Chris Selley: The perils of ‘defining’ bigotry

A valid dissenting view. Although I find illustrative examples are helpful improving understanding and can be the basis for conversation:

…This is the world we live in. If Holocaust denial is illegal (or sort of), then, the thinking goes, why shouldn’t denying the Nakba or the disastrous effects of the residential school system be illegal (or sort of) as well? A reasonable person could give a reasonable answer to that question. But governments aren’t reasonable people.

As I say, I totally understand Jewish groups’ concern. Some of the definitions of anti-Palestinian racism out there certainly seem studiously, deliberately vague. Citing the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East includes as examples “erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians,” which is meaningless; and “justifying violence against Palestinians,” which could easily include defending Israel’s right to retaliate against Hamas atrocities.

But it should also be noted that Elghawaby welcomed the prospect of a definition, not any specific definition. I see little point in such “definitions” if they’re not going to be enshrined in law. But it would have made much more sense for Canada to craft its own definition of antisemitism instead of signing on to an international one that, in my view, does activate freedom-of-speech concerns. Free speech in Canada is far more protected than in many of our peer nations, and that’s a good thing.

It probably would have made far more sense still to leave all of this alone. Canadian law sets an appropriately high bar for prosecuting hate speech against any group. We don’t need the added confusion and division of “defining” every single form of bigotry.

Source: Chris Selley: The perils of ‘defining’ bigotry

More than 10,000 foreign student acceptance letters may be fake, says top immigration official

Of note (about 7 percent):

More than 10,000 foreign student acceptance letters from Canadian colleges and universities have been flagged as potentially fraudulent this year, according to the top immigration official in charge of international students.

Enhanced checks by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have found scores of would-be foreign students who said they had a genuine place to study may have been attaching a fraudulent acceptance letter to their application to get into Canada.

The tighter checks were introduced after a group of international students applying for permanent residence last year faced deportation because an unlicensed immigration consultant in India had submitted fake acceptance letters with their applications for study permits.

Bronwyn May, director-general of the International Students Branch at the Immigration Department, told MPs last week that since IRCC started verifying acceptance letters from colleges and universities in the past year, officials have “intercepted more than 10,000 potentially fraudulent letters of acceptance.”

She said 93 per cent of the 500,000 acceptance letters attached to study permit applications the department checked in the past 10 months had been verified as genuine by a college or university….

Source: More than 10,000 foreign student acceptance letters may be fake, says top immigration official

Keller: I’m not crazy about the Trump administration either, but we have to work with them on the border

Reality:

…Mr. Trump’s nominated “border czar,” Tom Homan, is originally from upstate New York and wants to resolve this issue. Ottawa should be eager to help.

Canada will always have an immigration policy that is different from the U.S., independent of it and (hopefully) a lot smarter. We will decide how many immigrants to accept, and how they are chosen. But on border integrity, a precondition of national sovereignty, Washington and Ottawa should be aligned, regardless of who’s in the White House.

Both countries want to limit the number of people arriving and staying without invitation or legal justification. And Canada badly wants refugee claims decided in the first country of arrival.

On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said that when it comes to border security, “there is no daylight at all between the goals of our two countries.” Ottawa needs to keep saying that.

Roxham Road is closed because of the expanded Safe Third Country Agreement, under which someone who comes to Canada from the U.S. to make a refugee claim can generally be returned to the U.S., for their claim to be decided there. That’s also what the U.S. wants Mexico to agree to, and Canada should share that goal. It’s profoundly in our national interest for the Trump administration to embrace and honour this principle.

Canada is not ready for a refugee crisis, because we’re already in one. More than 132,000 refugee claims were made in the first nine months of this year. Many are people on tourist visas who filed their claim after they got off the plane; others are visa students. The numbers have been steadily growing. In 2019, there were 62,000 claims. Between 2011 and 2016, the annual average was just 18,250….

Source: I’m not crazy about the Trump administration either, but we have to work with them on the border

Black Class Action Secretariat apologizes after public disapproval of federal official

Always a risk for activists:

…Six months later, the group, and its president, Nicholas Marcus Thompson, have retracted their original statement and issued a new one, apologizing to Mohammed.

“The purpose of the press release was to highlight issues of systemic racism at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ensuring that government appointments are consistent with addressing and combatting systemic racism,” the Oct. 15 release states. “Unfortunately, the Press Release could be fairly interpreted as being critical of Ms. Mohammed. For this, Black Class Action and Nicholas Thompson apologize unreservedly.”

