Race, Religion, and Immigration in 2016

How the Debate over American Identity Shaped the Election and What It Means for a Trump Presidency

Key Findings

  • Even before the 2016 election, there was increasing alignment between race and partisanship, with white voters without a college education shifting sharply toward the Republican Party.
  • Attitudes related to immigration, religion, and race were more salient to voter decision-making in 2016 than in 2012. Other attitudes do not show this pattern.
  • There are serious partisan cleavages in how Americans feel about immigrants and Muslims.
  • Large majorities agree on certain criteria for “being American,” but Democrats and Republicans disagree about whether being Christian is an important criterion.
  • Americans see both positive and negative consequences to the demographic changes that are projected to make the U.S. a majority-minority nation.

 

Nativist and Nationalist currents running strong in the Texas GOP

The idea of banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States was similarly popular – 52 percent of Texas voters supported the idea – and just as divided along partisan lines, with 67 percent of Democrats opposed and 76 percent of Republicans supportive. Both Democratic opposition and Republican support increased since we asked about the proposal in February 2016: the Democratic opposition increased 10 points, and Republican support increased 13 points. Whatever the distaste with which some Republican leaders view Trump’s proposals and the rhetoric he has and continues to use to pitch them, they appear to have become part of the firmament of the partisan universe in the presidential campaign – and are finding an accepting audience among Republicans in Texas.

UT Poll: Most Texas Voters Support Banning Muslims, Building Border Wall

A majority of Texas’ registered voters believe Muslims who are not U.S. citizens should be banned from entering the country, according to results of a University of Texas/Texas Politics Project Poll released Tuesday.
The survey found that 31 percent of voters “strongly supported” denying such people entry, with another 22 percent “somewhat” supporting the idea. Thirty-seven percent of voters opposed the effort while 10 percent expressed no preference.
Among Republicans, 76 percent said they would support banning non-U.S. citizen Muslims from entering the country. About 25 percent of voters who identified as Democrats agreed. 

A majority of the respondents of the survey, 51 percent, also favored the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants, while 52 percent said they either “strongly” (34 percent) or “somewhat” (18 percent) supported building a wall between the United States and Mexico. Twenty-four percent of the Democrats supported immediate deportation compared with 73 percent of Republicans. Seventy-six percent of the Republicans asked also favored a wall separating the two countries.

President Obama Slams ‘Yapping’ Over ‘Radical Islam’ And Terrorism

He called it yapping, loose talk, and sloppiness. President Obama dismissed criticism of his administration’s avoidance of the term “radical Islam” and urged America to live up to its founding values Tuesday, speaking at length about inclusiveness and religious freedom.
Obama called out Republicans for criticizing the way he discusses terrorism and extremist groups — which follows the same logic as his Republican predecessor — and he directed particular attention at the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump.
Regarding terms such as “radical Islam” and “radical Islamists,” Obama said, “It’s a political talking point. It’s not a strategy.”
NPR.org: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/14/482041137/president-obama-slams-yapping-over-radical-islam-and-terrorism

Sarkozy and Juppé clash over Islam in France

Source: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/citations/2016/06/14/25002-20160614ARTFIG00060-couple-de-policiers-tue-entre-emotion-et-colere-les-politiques-reagissent.php

June 13, 2016

 

The two leading contenders to be the mainstream right’s candidate in next year’s French presidential election have clashed over France’s relations with its Muslim population. After former president Nicolas Sarkozy denounced the “tyranny of minorities” in a speech last week, his chief rival, Alain Juppé, warned that judging Islam incompatible with the nation’s values would lead to civil war.

 

Although Sarkozy has not yet officially declared his candidacy, few doubt that he will stand in the forthcoming primary of his Republicans party and the press judged a speech he made in northern France last week to be a key step in his campaign.

 

“In the years ahead what will be left of France?” he asked a hall that was only half full, although with some 40 MPs in attendance. “That’s the first challenge. The greatest. The most fundamental.”

 

The former president called on the French people to “wake up” to defend the national identity in the face of the “abdication of the elites”.

 

A “tyranny of minorities” is “forcing the republic further into retreat each day”, he went on, declaring France to be a “Christian country” that must be “respected … by those who wish to live in it.”

 

Those minorities include demonstrating school students, militant environmentalists, vandals on demonstrations and a “handful of radical Islamists”, who left-wing multiculturalists have allowed to dictate that individual rights take precedence over “rules that should hold for all”, Sarkozy said.

 

Then he took a sideswipe at Juppé.

The “new ruling ideology” has infected some on the right, Sarkozy claimed.

“It has struck surreptitiously, singing the sweet melody of ‘sensible accomodations’,” – a reference to his Juppé’s call for dialogue with French Muslims and integration of immigrants rather than the more thoroughgoing assimilation that Sarkozy has called for.

 

Juppé, a former prime minister who is now mayor of Bordeaux, hit back on Sunday on his blog and on television, calling for “diversity in unity.”

