Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Conservatives: Court Latino-Americans with your American Principles

John R. Houk
© October 25, 2016

Latino-Americans are typically anti-Trump and anti-Conservative GOP due to the stand against illegal aliens flowing into the U.S. and often remaining in an undocumented status. And the Dems view Latino illegal aliens as a potential expansion of future Democratic Party voters. Hence the Dems bend over backward to accommodate the illegals due to a potential favorable future that benefits the Dems.

Here’s the irony that might backfire on the Dems future political power:

Pew: 3 pts on Social, Political & Religious Hispanic Spectrum

This chart shows three perspective of Hispanics residing in America (I am uncertain of the percentage that are illegal Hispanics, I’d be surprised if any Hispanics surveyed notified an illegal immigration status:

These three Hispanic religious groups also have distinct social and political views, with evangelical Protestants at the conservative end of the spectrum, the unaffiliated at the liberal end and Hispanic Catholics in between.

The survey was conducted May 24-July 28, 2013, among a representative sample of 5,103 Hispanic adults (ages 18 and older) living in the United States. The survey was conducted in English and in Spanish on both cellular and landline telephones with a staff of bilingual interviewers. The margin of error for results based on all respondents is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. 

Social and Political Views

When it comes to social and political views, Hispanics also fall into distinct groups along religious lines.

Same-Sex Marriage

Religiously unaffiliated Hispanics favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally by a roughly four-to-one margin (67% to 16%). Hispanic Protestants tilt in the opposite direction, with evangelical Protestants much more inclined to oppose same-sex marriage (66% opposed, 19% in favor). Hispanic Catholics fall in between, though more say they favor same-sex marriage (49%) than oppose it (30%). Mainline Protestants are closely divided on the issue, with nearly four-in-ten (37%) opposed to same-sex marriage and 44% in favor. These differences among Hispanic religious groups are largely in keeping with patterns found among the same religious groups in the general public.12


Hispanics tend to be more conservative than the general public in their views on abortion. While 54% of U.S. adults say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, just four-in-ten Hispanics take this position.

Religion in Politics

While 47% say that churches should express their views on social and political issues, a similar share (44%) say they should not. In the general public, more Americans say that churches should keep out of politics (54% to 40%), according to a 2012 Pew Research survey.

About six-in-ten Hispanic evangelical Protestants (61%) say that church leaders should express their views on social and political issues, while about a third say church leaders should keep out of political matters. By contrast, half or more of religiously unaffiliated and mainline Protestant Hispanics say that church leaders should stay out of political matters. Hispanic Catholics are more divided on this issue, with about half (49%) saying church leaders should express their views and 41% saying church leaders should keep out of political matters.

... READ ENTIRETY (The Shifting Religious Identity of Latinos in the United States; Pew Research Center; 5/7/14)

Admittedly I am not a certified analyst of statics to draw a conclusion. Yet it appears that Hispanics have more in common with citizen American Conservatives than with the typically anti-Christian agenda of the Democratic Party more interested in transforming America into a Secular Humanist make-up social ethics as defined by Leftist elites.

The current affinity of Hispanics to Dems is due completely to an open borders immigration policy more than the socio-political utopianism the American Left desires to transform America from the Constitutional Rights and Liberties instituted by our Founding Fathers.

Does my guess pertaining to Hispanics and the traditional E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) of the Constitution mean I support open borders? The “One” being one culture rather than the idiocy of multiple cultures promoted side-by-side.

My answer to open borders is a humongous NO!

I have no problem with Latin Americans or other foreign immigrants coming to America as long as it is accomplished legally and with the concept of assimilation being the key. The massive influx of illegal aliens only serves to disrupt the uniqueness of Americans with the disaster of Multiculturalism currently being experienced in Europe.

So, what does that mean for illegal aliens that have resided in America for years with the more than likely probably of having children born in America? It is my opinion that a blanket expulsion is not only unrealistic but also harsh for an illegal alien merely because they managed to survive by blending in enough to maintain a job.

ON THE OTHERHAND, if an illegal alien – Hispanic or otherwise – maintains some form of criminal job (drugs, organized crime, terrorism, etc.), such illegal aliens must be expelled EVEN IF they have American born children. And if an illegal alien somehow can participate in the American welfare system without the privileges of citizenship, examination of fraud pertaining to the circumstances should occur and if such fraud is discovered then expulsion must occur - again – even if American born children are involved.

There’s an old adage: If you can’t pay the time don’t do the crime.

If an illegal alien faces expulsion because of crime, having American born children is not a valid reason to remain! Even an American citizen is separated from their children when convicted of a crime and sent to jail or prison.

On the subject of illegal aliens, did you know the Obama Administration is interfering with local law enforcement to NOT arrest illegal aliens? Evidently part of that local interference is focused on Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona for not complying on a Federal Judge’s order to stop locally patrolling for illegal aliens. Evidently the Federal Judge did not appreciate Sheriff Joe profiling Latino looking individuals since most illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border into Arizona appeared to be Latino. Thus the Judge found Sheriff Joe in contempt.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona will soon face criminal charges from federal prosecutors over his immigration patrols — just a month shy of an Election Day in which he’s angling for re-election.

