Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

Donald Sensing, via WRSA:

Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Bryan Fischer adds the following very informative analysis.

The Constitution gives Congress unilateral authority over the issue of immigration and citizenship in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In Article I, Section 9 we find that until 1808 the individual States had authority to decide which persons were “proper to admit.” After 1808, deciding who was eligible for immigration into the United States was the exclusive province of the central government. Congress has unilateral authority to decide who it is “proper to admit” to the United States, and there are no limitations on that authority.

There is no constitutional right, of course, to immigrate to the United States. It is a privilege, not a right. And we the people have given to Congress authority to set parameters for immigration for our protection, our cultural unity, and our national security.

This is all well and good, but Bryan gets to the real meat of the issue when he addresses the Biblical data.

For those of us who are evangelicals, there is a second question, which is of greater importance than the first. We not only want to know if an immigration ban is constitutional, we want to know if it is biblical. Did God himself ever impose such an immigration ban?

The answer is yes.  With the fledgling nation on the edge of the Promised Land, God instituted a permanent ban (“forever”) on immigration into Israel from two nations, Ammon and Moab.

“No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever.” ~ Deut. 23:3 (ESV)

This was not an arbitrary ban. It was not imposed on either the nations of Edom or Egypt, as Deut. 23:7 makes clear. There were good common sense reasons for God’s ban on the Ammonites and Moabites. “They did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt … and they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor … to curse you” (Deut. 23:4).

Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to immigrate because of their historic animosity toward the people of God and their commitment to weaken them and defeat them. Where such conditions exist today, a similar ban on foreign immigration would have biblical precedent.

Now obviously exceptions could be made and were made on a limited basis. Ruth, for instance, was allowed to immigrate into Israel from Moab. Ruth rejected the ancient hostility of her people toward Israel and embraced its culture and its God. “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:17). In other words, she happily assimilated in every way, included in religious matters, to her newly adopted nation.

She was not only welcomed, but found a place in the line of descent that led to the birth of the Savior of the world.

The bottom line: a ban on immigration from nations which have demonstrated abiding hostility toward the United States is both constitutionally and biblically permissible.

This is effective medicine.  Usually when so-called Christians talk about immigration, they wax emotional on the need for us to care for people.  State policy and security are the last thing on their minds when they say things like that.

I often hear Leviticus 19:34 cited – “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God,” (NASB).  Folks often do this to shame Christians into accepting open borders.

But as the Biblical data above shows, shaming people isn’t on the list of seminary-approved Biblical hermeneutical techniques.  One way to tell that the emotional Christian isn’t thinking through this issue is that she latches onto the problem of the moment, rather than seeing the broader implications of her position.  For example, she may want to take in Syrian immigrants, but she doesn’t give poor Chinese equal numbers, of Kenyans, or Ethiopians (who are more likely to be Christian), or the poor in Bangladesh.

The U.S. can’t take in everyone, and the logical end of the emotional position that wants to take them in is not only the destruction of what wealth remains within family structure in America, it is the destruction of the social, cultural and religious heritage of the country.  There isn’t enough wealth to go around – there isn’t even enough wealth to pay our own bills.  The root problem here is that the Church has no business declaring state policy concerning immigration.  The province of the church is the administration of grace, while the province of the state is the administration of justice.  Confusing the two means the state is involved in redistribution of wealth, and the Church is trying to influence policy concerning national security.

Each of these institutions should mind their own business, and in the case of the state, that means the country’s policy has no business considering graciousness, kindness or love when it comes to immigration.  As Clint Eastwood said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Mike Vanderboegh:

… what I didn’t notice until after a discussion with a long-time friend is what a gift Winkler has made us with this confession in the same article:

The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades. Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

It is impossible to overstate the favor that Winkler has done us by this triumphalist bragging about the “demographics gonna get yo momma” message to the NRA. This collectivist’s inadvertent confession not only confirms their evil, confiscationist intentions but it absolutely condemns the NRA’s “single-issue” avoidance of the illegal invasion threat. My partner in thought crime David Codrea has been banging this drum for some time now, only to be ignored or ridiculed by the NRA partisans on the Internet.

Yes, David has indeed (although I’m hesitant to link them because of my new policy of not linking Examiner), and so have I, here, here, here and here.  It’s important to understand, as I have explained, that this isn’t some cooked up, half-ass theory.  There is a very specific reason for their political proclivities.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Hispanics and Latinos are collectivists from way back.  Their priests have trained them in statist thinking, and this to their own demise.  In other words, they can no longer see how their cultural and political choices harm them, if they ever could.

Sadly, the NRA is today good for nothing more than a fairly good magazine once a month.  As for Winkler, he has made a fatal error in judgment.  Like other leftists, he thinks that gun owners are monolithic and controlled by the NRA.  To them, we are reactionary and able to be turned by the winds of wording, able to be controlled like the hive controls its own.  They think this way because it’s impossible to imagine a world view without central command issuing orders.  This is good news.  It’s always better when the enemy underestimates your power and resolve, and misjudges your character.

Breitbart:

Babeu was on a helicopter tour of Mexican drug cartel scout locations in caves in the side of mountains throughout the desert about 70 miles inside the U.S. border. Essentially, that means U.S. sovereignty is gone for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles throughout the American southwest.

Babeu was leading the helicopter tour with Dr. Ben Carson, a GOP presidential candidate, after briefing Carson on everything happening at the border.

Among other things that Babeu showed Carson and Breitbart News on this helicopter tour were how this far inside the border on high ground there are scores of scout sites where cartel operatives serve as lookouts for smugglers bringing drugs, people and other contraband into the country.

“If they can operate up to this degree, 70 miles north of the border, in law enforcement we call that a clue,” Babeu said in a brief exclusive interview outside the helicopter after landing back at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. The lack of United States sovereignty this deep into the country is highly concerning to Carson, who told Breitbart News that this shouldn’t be happening.

“We should stop them at the border,” Carson said. “They shouldn’t be 70 miles inside the border. We should stop them at the border. As the sheriff indicated, if we were to take like 6,000 troops and put them at the border, you wouldn’t have those people coming inside the border.”

Seriously?  You mean actually stick troops on the border and give them robust rules of engagement where they shoot at bad guys?  Gosh, I wish I had thought of that!

David Codrea:

Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.

Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts.

Yea, duplication of laws came immediately to mind when I read about this legislation.  Take note that there is a nexus between this sort of thing and the requirement to get CLEOs to approve of gun permits, even in “shall-issue” states like my own of North Carolina, where the permitting process costs a non-trivial amount of money.  A source of revenue, it is.

Mike Vanderboegh has returned safely home.  Good.  Here is his speech.

TREASON TO A GOVERNMENT BASED UPON TREASON TO ITS OWN FOUNDING DOCUMENT IS NO TREASON AT ALL! It is merely obedience to God and the truest expression of the inalienable and natural rights to life, liberty and property that HE gave us. It is also an act of fidelity to the rule of law and the Founders’ constitutional republic. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

Read it all here.

Via WRSA, this from Spiegel:

The spies were to find out as much as possible about the target towns: Who lived there, who was in charge, which families were religious, which Islamic school of religious jurisprudence they belonged to, how many mosques there were, who the imam was, how many wives and children he had and how old they were. Other details included what the imam’s sermons were like, whether he was more open to the Sufi, or mystical variant of Islam, whether he sided with the opposition or the regime, and what his position was on jihad. Bakr also wanted answers to questions like: Does the imam earn a salary? If so, who pays it? Who appoints him? Finally: How many people in the village are champions of democracy?

The agents were supposed to function as seismic signal waves, sent out to track down the tiniest cracks, as well as age-old faults within the deep layers of society — in short, any information that could be used to divide and subjugate the local population. The informants included former intelligence spies, but also regime opponents who had quarreled with one of the rebel groups. Some were also young men and adolescents who needed money or found the work exciting. Most of the men on Bakr’s list of informants, such as those from Tal Rifaat, were in their early twenties, but some were as young as 16 or 17.

The plans also include areas like finance, schools, daycare, the media and transportation. But there is a constantly recurring, core theme, which is meticulously addressed in organizational charts and lists of responsibilities and reporting requirements: surveillance, espionage, murder and kidnapping.

You listen to me very carefully.  This is coming to America.  In addition to the flood of illegals across the Southern border for whom we will have to provide SNAP and medical care, along with an increasingly totalitarian government who wants to control every aspect of our lives, we will soon face totalitarian Islam unlike anything we have ever seen up close.  Be prepared.  Listen to me.  Be prepared.  If you’re not prepared now, then get prepared – immediately.

Via WRSA, this:

The White House has plans to legalize 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then establish a “country within a country.”

