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:
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
Abortion
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
By PAUL
BREMMER
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
No comments:
Post a Comment