SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Associated Press reports:
While 41 percent of Republicans of all ages believe immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the United States, the percentage increases to 60 percent among Republicans between 18 and 29 years old, the survey found. That's a stark contrast to GOP voters 65 and older — only a third of that group says immigrants experience discrimination.
Researchers also found that 74 percent of young whites believe that immigrants are targeted for discrimination a lot, compared to 57 percent of white Americans of all ages. However, among Republicans, only for the youngest group, between 18 and 29, is that view in the majority. Even 30-to-39-year-old Republicans are evenly split, 48 percent to 48 percent, on whether immigrants undergo a lot of discrimination.
[...] "Closed-minded Republicans need to expand their perspective to see how immigrants are helping us all create a better America. I believe that this will change with the younger generation of Republicans," Kromsky said.
[...] According to the PRRI poll, 64 percent of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation and age, believe that immigrants in the U.S. illegally should have a path to citizenship if certain conditions are met; only 16 percent say they should be deported. Among Republicans of all ages, support for a path to citizenship is lower, at 55 percent. But when only Republicans between the ages of 18 to 29 are accounted for, that number rises to 62 percent.
[...] The age gap among Republicans also surfaces on gay rights: 54 percent of Republicans between 18 and 29 believe that gay and lesbian couples should marry, while half as many Republicans older than 65 agree. Younger GOP supporters are more closely aligned with the majority of Americans than their older counterparts: Overall, 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage. However, they are far from the average among young people of all political leanings: 74 percent of them support gay marriage.
From the same source, comes news on a class-action suit challenging a once-secret government program that delayed immigration and citizenship applications by Muslims; a suit that was okayed by a judge in Seattle:
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones in Seattle on Wednesday denied the Justice Department's request to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
The lawsuit claims the government since 2008 has used the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program to blacklist thousands of applications for asylum, legal permanent residency or citizenship as national security concerns.
The program imposes criteria on the applications that go far beyond what Congress has authorized, including holding up some applications if the applicants donated to Muslim charities or traveled [sic] to Muslim-majority countries, the complaint alleges.
The program was not publicly discovered until 2012, when an immigration officer discussed it during testimony in a different lawsuit. Immigrant rights advocates then filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to force U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to turn over more information about it, the lawsuit said.
In addition to challenging the program, the lawsuit seeks to block any other "extreme vetting" that President Donald Trump's administration might impose as an updated version of it.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 27 2017, @02:57AM (7 children)
But how to recognize those who are not part of that overwhelming majority? How to know who will change over time after the massive propaganda campaign? Those are not the questions that countries worry about when the prospective immigrant belongs to any other religion or is an atheist - those people, aside from an occasional mental case, are not very likely to initiate a crusade against their neighbors. Despite the words in some of their holy books, they don't really consider themselves slaves of their gods. If the god personally appears to them and demands to sacrifice their son, they will call the police instead of obediently following in the footsteps of a biblical hero. The whole concept of Jesus was marketed on love because the theme of "love thy neighbor" aligns well with the natural tendencies of many humans. Another theme of the New Testament is nonresistance to violence, non-interference in affairs of caesars.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:32AM (6 children)
Convince that overwhelming majority to snitch those who show signs of radicalization?
Minimizing the chances of some individual to radicalize? Like showing respect for them and their culture, assimilating parts of their culture (e.g. some of them do have very nice spices) while asking them to assimilate your culture entirely, instead of calling the derogatory names and discriminating against them even if you don't know any of them individually?
Perhaps. The history shows that Christians rarely chose these paths in practice.
And so, if it is the reality of the behavior that matters more than what the books say, why discriminate "by the book"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Troll) by tftp on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:31AM (5 children)
Sometimes that works. But there are even purely mathematical reasons why this won't always work. Examples: Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, any established criminal organization... and even the 9/11 perpetrators. Nobody was successful enough to snitch on them to prevent the action. Besides, Quran instructs the believers to help other Muslims. Those who "snitched" violated the Quran; they were Muslims second and citizens first. That is not always the case.
Sure. I'd like to stop by the chop-chop square on Fridays, see how the heads roll. When is the first one opening? Also, we need to forbid the women from driving - or from appearing outside the house without their man and without the sack. And FGM, of course - girls are property, after all, isn't it so, sellable and purchaseable goods at age of nine? Am I respectful enough? If not, there are other aspects of their culture that I'd like to assimilate. For starters, let's burn all paintings that depict people... or use ancient statues for target practice... You are with me so far?
"Sorry, Allah prohibits that. See Quran." Now what?
There is no need to call them derogatory names. I don't do that. It would be childish and ineffective. It's much worse when the people are known for what they actually do. I'm not religious, but the words in the Bible about "for their fruits you will know them" are pretty wise for an ancient society. For their fruits we know them.
Because only one holy book prescribes death to infidels, and only followers of that holy book do what it says. Others, like Christians, hand-wave and say "you know, it's just an allegory."
Naturally, this applies not only to one specific code of behavior that includes religion, but to any framework that is hostile to the given society. You do not introduce wild lions to kindergartens, I hope - and why is that? Because lions are living by laws that are incompatible with human laws. Would you expect the lions to change? You do not import members of MS-13 into your country, I hope - because they are far more likely to maim and kill than to help a grandmother cross the road. Can they be reeducated? Perhaps, on the chair. You, presumably, do not allow members of ISIS to enter your country either. In all these cases admitting those beings (animals and humans) would be reckless. In the vast majority of cases a country does not need any immigrants. In the modern connected world culture and ideas are flowing over fiber cables, not via in-person contacts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:56AM (3 children)
Don't be a fool to expect a 100% foolproof solution.
In USA, Anti-abortionist alone [wikipedia.org] is responsible for more terrorist acts than radical Islam [wikipedia.org] (this is not to make a comparison between the risks of terrorism, but to show that you can't expect a 100% foolproof solution against terrorism).
Stupid me, I though you were for a genuine discussion on the subject.
Well, stay there and brew in your own intellectual piss, being afraid of what's outside (home of the brave my ass).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:13AM (2 children)
Japan has only had 1 major terrorist attack since the end of World War II. That was 20 years ago.
Tokyo is not a small city! Japan has about 1/3 the population of the USA. Ever wonder why Japan lacks terrorism?
Japan has about 1000 muslims and has about 2 dozen refugees. The government closely monitors all muslims. Bringing in refugees stopped after 2 of them -- out of only 2 dozen -- were convicted of rape. Sample size is an issue, but FWIW that is about an 8% rapist rate.
So there you go, the 100% foolproof solution is obvious: Have zero muslims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:31AM
You have never been to Japan, have you? You are only using this because you found it on some islamophobic website, of racist Axis Power leftovers, didn't you? Do you know what? Your stats also apply to Christians in Japan. About the same numbers. Only the rapists where US servicemen, and they murdered as well. So now Japan is working on getting the Marines out of Okinawa.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:48AM
Sure, mate, learn whatever you like from examples. Don't come crying when the reality bites your ass [wikipedia.org].
Here, have some more:
* Italy has 2.3% muslim population [wikipedia.org] and not a single Islamic extremist terrorist attack [wikipedia.org]
* Northern Ireland had 1,943 Muslim in 2001 [wikipedia.org] and had two bombing attacks [wikipedia.org] in the same year, none of which were Islamic extremists.
* Peru has a population of 31 millions and about 5000 Muslims [wikipedia.org] - terrorist attack last year [reuters.com], from their own Sendero Luminoso (which were far more active before).
Should I mention Nicaraguan Contras, financed by US? Why bother, it's only one in a long list of terrorist organizations sponsored by US. Al-Qaeda was one of them, the Syrian rebels some others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:36AM
Well, obviously you got the wrong Allah, or the wrong Quran. What are you, some kind of literalist fundamentalist Christian convert who thinks that holy books actually literally mean the simplest stupid explanation that comes into your not too smart and uneducated head? You will burn in hell for such stupidity! Multiple times! Says right in the book!