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: 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