Latest news with #non-White
USA Today
21-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump says we have 'too many non-working holidays.' He's right: Rest is for LOSERS!
Like most Americans, I cannot stand work holidays. I want to be in the office, making America great again by working tirelessly for a corporation that squeezes maximum profit out of me. If there's one thing hardworking Americans who support President Donald Trump can agree on, it's that we're not working hard enough and desperately need to eradicate radical Marxist concepts like 'days off' and 'holidays.' That's why I was so proud to read the MAGA president's social media post – which was totally coincidentally sent on Juneteenth, a federal holiday that celebrates the end of slavery – calling for a sharp reduction in rest: 'Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don't want it either! Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Exactly. Like most Americans, I cannot stand work holidays. I want to be in the office, making America great again by working tirelessly for a corporation that squeezes maximum profit out of me as I slowly drift apart from my family. IT'S IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, PEOPLE! Trump treated Juneteenth like a 'DEI program' he wants to cut Now some libs out there will suggest Trump intentionally posted about getting rid of holidays on Juneteenth because he's doing everything in his power to strip the federal government of anything that suggests non-White people exist and thinks acknowledging the end of slavery is leftist DEI thinking. And some will note that Trump recently issued presidential proclamations honoring Flag Day, National Flag Week and Father's Day while completing ignoring Juneteenth and making it a regular work day at the White House. How dare liberals connect numerous dots that form a straight line and logically conclude that President Trump's actions reflect how he feels. It sounds like they have too much time on their hands, which is why we desperately need to eliminate work holidays and give people less time to think. Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Trump knows Americans just want to work. And work and work and work. America proudly has the second-lowest number of paid vacation days and the fewest paid leave days of any nation on the planet, and I can't think of a single patriot who would welcome more time off. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. As Trump said in his post, 'The workers don't want it either!' Damn straight. If there's one person qualified to know what workers want, it's a billionaire who spends huge amounts of time selflessly golfing so that golf club employees and the people who protect him can work more. Opinion: Trump's parade didn't make him feel tough. Maybe a war with Iran will? Trump must immediately do away with ALL federal holidays Because I know President Trump doesn't have a prejudiced bone in his body, and to demonstrate that he wasn't singling out Juneteenth as an unworthy holiday, I'm sure he'll take quick action to eliminate all paid federal holidays, including the Fourth of July, Columbus Day, Christmas and Presidents Day. Because, as Trump wrote, 'It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed.' We MAGA Americans want to work, work, work, and not be burdened by the socialist concept of paid days off. So I'm sure we can all get behind this new slogan, soon to be available on red hats everywhere: 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN – WORK UNTIL DEATH!' Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Indian Express
17-06-2025
- Sport
- Indian Express
South Africa's World Test Championship win: Winning against odds
South Africa's crowning glory at the home of cricket at Lord's, where they won the World Test Championship title, defeating Australia, tells the world they can step up to pressure. And it will also help them to address, and to calm, the roiling within. A lovely post-win moment from the South African dressing room has gone viral. Ashwell Prince, the batting coach, led a celebratory song about Black captain Temba Bavuma, with everyone in the room mouthing the lyrics. So disgusted was Prince with the treatment he received during his playing days by his own teammates that years later, he found the words to articulate his anger: 'When things went wrong it was the quota players' fault (South Africa's policy to have non-White cricketers in the squad). When things went right, the others were the heroes. As long as I played for the national team, that was not a team. We were never one.' Makhaya Ntini, South Africa's legendary pacer, would run behind the team bus from hotel to ground as he never felt welcomed by his teammates, who wouldn't even sit with him during breakfast or include him in their dinner plans. It's this context that shouldn't be forgotten. And that's why Aiden Markram, who played a phenomenal knock in the final, raved about his captain's strength of spirit. It's not surprising that only when they conquered their inner ghosts, the team could stub out the nasty opposition voices about how they handle pressure. Bavuma spoke about how some Australian players brought up the choking tag as a form of sledging during the game. It would be a fool who would now voice that sentiment in the near future. First they set their house in order, then they countered outsiders' perceptions. That is this South African team's great achievement.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Data fail to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPI
06-06-2025
- Politics
- UPI
Data fails to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
A man sells U.S. flags and other national flags in Yangon, Myanmar, on Thursday. A day earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation banning travel from 12 countries, including Myanmar, to the United States. Photo by Nyein Chan-Naing/EPA-EFE The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting power
The Brief Tarrant County commissioners are set to vote on new district maps within days, a process led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act by concentrating non-White voters into one district, diluting their voting power. An SMU researcher's analysis appears to suggest the new maps may be biased against non-White voters. TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - The Republican-led Tarrant County Commissioners Court is days away from voting to redraw district lines. Critics say the proposed maps violate racial protections in the Voting Rights Act. Now, an SMU researcher is applying her own mathematical review to the maps. The Latest SMU mathematics professor and researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro has dissected and analyzed the newly proposed maps for Tarrant County districts, the work of a county-hired consulting firm and the public legal interest foundation. The researcher uses mathematics and technology to analyze the redistricting models. She says she was drawn to Tarrant County's current process as attention surrounding the topic began to grow. Barreiro looks for signatures of partisan and racial gerrymandering, she says. The current process to redraw the county's lines is led by Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare. At the center of the controversy are District 1, held by Commissioner Roderick Miles, and District 2, a seat now held by Commissioner Alisa Simmons, both Democrats. What they're saying "It looks like they made small modifications on this basic template where they swap the purple and the blue to get their desired outcome," Barreiro said. Barreiro says a randomly unbiased generated map based on the latest census data would have 60 to 65 percent non-White voters in each of those districts. "The proposed maps do something very different," Barreiro said. "They take a lot of those non-White voters in District 2, and they pack them into District 1, leaving District 2 to be majority White." Barreiro uses advanced software, applying a method known as Markov Chain Analysis. Her experience using the same technology includes similar analysis her team prepared during the state legislative redistricting cycle. "We have continued to reach out to Judge O'Hare for his response to allegations of racial gerrymandering by Simmons, Miles, as well as U.S. Congressman Marc Veasey and ten Tarrant County mayors," Barreiro said. Barreiro stops short of making a legal opinion on whether the proposed maps violate state and federal law. She does say it is clear what the consultant map-maker's mission is. "If black voters could be a large presence in two districts, but instead you pack all those people by picking your map cleverly, you get all those people into one district, then you diminish the voting power of that population," Barreiro said. "There are interesting methodological and mathematical questions about this whole process that I'm eager to explore, and I'm also just interested in basic fairness." What's next Late Thursday afternoon, O'Hare agreed to an interview with FOX 4. The meeting is set for Friday morning. A vote on Tarrant County's redistricting process is set for Tuesday. The backstory The mayors of 10 Tarrant County cities, including Fort Worth, Arlington, Mansfield, and Grand Prairie, have signed a letter expressing their opposition to the proposed map. The group called the effort ill-timed because it's the middle of the decade and, in their opinion, the census data from 2020 is outdated. In early April, the commission voted three to two, with commissioners Alisa Simmons and Roderick Miles opposing, to approve a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation to provide consultation with re-drawing district lines. The Source Information in this article came from SMU researcher Dr. Andrea Barreiro and previous FOX 4 reporting.