The statement said that Mohammed “understands racism and is an advocate for racial equality and combatting systemic racism and discrimination. Her commitment to fighting anti-black or any other type of racism should not be questioned. She is also committed to upholding the highest values and ethics and she has upheld the public service’s ethics and values.”

At the time of the April press release, Mohammed declined to comment on the matter via her lawyer, Charles Daoust.

In June 2023, Mohammed filed a lawsuit against Thompson and the organization, claiming their statements were libellous and defamatory. The lawsuit said that BCAS’ statements contained “serious false allegations against her” and sought $50,000 in damages.

Daoust said the lawsuit has been settled “during confidential mediation to the satisfaction of all parties.”

“Ms. Mohammed, the plaintiff, will be discontinuing the action without costs,” he said in an email.

Noting that Mohammed is racialized, the claim said Mohammed didn’t have the opportunity to defend herself or respond to the allegations before they were published on the Black Class Action Secretariat’s website.

It also said the comments were published recklessly to “exact pressure, influence and gain leverage over the Government of Canada in the context of the Federal Court class action” and that the actions were “motivated by shameless and careless attention-seeking and greed and by jealousy.” The Black Class Action Secretariat’s lawsuit against the federal government was in Federal Court for more than two weeks for certification hearings that ended Thursday….

Source: Black Class Action Secretariat apologizes after public disapproval of federal official

Immigration Minister Marc Miller says he expects tough conversations with the U.S. on border security

Understatement?

…Mr. Miller said Canada and the U.S. have had “equal challenges with respect to the flow coming from the U.S. into Canada, and have taken measures to secure it and to close some of the ways people get in here in an irregular fashion.”

“That’s going to continue,” he added, saying he would keep on working in the national interest of Canadians, which he believes “is aligned with the current administration and the one that is coming in to replace it.”

“I expect that conversation to continue fully, and I expect there to be some tough conversations,” he added.

In 2017, Haitians streamed into Canada from the U.S. after the first Trump administration ended temporary protected status for Haitians who had fled to the U.S. The policy sparked an influx of Haitians claiming asylum at the “irregular” Roxham Road border crossing into Quebec. After talks with the U.S., Roxham Road was closed in 2023. The Safe Third Country Agreement was renegotiated, barring migrants making it to Canada through irregular crossings, including Roxham Road, from claiming asylum.

With an estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the U.S. facing removal, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet has predicted that the “saga of Roxham Road” could begin again.

Mr. Miller said the agreement has allowed Canada to have a managed flow of migrants that is important to Canada’s economic relationship with the U.S.

“Are there changes to be made at any particular point in time when we see behaviours changing, when we see our security agencies advising us to adopt a different posture? I think absolutely,” he said. “Those are conversations that won’t be had in public.”…

Source: Immigration Minister Marc Miller says he expects tough conversations with the U.S. on border security

Ottawa asked to adopt ‘anti-Palestinian racism’ approach, alarming Jewish groups worried about pro-Israel speech

Better to concentrate on refining a working definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hate than anti-Palestinian racism. Just as criticism of Israeli policies and actions is legitimate, so should criticism of the governing bodies in the West Bank and Gaza.

While there are a number of working definitions of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate, there is a need for a more widely adopted definition, comparable to IHRA. A challenge, of course, is that there is no comparable international group to develop such a working definition:

Jewish-Canadian groups are voicing concerns after special anti-Islamophobia representative Amira Elghawaby met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week to urge him to adopt a federal definition of “anti-Palestinian racism.”

Critics warn that embracing the concept could end up targeting Jewish Canadians by conflating pro-Israel speech with racism, while insulating pro-Palestinian interpretations of history from criticism.

“While we stand firmly behind protections against discrimination for all communities, including Palestinians, (anti-Palestinian racism) crosses a line by targeting expressions of Jewish identity linked to Israel,” said Richard Marceau, the vice president of external affairs at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, in a statement to the National Post.

“Holding differing opinions is not a breach of human rights,” continued Marceau.

Elghawaby said in a press release that she met with the prime minister to “highlight how Islamophobia, and its intersections with anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism, continues to harm our social fabric, undermines pluralism and poses a direct threat to our democracy.”

