th century president.
That does not hold true for the slaves who were brought here against their will and in chains. As Malcolm X said: "WE did not land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock landed ON US!"
I think the point is to make the question as clear and unambiguous as possible, and rewording it to restrict it to those who came willingly would do that.
Also, rights are very much a human invention. There are a number of important mythological constructs that are essential to the functioning of a large, civilized society - rights, money, corporations, laws, etc. They're all just stuff we made up. And then we recognized that we can be far more successful as a species when we all, more or less, abide by them.
God has nothing to do with it. People can believe whatever they want about religion (this god, that god, no god) and as long as they still subscribe to these other ideas in common, society will still succeed. Put some authority (god or dictator) in the center that subverts a common understanding of these other features, things fall apart (Afghanistan).