20 points! ! which best compares the first wave of immigration to america in the 1600s to the third wave in the early 1800s? a) in the 1600s, many immigrants were seeking land and religious freedom. in the early 1800s, many immigrants were escaping famine and political problems. b) in the 1600s, many immigrants were escaping famine and political problems. in the early 1800s, many immigrants were seeking land and religious freedom. c) in the 1600s, many immigrants were escaping war and revolution. in the early 1800s, many immigrants were seeking jobs and political freedom. d) in the 1600s, many immigrants were seeking jobs and political freedom. in the early 1800s, many immigrants were escaping war and revolution.

What was the primary purpose of the sibley commission in georgia? to schools across georgia integrate peacefully to discover how georgians felt about the issue of integration to lead non-violent protests to elect new civil rights leaders

How do direct democracry and representative democary differ

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.