She said in the statement that she welcomed Trudeau’s “commitment on adopting a definition of (anti-Palestinian racism) to describe the bias and discrimination far too many Canadian Palestinians are experiencing.”

The Prime Minister’s Office didn’t respond when asked by National Post whether Trudeau plans to follow Elghawaby’s suggestion.

A definition of anti-Palestinian racism put forward by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association in a spring 2022 report calls it “a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”

“Racism is an appropriate construct for describing the experiences of Palestinians,” reads the report. “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is… at its essence(,) predicated on the superiority and dominance of one group of people over another.”

The definition directly mentions “denying the Nakba,” a term used to characterize the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as an act of ethnic cleansing. It also includes “failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity.”…

Source: Ottawa asked to adopt ‘anti-Palestinian racism’ approach, alarming Jewish groups worried about pro-Israel speech

America’s immigrant voters and the 2024 presidential election

Useful detailed analysis:

…Immigrants are a diverse, growing, and actively engaged voter base

Of the nation’s nearly 46 million total immigrants (about three-fourths of which are U.S. citizens or permanent residents), migrant voters or naturalized citizens, at roughly 24 million, constitute most of the migrant pool and roughly 10% of the total U.S. electorate. Since 1965, when U.S. law expanded voluntary immigration from non-European nations, the migrant cohort has grown significantly. It has increased from about five percent to 13.9% of the U.S. population today and shifted from being predominantly white (80%) and Western to increasingly majority-non-white and less Western. Roughly two-thirds of that growth stems from Latin America and Asia, and to a lesser extent, from other regions including Africa, the Caribbean, North America, and Europe. Stretching across the globe, this rich mosaic of racial and ethnic groups includes Asians, Arabs or Middle Eastern and North Africans (MENA), sub-Saharan Africans, Caribbean groups, Latinos, and white immigrants, and stands in stark contrast to the mostly white, U.S.-born electorate.

At the ballot box, evidence shows that foreign-born voter turnout has typically lagged behind the general electorate, partly due to navigating both the bureaucratic naturalization and voter registration processes. Nonetheless, distinct differences among racial and ethnic subgroups, along with a highly politicized environment, particularly around immigration in recent years, has affected this trend.

Foreign-born Asian and Latino groups vote at higher rates thantheir U.S.-born ethnic counterparts. Black immigrants vote at similar levels while white immigrants participate at lesser rates compared to U.S.-born whites. Yet, in recent years, the foreign-born population appears to be a much more politically engaged cohort, demonstrating above-average levels of voter enthusiasm with turnout exceeding the general electorate. National-level polling conducted between August 16 and August 28, 2024, prior to the election, showed that roughly 97% of naturalized citizens were “definitely or probably going to vote” in the 2024 election. This is above 2020 election levels, where 86.8% of respondents cast their vote, exceeding the nearly 66% of the total electorate—the highest rate since 1900.

In the wake of the pandemic, restrictive immigration and economic and health concerns in Trump’s first term were likely key factors in an atypical 2020 election. Further, in 2024, where many of the same issues were at the forefront, final calculations of voter turnout are likely to be high. Additionally, while migrant voters constitute a small share nationally, they have sizable clout in competitive battlegrounds. For example, 14% of voters in Nevada, seven percent of voters in Georgia and five percent each in Pennsylvania and Michigan are foreign-born. The start of 2024 saw 7.4 million migrants who were likely eligible to naturalize this year and 3.5 million of them have already done so. Their total size tops the margins of victory in virtually all key swing states in the 2020 election, and projected naturalization rates resemble the prior election cycle. For example, in Georgia, the state’s total of 96,469 new citizens surpassed Biden’s roughly 12,000 margin of victory. Mostly comprising foreign-born Asians and Latinos, immigrant participation in this year’s election was expected to be decisive.

Immigrant party affiliation and voter priorities are not uniform

Still, the key issues that drove new American citizens to the voting booth are not uniform. Despite between four in 10 to six in 10 expressing no strong affiliation/not being sure with either party, immigrant voters still lean Democratic across almost all ethnic groups, except for white immigrants who are more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Among those who would certainly vote, the polling found they favored Kamala Harris over Trump (by approximately 55% to 41%), both nationally and with some slight variation across key swing states. Similar to the general electorate, high cost of living/inflation ranked as the top issue with immigration following closely behind. Interestingly, on social values issues, foreign-born migrants are almost twice as likely to hold conservative/very conservative views and still identify as a Democrat compared to the overall population. This is further underscored with religious views—overall, immigrant evangelicals identify less with the Republican Party compared to U.S.-born evangelicals and young individuals (ages 18 to 29) are found to be more religious and conservative on social issues than their U.S.-born counterparts.