Federal prosecutors say they will charge him with contempt-of-court after he allegedly failed to obey a judge’s order to halt controversial immigration policies  (Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Be Criminally Charged Just Before Election Day; By Bre Payton; The Federalist; 10/11/16)

Sheriff Joe did violate the Federal injunction to stop patrolling for illegal aliens in his County. The question Americans must ask themselves is this: Why would Joe Arpaio, who is aged 83 and still working to enforce the law after decades, ignore a Federal law demand? The answer is the Obama Administration is corrupt with ulterior motives for bringing illegal aliens into America. Sheriff Joe’s actions are acts of civil disobedience to a corrupt government. (Which of course Crooked Hillary would continue if elected to POTUS!)

Paul Bremmer has written the details which I found on WND.

JRH 10/25/16
Charges against Sheriff Joe 'Orwellian beyond imagination,' says author: DOJ charged Arpaio for enforcing federal immigration law

October 22, 2016

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed criminal contempt charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Oct. 17, accusing the well-known lawman of intentionally violating a federal judge’s order not to arrest illegal aliens without evidence they had broken state law, it was beyond even the imagination of George Orwell.

So says Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review.

“Our Founders are rolling over in their graves at the sight of a sheriff being placed on trial for taking common sense steps to protect his state’s sovereignty and applying federal law in cases of reasonable suspicion – laws over which Congress, not the judiciary, has plenary authority,” Horowitz declared in a recent column.

Federal judge Susan Bolton requested the criminal charges at a hearing the previous week. In August, Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court of Arizona had referred Arpaio for misdemeanor criminal contempt charges for not obeying a previous court injunction against his practice of apprehending those he reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally.

The injunction grew out of a 2007 class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund accusing Arpaio of racial profiling.

Horowitz noted the Arizona sheriff is essentially being punished for enforcing federal immigration law within his jurisdiction while violent criminal aliens remain on the run all over Arizona. He called the situation “Orwellian beyond imagination.”

“While thousands of criminal aliens are being released onto the streets of Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio is the one who is facing the prospect of jail time,” Horowitz said. “There is something fundamentally wrong when a state like Arizona is being destroyed by a foreign invasion and local elected officials are hamstrung from defending the state, even though they are following federal law. At the same time, sanctuary cities that thwart federal immigration law are being rewarded by the federal judiciary.”

This is the type of juxtaposition Horowitz writes about in his book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”

“While Arpaio admits to mistakenly violating the injunction, the broader question is how a federal court can issue an injunction against sovereignty laws of a nation using you guessed it the Fourteenth Amendment, Horowitz said. Arpaio was acting according to federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to state inquiries on an individual’s immigration status [8 U. S. C. §1373c]. Yet, he is potentially facing jail time while illegal aliens chanted ‘Si se puede! Si se puede!’ outside the court house. This is an image and a perverse juxtaposition even Orwell could never have imagined.”

Adding to the “perverse juxtaposition” is the fact that, as Horowitz pointed out, courts have granted illegal aliens standing to sue over the enforcement of federal immigration laws, but Arpaio was never able to get standing to sue President Obama for violating federal immigration law when he implemented DACA.

Horowitz noted Arpaio has been so tough on illegal immigrants because his jurisdiction is among the most dangerous hotbeds of illegal alien crime in the country. The author shared some facts from his book.

“As of 2013, it was estimated that there were 630,700 illegal aliens residing in Arizona (including American-born anchor babies),” Horowitz wrote. “That is a population of foreign invaders larger than the total population of any single colony at the time of our founding.

“Over 10 percent of the state’s public school population is comprised of illegal alien children. When coupled with the fiscal strain of health care and incarceration, the total cost of illegal immigration is $2.4 billion a year.

“The Arizona Department of Corrections estimates that illegal aliens comprise 17 percent of its prison population and 22 percent of all felony defendants in Maricopa County.

“Arizona has become the drug smuggling capital of the country. From 2010 to 2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207 percent, while methamphetamine seizures grew by 310 percent. In FY 2014, there were more pounds of marijuana seized in the Tucson corridor than every other border sector combined.”

The 84-year-old sheriff, who faces up to six months in jail if convicted, will find it tough sledding because of the current makeup of the federal courts, according to Horowitz.

“Arpaio has a grim road ahead of him – as does the entire state of Arizona – if Congress doesn’t strip the courts of their foray into immigration law,” he suggested. “Judge Bolton was the original district judge who placed the injunction on SB 1070, Arizona’s enforcement law. The Ninth Circuit is
well the Ninth Circuit. And [Chief Justice John] Roberts has already agreed with the five leftists on the court that states must follow the whims of international law and the Obama administration instead of congressional statutes.”

Conservatives: Court Latino-Americans with your American Principles
John R. Houk
© October 25, 2016
Charges against Sheriff Joe 'Orwellian beyond imagination,' says author

© Copyright 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment