Is this statement true or false?
anti-semitism in russia in the late 1800s was a "push" factor that caused many
people to leave their home country and migrate to the united states.

The correct answer is true.

It is true that anti-Semitism in Russia in the late 1800s was a "push" factor that caused many people to leave their home country and migrate to the United States.

When we are talking about immigration terms, push-pul factors como to mind. A push factor is the factor that forces people to levae their native countries. It could be political persecution, religious differences, civil war or poverty. A pull factor is a factor that attracts people to emigrate to other country. It could be better jobs, peace, stability, or better living conditions in general. So yes, anti-Semitism in Russia in the late 1800s was a "push" factor that caused many people to leave their home country and migrate to the United States.

“the battle of stalingrad is not a turning point necessarily in strategic terms, because a lot more has to be done before the soviets can be certain of defeating germany,” says renowned world war ii historian richard overy. the germans had fought nearly a thousand miles across the soviet union to get to stalingrad.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is