Here's the part I don't buy. She says Irvine is made up of 45% Asians, but the protesters are mainly immigrants. Unless all 45% are first-generations, then wh

Here's the part I don't buy. She says Irvine is made up of 45% Asians, but the protesters are mainly immigrants. Unless all 45% are first-generations, then what she said doesn't add up. She uses the word immigrant only twice in the article, near the top, with little proof backing her statement. Those that she interview have Asian names, but that doesn't mean they are immigrants. By using the word immigrant, she made the article sensational. She tried to turn the protest into a topic of race, rather than simply stating Irvine residents don't want a homeless shelter in the neighborhood. Are most immigrants intolerant of homeless in Irvine? That's rather absolute to be true. What about the other 40% whites? Do all of them approve of the homeless shelter? 40% vs 45% are about the same weight, but she chose to focus on only one side of the story. It would be more correct to state: Irvine, made up of 45% Asian ethnicity, fights back against homeless shelter.