Which shows that the initial statement "all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US" is false: expelling foreigners for breaking hte law is not persecution in itself, and of course pro-ISIS advocates would not be illegible for asylum in the US.
I suspect the GP had EU far right dudes in mind, but most such 'hate speech' is often basically "slander and/or harassment that happens to be also racist" and typically ends up with a fine: hardly 'persecution'. And even if we go from "all the people" to just "a handful of ideologues": why would the US say no to ISIS but yes to Nazis?
Comments
Which shows that the initial statement "all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US" is false: expelling foreigners for breaking hte law is not persecution in itself, and of course pro-ISIS advocates would not be illegible for asylum in the US.
I suspect the GP had EU far right dudes in mind, but most such 'hate speech' is often basically "slander and/or harassment that happens to be also racist" and typically ends up with a fine: hardly 'persecution'. And even if we go from "all the people" to just "a handful of ideologues": why would the US say no to ISIS but yes to Nazis?