Linked fate, the idea that policies or issues that affect one’s broader group also impact individuals, could partly suggest why: 60% of respondents believe that what affects immigrants will “strongly or to some extent” affect their own life. In previous generations, European immigrants in the 19th century who were in a pursuit of a better life, were initially dubbed as non-“white” and encountered fierce anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. Similarly, several generations later, this modern wave of largely immigrants of color, also in pursuit of a better life, is navigating a 21st century assimilation into the American mainstream. In the past decade, Muslim travel bans, the dehumanization of African, Afro-Caribbean, and Latin American groups, anti-Asian hate crimes, and an even more hardline Trump immigration agenda aimed at legal and illegal immigrants have engulfed the political environment. What’s more, many immigrant voters come from mixed status families where one or more members of the household are undocumented while the rest hold legal status—complicating access to resources such as health care and employment. Ultimately, how migrants continue to navigate their foreign identity and new status in support of a political party varies across ethnic lines.

The policy agenda of the immigrant community  

The post-election results on how all immigrant groups voted are still forthcoming, but recent surveys taken just prior to the election and the latest exit polls offer some insights.

Based on a YouGov national survey of the top issues for over roughly 43,000 immigrant voters (conducted between October 25 and October 27), the key differences across the main issues—such as the economy, abortion, immigration, education, and crime—were along gender, age, race, and ideological lines. Men were found to prioritize the economy more highly than women, whereas women ranked abortion more highly than men. However, older voters rank immigration and the economy above higher than younger voters. Similarly, conservative voters, who are likely older, were more likely to rank immigration and the economy as important relative to moderate and liberal voters. Nonetheless, across almost all policy issues and subgroups, U.S.-born voters rated these issues with greater importance than their foreign-born counterparts. Still, by contrast, across all demographic groups, migrant voters ranked crime and education as more salient than the U.S. native-born electorate.

Along racial and ethnic lines, virtually all migrant voters, regardless of political affiliation, ranked the economy and inflation among their top priorities. However, while the economy and the conflict in Gaza were the two top issues respectively among all Arabs, among Arab American Democrats, the conflict in Gaza was ranked as number one. While most Arabs in the U.S. were born here, about 68% of foreign-born Arabs are citizens.

Historically, over the past 15 years, their political support has stood at a two-to-one margin for Democrats. Nevertheless, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and U.S. support for Israel led to a dramatic reversal—with Trump slightly leading Harris, 42% to 41% in polls ahead of the election, compared to Biden’s 59% to 35% edge in 2020. Additionally, even though expected turnout in the MENA community slipped from 80% to 63%, Michigan for example, where Biden won by 154,000 votes, houses its largest base of voters among all swing states—over 300,000. Further, the recent Democratic primary saw more than 100,000 Michigan primary voters choose “uncommitted” in protest against the administration’s handling of the war, and Arab Americans make up almost half of the populations in the cities where Biden lost to the protest vote. Taking all these factors into account, there were growing signs that Democrat support could be splintered between Trump, a third party, and/or by abstaining—and those indications proved true. The city of Dearborn, an Arab American majority city, saw Trump winning (42.4%), Harris (36.2%), and Jill Stein (18.3%)—a remarkable shift from Biden’s 68.8% to Trump’s 29.9% in the 2020 election. Further, this appears to be somewhat reflected in the latest exit polls—Trump won 60% of Michigan voters that identify as “other race” and 54% of the same cohort nationally.

Asian Americans as a racial subgroup are majority foreign born (67%), lean Democratic (42%), and contain a large number of Independents (31%), compared to the overall electorate. Partly attributable to the fact that they typically experience less campaign outreach, 27% reported not having been contacted by either political party. As a cohort, according to polling conducted in September, 77% of Asian Americans were likely to vote. Overall, they were expected to support Harris by a 38+ margin—largely along gender lines: 70% of Asian women supported Harris while only 57% of Asian men did. Additionally, while almost all ethnic groups trended in this direction, Hawaiian Natives/Pacific Islanders leaned Republican. However, the actual margin turned out to be considerably smaller (15 points in favor of Harris), according to recent election results. Conversely, Since 2020, Trump has made a five-point gain nationally among Asians and, most notably, carried a majority in Nevada (50% to 47%).  Concerns over inflation, health care, and crime, coupled with diverse political views, were likely key driving factors in the broader shift. With roughly 31% of Asian Americans leaning Independent, Trump made a four-point gain with all Independents—in a race where their turnout exceeded Democrats for the first time and was equal to that of Republicans.