 

“I don’t want an identity that is unhappy, fearful, anxious, almost neurotic,” he wrote on his blog. “For me identity doesn’t mean exclusion or rejection of the other”, pointing out that all the French “do not have the same origins, the same skin color, the same religion or beliefs” and declaring this “a treasure, a strength.”

 

On the TF1 TV channel Juppé declared that there are “two possible attitudes” to Islam in France.

 

“If one considers that Islam is by definition incompatible, insoluble with the republic, that means civil war,” he warned, advocating a “reading of the Koran and a practice of the religion that is compatible with the laws of the republic”, including the equality of men and women.

 

Juppé has spoken out against Sarkozy’s calls for extending the ban on the Muslim hijab now in force in schools to universities and banning of halal alternative meals in school canteens.

 

His earlier calls for tolerance have led to a hate campaign on social media, Juppé said.

 

“They call me ‘Ali Juppé’, described as the Grand Mufti of Bordeaux, they are writing everywhere that I’m spending a fortune of financing a huge mosque in Bordeaux, which doesn’t exist and will not exist,” he told TF1.

 

In reality, he has called for changes to some Muslims’ behavior, calling for imams to preach in French and to have degrees in French history and laws, and wants a special police force to monitor radicalization in France’s prisons.

 

The row is a sign that Sarkozy will return to attacking “communitarism” during the Republicans primary and the presidential campaign, as he did in the 2007 and 2012 campaigns, in part inspired by Patrick Buisson, a hard-right journalist who pushed him to bid for National Front votes.

 

Last week’s speech was partly written by Camille Pascal, a contributor to the hard-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles and was hailed by some of his allies as an attempt to engage Juppé on terrain that Sarkozy considers favorable to himself.

 

Although opinion polls show Juppé the most popular candidate for the presidency among the general public at the moment, he first has to convince the right-wing faithful to adopt him as candidate.

 

Whoever is chosen will want to attract voters tempted by the National Front in the first round of the presidential election and, according to the polls, could face the far-right party’s Marine Le Pen in a second round that is likely to provide evidence of the rejection of the political establishment that has affected much of the world recently.

 

National Front vice-president Louis Aliot weighed into the debate on Monday, declaring that there is a “problem of accountability between the religion [of Islam] in itself and the republic’s laws” and calling on Muslims to “adapt to republican rules.”

Could a Muslim Judge Be Neutral to Donald Trump? He Doesn’t Think So

Donald J. Trump said Sunday that a Muslim judge might have trouble remaining neutral in a lawsuit against him, extending his race-based criticism of the jurist overseeing the case to include religion and opening another path for Democrats who have criticized him sharply for his remarks.
The comments, in an interview with John Dickerson, the host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” come amid growing disapproval from fellow Republicans over his attacks on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, a federal judge in California overseeing a suit against the defunct Trump University, whose impartiality Mr. Trump questioned based on the judge’s Mexican heritage.
Mr. Dickerson asked Mr. Trump if, in his view, a Muslim judge would be similarly biased because of the Republican presumptive nominee’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. “It’s possible, yes,” Mr. Trump said. “Yeah. That would be possible. Absolutely.”

CAIR 2014 Midterm Election Report

CAIR releases 2014 Midterm Election Report.
CAIR releases 2014 Midterm Election Report.

Key Points: The most significant anti-Islam action of the 2014 midterm election, Alabama’s Amendment 1, was approved by voters. Alabama is the eighth state to approve a law intended to vilify Islam. The measure was inspired by Islamophobe David Yerushalmi’s American Laws for American Courts legislation, which stigmatizes Muslims as a group from which the US needs protection. In Alabama, two organizations – Christians against Amendment One and the Christian Coalition of Alabama – organized opposition to the measure citing its threats to international adoptions, marriage law and religious liberty.

A Harris poll conducted prior to the election found that “just over half” of Americans would not vote for a Muslim candidate. However, observed usage of Islamophobic rhetoric on the campaign trail was present, but significantly down, from the 2010 midterm election.

Prior to election day, Republicans in New Hampshire modified their state party platform, signaling their intent to push a legal measure intended to vilify Islam. While Republicans were overwhelmingly responsible for pushing anti-Islam prejudice during the election, three separate incidents in 2014 showed that the party will, at times, act against Islamophobia.

The use of Islamophobic discourse to exploit voters’ fears remains an acceptable component of political campaigns. The overall effectiveness of employing such tactics remains in doubt.

As in the 2010 midterm election, Republicans were responsible for the overwhelming majority of anti-Islam electoral prejudice. Outside of an electoral setting, however, the party held some public officials accountable for employing anti-Muslim prejudice in 2014.

This brief on the presence of Islamophobia in the 2014 election offers only a snapshot of major highlights and does not purport to be a complete record. (CAIR)

Full Text of Report HERE.

