Should Indians feel ‘ashamed' for speaking English?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's net approval rating hits new low of second term
President Trump's net job approval rating reached its lowest point of his second term in the latest Economist/YouGov poll. Trump's net approval rating is 15 points underwater — with 55 percent of surveyed Americans disapproving of the president's performance in office and 40 percent approving. For the last two weeks, 55 percent of Americans have disapproved, and 41 percent have approved of his performance in office; and for the two weeks before that, 53 percent disapproved, and 42 percent approved. Trump started his second term with 49 percent approval and 43 percent disapproval. The starkest change in the latest poll comes from Republicans, who've shifted away from the president by 12 points over the last two weeks, as the president navigates the country's fixation on the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump's latest net approval rating among Republicans is plus 74 points — with 86 percent approving and 12 percent disapproving of his job in office. That's down from Trump's net approval rating of 86 percent two weeks ago, when 92 percent of Republicans approved and 6 percent disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Among Democrats, meanwhile, Trump's net approval is negative 85 points; among independents, his net approval rating is negative 33 points. Compared with Trump's overall net approval rating, Americans are happier with the president's handling of immigration and the economy — with net approval ratings of negative 6 points and negative 11 points, respectively. But the president fares worse on several key issues. Trump is underwater by 25 points on inflation and prices; by 20 points on climate change and the environment; and by 19 points on abortion. Trump's handling of foreign trade and education matches his overall net approval rating of negative 15 points. The latest survey, conducted July 25-28, includes 1,777 adults and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. Updated at 10:22 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
39 minutes ago
Appeals court upholds restrictions on Los Angeles immigration arrests
An appeals court upheld a lower court's order to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. In the ruling on Friday night, the ninth circuit court of appeals agreed with a federal judge that immigration agents cannot use race, ethnicity or other factors, including speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop people. 'We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue -- apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location and type of work, even when considered together -- describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,' the three judge panel said. The appeals court found that the Trump administration did not dispute in filings that definitive stops in Los Angeles have occurred based on the factors and did not dispute the district court's conclusion that the reliance on them 'does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.' The judges concluded that plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that the Trump administration stopped and detained people based on their race, place of work and language. Last month, immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps in Los Angeles. A hearing in the case is scheduled for September.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