Within the Latino base, where migrant voters comprise 25%(as of 2018), Harris secured a majority of all Latino voters (52% to 46%), However, Trump made significant gains—largely driven by the economic anxieties of Latino men. Notching a 10-point advantage with Latino men (54% to 44%), he overcame a roughly 23-point deficit to Biden just four years prior (59% to 36%). Still, while migrants favored Harris (by a seven-point margin) and also favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (by an eight-point margin), compared to the overall Latino electorate, they still appear to hold somewhat similar views to U.S.-born Latinos. Despite having been subjects of anti-immigrant language by Trump, polling finds that a majority of both U.S.-born (67%) and foreign-born Latino voters (51%) do not feel that the president-elect is referring to them. Surprisingly, this reflects a sharp reversal of what one might expect to see regarding immigrant linked fate within the Latino community. Certain subsets appear to be prioritizing partisanship and other policy issues (largely inflation) above racial and identity politics and immigration, and to be favoring a more conservative agenda. This may partly explain Trump’s relative insulation from promoting racially prejudiced epithets, which has led to inroads with certain swaths of the Latino electorate.

What’s more, this is underscored by the variation seen across country of origin. South American and Central American immigrants are roughly twice as likely as Mexican immigrants to identify with the Republican Party. Even so, there was some expectation that the denigration of Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” by a comedian at the closing Trump campaign rally could be an outlier—having seeped from politics into the cultural mainstream. Drawing swift condemnation from within the campaign, across the political aisle, and by a slew of high-profile Latino celebrities, it went beyond denouncing mostly illegal immigrants to disparaging the very core identity and cultural heritage of an entire territory. Yet, instead of a wider spillover effect among Latinos in favor of Harris, support swung the other way in Trump’s direction—helping to secure above or near-even margins in key states, such as Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina.

Among Black and white immigrants, there is somewhat limited nationally representative data on their voter priorities compared to other demographics. However, evidence suggests that Black immigrants, primarily from the African and Caribbean regions, and roughly 10% of the overall Black population,tend to vote for Democrats, similarly to U.S.-born Blacks. However, Black migrants rank the economy and immigration as more important than native-born Blacks and also rank the economy higher than all other migrant and non-migrant groups—suggesting that Black immigrants and more specifically Black immigrant men may be one of the most economically vulnerable of all the cohorts. The trends in the polls to some extent suggest why. Trump’s relative gains with Blacks overall (currently at roughly 13% support) was mostly driven by disaffected Black men—particularly in Midwest states such as Wisconsin, with large swaths of blue-collar workers now supporting him.Seventy eight percent of Black men supported Harris, compared to 80% for Biden in 2020, Further, an analysis of Black male voters shows that while roughly 11% of U.S.-born Black men voted for Trump in 2020, an even higher number of foreign-born Black men (30%) did so. This reveals how differing socio-cultural experiences formed in one’s home country, distinct from the U.S., and coupled with the challenges of assimilating into a foreign country, can influence voter choice.

On the other hand, white immigrant voters (roughly three percent of the total white electorate as of 2018), in contrast to other racial groups, exhibited more of an even split between the two parties. Still, while they rank immigration and abortionhigher than all other migrant racial cohorts, they rank the economy/inflation and immigration as significantly less important than would U.S.-born white voters. Based on the latest exit polls, there did not appear to be a significant change in the white electorate compared to the previous 2020 election—white men voted at roughly the same levels of support for Trump with a slight softening of support among white women.

Ultimately, given migrants’ diverse political views and electoral sway in this tight race, both the incoming administration and future campaigns will need to take stock of their concerns. With rising interracial marriages and mixed-race subgroups, not only is international migration estimated to outpace U.S.-born population growth by 2060, but the country is also expected to be majority minority by 2045, more closely resembling its foreign-born makeup of voters. While the president-elect did not secure a majority of migrant voters, he was, with a largely national economic message, able to make significant enough gains within a fractured Democratic coalition. Conversely, the Harris campaign struggled to distance itself from the economic issue saddling the Biden administration, and underperformed among the Democratic base.