How Americans Feel About Religious Groups [PDF download]

July 16, 2014

Jews, Catholics & Evangelicals Rated Warmly, Atheists and Muslims More Coldly

PDF DOWNLOAD OF REPORT: “How Americans Feel About Religious Groups”

Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians are viewed warmly by the American public. When asked to rate each group on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100 – where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating – all three groups receive an average rating of 60 or higher (63 for Jews, 62 for Catholics and 61 for evangelical Christians). And 44% of the public rates all three groups in the warmest part of the scale (67 or higher).

Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average, ranging from 48 for Mormons to 53 for Buddhists. The public views atheists and Muslims more coldly; atheists receive an average rating of 41, and Muslims an average rating of 40. Fully 41% of the public rates Muslims in the coldest part of the thermometer (33 or below), and 40% rate atheists in the coldest part.

These are some of the key findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted May 30-June 30, 2014, among 3,217 adults who are part of Pew Research’s new American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults.

Jews Rated Most Positively by Whites; Evangelicals and Muslims Viewed More Favorably by Blacks than Whites

Jews receive their most positive ratings from whites, who give them an average rating of 66. Jews also are rated favorably by blacks and Hispanics (with each group giving Jews an average rating of 58). Evangelicals also are rated positively by all three groups, with their highest average rating coming from blacks (68). Muslims receive a neutral rating from blacks (49 on average), but they are rated more negatively by whites (38). Hispanics’ ratings of Muslims fall in between (43).

Politics and Religion: Partisans’ Views of Religious Groups

Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party tend to rate evangelicals very positively (71 on average). They also express warm feelings toward Jews (67 on average) and Catholics (66). The warmth Republicans feel for evangelicals may reflect the fact that many Republicans and Republican leaners are themselves evangelicals. Among those who are not evangelical Christians, evangelicals receive an average rating of 62. Mormons receive a neutral rating from Republicans and Republican leaners (52 on average), while Buddhists receive a rating of 49 and Hindus a rating of 47. Republicans and Republican leaners view atheists and Muslims much more negatively than they view other religious groups.

Democrats and Democratic leaners express warm feelings toward Jews (average rating of 62) and Catholics (61). Buddhists also are rated favorably (57 on average) by Democrats. Evangelicals receive an average rating of 53 from all Democrats and Democratic leaners, but this drops to 45 among those who are not evangelicals themselves. With the exception of Jews, all of the non-Christian groups asked about receive warmer ratings from Democrats and Democratic leaners than they do from Republicans.

Georgia GOP candidate Jody Hice: Muslims not protected by the First Amendment

June 23, 2014

A Republican candidate seeking to represent Georgia’s 10th U.S. House district believes that the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty does not apply to followers of Islam.

“Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology,” Rev. Jody Hice wrote in his 2012 book It’s Now Or Never, according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.”

The House candidate also believes the Muslim Brotherhood is secretly infiltrating the United States in a plot to impose Sharia law on the entire country, a conspiracy theory he shares with Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

“Most people think Islam is a religion, it’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected (under U.S. law),” he told members of the Coweta County Tea Party Patriots in 2011, according to The Citizen.

“This is not a tolerant, peaceful religion even though some Muslims are peaceful. Radical Muslims believe that Sharia is required by God and must be imposed worldwide. It’s a movement to take over the world by force. A global caliphate is the objective,” he added.

Islamic group accuses Republicans of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment

A Florida Islamic group is accusing some Republican Party lawmakers and local party organizations of fostering anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, sent letters to almost every Republican Club or party extension in the state, asking the groups to stop bringing speakers who espouse anti-Islamic views. The letter said it represented the interests of more than 150,000 registered Florida Muslim voters.

 

Hassan Shibly, executive director for CAIR, based in Tampa, said such speakers not only inflame anti-Islam tensions but have also led to discriminatory legislation: namely Senate Bill 386, which would ban foreign laws from being enacted in Florida; and House Bill 921, which allows school districts to select textbooks instead of adhering to the statewide curriculum.

Sen. Nancy Detert, who represents Sarasota County and part of Charlotte County, refused to comment on the two bills and the letter sent out by CAIR.

“Why should I care about a letter sent out by someone I know nothing about? Is that really worth a story?” Detert said.

SENATE BILL 386 & HOUSE BILL 903

 

Referred to as the “Anti-Foreign Law Bill” and the “Anti-Sharia Law Bill,” this legislation would keep Florida judges from applying foreign laws. The only exception would be if the foreign law guarantees the same constitutional protections found in the Florida and U.S. constitutions.

 

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, in the Senate and Rep. Neil Combee, R-Polk City, in the House.

 

Gov. Rick Scott has voiced his approval for the measure, but critics say the law is unnecessary and there are virtually no examples of foreign law previously intervening with state laws.

Shibly said the bill is thinly veiled anti-Islam legislation, citing a booklet Hays handed out to other Senators.

 

According to the Miami Herald, the booklet was called: “Shari’ah Law: Radical Islam’s threat to the U.S. Constitution.”

Shibly of the Council on American-Islam Relations said the bill would create a patchwork of curricula that would make it more difficult for the state to set standards for achievement. He also worried some districts might use the measure to push their ideas onto students.