Nearly 30,000 foreigners from state sponsors of terrorism have gotten visas since 2007 through the diversity visa lottery.
President Donald Trump wants Congress to end the program, which benefits foreigners from nations that don’t have high levels of immigration to the U.S. He increased his public pressure against the program after an Uzbek recipient of the diversity visa lottery allegedly killed eight in a recent terrorist attack in New York City.
As I write, eight are dead – all men, five Argentines, one Belgian, all in the path of an Uzbek Muslim who decided to take a Home Depot pick-up truck down the bike path for 20 blocks mowing down bicycle after bicycle after bicycle before exiting the vehicle and yelling – go on, take a wild guess – “Allahu Akbar!” Well, I never! You could knock me over with a feather duster – which the Mohammedans will no doubt find a way of weaponizing any day now.
The Liberal government will release its 2018 immigration plan today, and it will break from the tradition of a one-year plan in favour of a multi-year forecast.
The targets for economic migrants, refugees and family members will be tabled in the House of Commons this afternoon, and Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen will hold a news conference in Toronto at 3:45 p.m. ET to answer questions on the plan.
Hussen told CBC News the number for 2018 will not dip below what he called the “new normal” of 300,000 newcomers that was set in 2017.
Wait just a damn minute. Those portraits didn’t honor people for their skin color, they were former faculty staff. Now the university is switching to portraits of “ethnic scholars” which does honor people for their skin color. Now who’s the racist? This is nothing more than the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
The Harvard Business Review (HBR) has concluded that diversity policies are not making companies more fair and if anything, are actually increasing threats to minorities.
Despite U.S. companies spending millions of dollars on launching diversity programs and training diversity managers to ensure compliance, the report finds that it’s “not really” working. In fact, these policies are having an unintended affect on black women specifically.
SIMON:And remind us please what happened in Paris and a few spots elsewhere in the country following the – the Charlie Hebdo attacks ’cause there were – there were backlashes, if I might put it that way, against Muslims and Jews.
HATHROUBI:Exactly. So we have fears that after Charlie Hebdo – they sent us the first letter of terror. And we respond by being together, even if we have seen and we have witnessed the rise of anti-Muslim acts, of Islamophobia. We have seen and I have seen in my daily work mistrust between Muslim and Jewish communities. This is my daily work. But I’ve – I have also seen a rise of awareness, a rise of people willing to act on a daily basis, to be the light in their society, to be the light in the community, to lead a better change. And – and we need to continue. They sent us a letter of terror to try to divide us.
IT WAS THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS KILLING THE JEWS YOU IDIOT!
Support for the idea that it’s good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against “hate speech.”
Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of “tolerance.”
Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of his), writer Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic tweeted that Taylor “ruined” the comet landing. The public outcry against him was so great that he cried at an apologetic press conference.
Mot hate speech is not true but all truth is hate speech to someone. That is why laws aganst it are so pernicious. It is the closest thing to a law of nature that such laws will be bent to suppress merely unpopular opinions.
See also: Progressive students devour their own It makes for painful reading. These are our future ‘crats.
Is it too late? Answering a question with a question: How many of our neighbours even care? Can’t we all just blame someone we already dislike for the problems and demand government help? And otherwise shut up in the face of thugs, ‘crats, and terrorists?
“We believe that his actions were politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorism,” NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione told reporters in Sydney
The teenager, a naturalised Australian who arrived with his family from Iran, had walked to the police headquarters in Charles Street from his home in North Parramatta before opening fire on a civilian police employee, who has been identified as Curtis Cheng.
Mr Scipione said police had no information to suggest the gunman posed “this type of threat”.
“We’re a long way from establishing a full picture of this man, his exact motivations still remain a mystery to us,” he said “We are exploring every avenue with regard to why he did what he did.”
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described the terror-related shooting of a NSW police force member by a 15-year-old boy as a “cold-blooded murder”.
Mr Turnbull has urged Australians to go about their day normally despite the incident.
“This appears to have been an act of politically motivated violence so at this stage it appears to have been an act of terrorism. It is a shocking crime. It was a cold-blooded murder,” he told reporters in Melbourne.
Sotomayor can be at her most poignant when she is trying to explain what it is that makes her feel so different from her colleagues, whom she respects and admires. Her dissenting opinion in a Michigan affirmative action case from last year was the most striking example of an effort to show us that her experiences make her fundamentally unlike many Americans who have occupied the federal bench. Her take on it this week at Notre Dame was a variation on that theme. “I’m very different from my colleagues,” she explained, adding that she’s generally more public and outspoken than her colleagues at the court.
“I am different, and yet I’m not because we’re all engaged in the same enterprise. We’re all trying to come to the right decisions together, and we’re all part of that conversation,” she said. “To that extent, I belong. But will I ever quite feel that I have their same background, their same understanding of the world that I operate on? Not really.”
That’s what happens when you are an affirmative action hire.
It seems like a crazy urban legend: In China, drivers who have injured pedestrians will sometimes then try to kill them. And yet not only is it true, it’s fairly common; security cameras have regularly captured drivers driving back and forth on top of victims to make sure that they are dead. The Chinese language even has an adage for the phenomenon: “It is better to hit to kill than to hit and injure.”
Most people agree that the hit-to-kill phenomenon stems at least in part from perverse laws on victim compensation. In China the compensation for killing a victim in a traffic accident is relatively small—amounts typically range from $30,000 to $50,000—and once payment is made, the matter is over.
In 2010 in Xinyi, video captured a wealthy young man reversing his BMW X6 out of a parking spot. He hits a 3-year-old boy, knocking the child to the ground and rolling over his skull. The driver then shifts his BMW into drive and crushes the child again. Remarkably, the driver then gets out of the BMW, puts the vehicle in reverse, and guides it with his hand as he walks the vehicle backward over the boy’s crumpled body. The man’s foot is so close to the toddler’s head that, if alive, the boy could have reached out and touched him. The driver then puts the BMW in drive again, running over the boy one last time as he drives away.
Here too, the driver was charged only with accidentally causing a person’s death. (He claimed to have confused the boy with a cardboard box or trash bag.) Police rejected charges of murder and even of fleeing the scene of the crime, ignoring the fact that the driver ran over the boy’s head as he sped away.