Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Getty Images

by JOSEPH MURRAY6 Jun 20162062

“This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. I think it’s inexcusable.”

Those words were spoken by Newt Gingrich – a man believed to be on Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential shortlist – during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

What mistake had the presumptive Republican nominee made that he earned the rebuke of an ally?

Trump had questioned the impartiality of a federal judge.

The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”

“[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

advertisement

Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

“I don’t condone the comments,” Sen. Bob Corker, another potential Trump VP, said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding Trump is “going to have to change.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he hoped Trump “will change direction” in dealing with Latinos.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.

advertisement

Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wantedJustice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

advertisement

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.

Joseph R. Murray, II, is a civil rights attorney, former campaign official for Pat Buchanan, and author of “Odd Man Out”. He can be reached at jrm@joemurrayenterprises.com.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Immigration, 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, federal judiciary,immigration

Killer Illegal Immigrant Entered U.S. as ‘Unaccompanied Child’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by CAROLINE MAY4 Apr 20161,104

The illegal immigrant charged with killing 21-year-old Sarah Root while street-racing drunk, entered the U.S. as an “unaccompanied child” three years ago, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Edwin (aka Eswin) Mejia, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, absconded after ICE declined to detain him following his arrest and posting bail. Mejia remains at-large and is currently on the ICE Most Wanted list.

In a letter to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) responding to a series of his questions, ICE Director Sarah Saldana revealed that Mejia was initially apprehended when he entered the country illegally in 2013 but was granted the special treatment afforded to detained unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries, released into the U.S. and never deported.

The answer portion of Saldana’s letterreads:

In May 2013, Edwin Mejia was encountered by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) near Nogales, Arizona, after entering the United States without inspection. At the time of this encounter, Mr. Mejia was 16 years old and determined to be an unaccompanied child. Shortly after the initiation of removal proceedings against him with the issuance of a Notice to Appear, he was transferred to Department of Health and Human Services; Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), as required by law. Mr. Mejia had no recorded criminal history in the United States at this time.

“In June 2013, consistent with applicable law, ORR released Mr. Mejia to his brother in Tennessee. In early 2014, Mr. Mejia relocated with his brother to the Omaha, Nebraska area,” the missive added.

According to the letter, Mejia’s next immigration hearing before an immigration judge was scheduled for April 19, 2016.

In January 2016, Omaha police arrested Mejia after he crashed into Root’s vehicle, allegedly while street-racing drunk. The crash killed Root. ICE has stated that it did not file a detainer against Mejia because his crimes “did not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities.”

In the letter, Saldana walked back the argument that Mejia’s crimes did not meet the “priority” standard.

“After further review, we believe that further enforcement action would have served an important federal interest in this case, as provided for in Secretary Johnson’s November 20, 2014 civil immigration enforcement priorities memo,” she wrote.

Monday Sasse expressed frustration with Saldana’s approach to the Mejia case. Calling her letter “bureaucratic nonsense,” Sasse took the matter to Department of Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson. Sasse wrote in a letter to Johnson:

ICE’s response does not attempt to answer why it did not detain an illegal alien who killed an innocent woman and is now on the run as one of ICE’s most wanted. Director Saldana’s handling of this matter shows no regard for the Root family and continues to be an embarrassment to the hard-working men and women at the Department of Homeland Security. I am referring my questions to your office and look forward to a thorough response as soon as possible.

In his letter to Saldana and Johnson, Sasse asked:

1. Who exactly at ICE was responsible for evaluating whether Mr. Mejia was a threat to public safety?

2. Why did ICE decline to detain Mr. Mejia, despite several requests to do so by the Douglas County Police Department? Were each of these requests denied on a case-by-case basis?

3. In its public statement, ICE referenced the November 20, 2014 immigration executive actions. Why does ICE believe that new policy required the agency not to detain Mr. Mejia?

4. Did anyone within ICE consider Mr. Mejia a flight risk? What steps were taken to ensure he did not flee the country?

5. What is ICE doing now to find Mr. Mejia?

6. Do you consider Mr. Mejia to be a threat to public safety?

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Law Enforcement, illegal immigration,Unaccompanied Minors, illegal, Edwin Mejia, Sarah Root, unaccompanied child