Still, despite the deep political rift currently dividing the nation, the country is still inextricably linked to one common shared identity—America is a nation of immigrants, with longer-term descendants of past generations and more recent newcomers. And the majority of its inhabitants continue to pursue the American dream—seeking to make a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities. It is therefore incumbent on the next president to work with Republicans and Democrats to unify the country and enact a set of policies that not only caters to the diverse needs and everyday concerns of the immigrant community across the aisle, but also of the entire country at large. It remains to be seen how this will unfold in the coming weeks, months, and years ahead. But what is certain is that as the country’s racial dynamics continue to evolve, new Americans, like their predecessors from past generations, will continue to play a critical role in U.S. politics for years to come.

Source: America’s immigrant voters and the 2024 presidential election

Domination of Chinese-Language Media in Canada Poses National Security Threats

Of note. When I analysed ethnic media coverage during the 2019 election (How does ethnic media campaign coverage differ?), this was not evident although I might have missed it:

….Among these declassified top-secret documents, one report on Chinese-language media is particularly striking.

This report, labeled “Top Secret” and authored by Canadian intelligence in July of last year, is titled: “CHINA: Domination of Chinese-Language Media in Canada Poses National Security Threats.”

For those familiar with Chinese-language media, is it an exaggeration to consider it a “national security threat?”

According to the intelligence agency, it’s not just a few but the majority of Chinese-language media in Canada that fall under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or CPC, as cited in the CSIS document). The document presents six key judgments, though the fourth point is heavily redacted:

  1. “Communist Party of China (CPC)-friendly narratives inundate Chinese-language media in Canada. Censorship (including self-censorship) is pervasive, and alternative voices are few or marginalized in mainstream Chinese-language media. This includes both traditional media, such as newspapers, and digital platforms like WeChat.”
  2. “The CPC’s strategy to control media operates on two fronts: narrative control and platform control. [redacted] overt and clandestine.”
  3. “The CPC limits opportunities for dissenting voices [redacted], provides economic incentives [redacted], and fosters self-censorship [redacted].”
  4. “The extensive use of WeChat in Canada poses ongoing challenges. [redacted] Its platform design can amplify misinformation and disinformation that aligns with CPC interests.”
  5. “The CPC’s influence on Chinese-language media, shaping public opinion overseas, also supports other activities, including transnational repression and influencing electoral outcomes.”

I believe the Canadian intelligence agency’s assessment is accurate. From my own experience as a commentator since the 1990s, I have observed these shifts….

Source: Domination of Chinese-Language Media in Canada Poses National Security Threats

Snyder: Oligarchs’ Island

Snyder uses comedy and satire to comment on the Trump administration inner circle:

Oligarchy is an island.  Aristotle knew that oligarchs from various countries will have more in common with one another than they will with their own people.  This is all too true of Trump and the oligarchs he brings to power in America. 

The White House will become an island of international oligarchs.  It will be an island in the sense of distance and obscurity: we will have a hard time seeing what the billionaires are doing there.  But it is also an island in the sense of isolation: the oligarchs will be stuck there with one another.

So how to think about the island?  Well, these are serious matters, and the ancient Greeks have had their say.  So let us add some contours to the island from a gentler source, American pop culture.  Let us consider Oligarchs’ Island on the basis of Gilligan’s Island. …

Source: Snyder: Oligarchs’ Island

How Trump’s Victory Will Impact Multicultural Marketing: 9 Things to Know

Of interest:

1. Reality Check for Marketers: Latino and Black Working Class Voters Voted for Trump

2. Electoral Outcome Highlights the Need to Understand Multicultural Audiences Truly

3. Multicultural Marketing: Immigration Policy Will Impact Some Ad-Categories

 4. Obamacare’s Future and Its Multicultural Marketing Implications

5.  DE&I: Anti-Quota Buying Position…

6. …  and Minority-Owned Businesses to Become Less of a Driver

 7. In the post-Truth Era, The Open Web Is More Important Than Ever for A Healthy Democracy

8. Is Multicultural Marketing Too Complacent under Democratic Presidents?

 9. Conclusion: Data-driven Diverse Audience Budgeting will Continue to be Highly Effective

Source: How Trump’s Victory Will Impact Multicultural Marketing: 9 Things to Know