The following Mark Levin interview with Susan Payne is shocking but it also puts all the pieces into place.

Susan Payne is a contributor to WCBM, Baltimore and Co-Host of the Pat McDonough Radio Show,

Unbeknownst to the Obama officials, Ms. Payne was invited to listen in on conference calls at an immigration rally. Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and 16 members of the White House cabinet were on the first call. White House officials were on all three calls.  What Ms. Payne learned needs to be immediately shared with Congress and the public.

It should be noted that Ted Hayes, founder of America’s Black Shield, also listened in on these calls.

The “Task Force of New Americans” and the “Receiving Communities” are part of a plan by the Obama administration to develop a “country within a country” which will eventually form a new, and instantly fundamentally transformed United States.

The conference calls and meetings surrounding the task force made it clear Barack Obama is planning to legalize and protect 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then be moved onto citizenship.

When these “new Americans” come out of the shadows, the communities in which they’ve been placed will be designated as “receiving communities.”

The “new Americans” are considered “seedlings” by the White House and the “receiving communities” are the “fertile ground” to nurture them, according to comments made during the meetings.

Citizens will then be pushed into the shadows as the “New Americans” come out of the shadows.

One member of the task force said they will be forming a “country within a country”.

Unrelated directly to the issue of Hispanics and Latinos is this:

A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it’s costing the state tens of millions of dollars.

In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says.

[ … ]

Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

[ … ]

The department said it had come into contact in recent years with “special interest aliens,” who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley.

And don’t overlook the fact that the U.S. State Department and their resettlement contractors have salted Minnesota with over 10,000 Somali refugees since 2005.

This is unconnected only insofar as the race and ethnicity is different.  The common element here is that the administration and its workers hate America and want to change it forever.  They have managed to accomplish just that.  The middle class will soon cease to exist, and the voters themselves will install a completely totalitarian government that will never be undone.

David and I have both warned you extensively about this threat.  I have been doing so for a very long time.  The GOP so lacks moral courage that they would sit and watch as their own mother and sister were being raped.  There is no answer to this except to prepare yourselves for the coming violence and hard times.

NRO’s Corner, Jason Lee Steorts.

I have strong misgivings about proposals, such as those that my esteemed colleague Ian Tuttle presents today, to restrict the number of Muslim immigrants and refugees in the United States. My root objection is that excluding people on the specific basis of their religion is illiberal and inconsistent with the spirit of the founding principles of this country. (Some readers will object that the Founders thought of themselves as establishing a Christian nation. This is a vexed question the plausible answer to which varies with the identity of the Founder. What I find dispositive is that the founding documents themselves eschew any endorsement of or preference toward a particular religion or creed. And apart from this textual matter, I do not think the political principles enshrined in those documents require justification in specifically Judeo-Christian terms.)

Well goodness, if Jason Lee Steorts thinks I’m being illiberal, then perhaps I should rethink my positions.  Actually, most of the original 13 colonies had a formally endorsed denomination of the Christian faith embedded into state law at the time of ratification of the constitution.  I’ve written extensively on the foundation of liberty using men far more learned that Mr. Steorts, such as R. J. Rushdoony and Douglas Kelly, so I won’t rehearse that here.  What Steorts said was short, cryptic, flighty and trivial.  It deserves no more response than I’m giving it here.

But I will point out one thing in particular concerning Muslim migration.  I am under no obligation – legal or moral – to invite people into my country.  I am under no obligation – legal or moral – to allow people into my country and give them the right to vote to take away my liberties.  I am under no obligation – legal or moral – to support and provide for any Muslim anywhere, including this country.  And finally (and I took a beating in comments on this a while back when it came up and I weighed in over other blogs), I am under no obligation – legal or moral – to allow people in this country to have weapons when I don’t think they should be allowed to be here anyway.

This country doesn’t just have a welfare problem (as if I would be more supportive of immigration if only I didn’t have to support the immigrants out of my paycheck).  This country’s religious, cultural, and historical heritage is precious property and earned by blood, sweat and tears, and should not be subject to the vote of men and women who have been raised to hate those ideals.  This country is my property, and I consider all illegal immigrants (and most legal immigrants) to be trespassers who need to be evicted from this property.  Put that in your liberal pipe and smoke it.

Immigration = corporate welfare + collectivist voters.  Remember that formula.  Sometimes a comment thread is the best thing to bring out false hope, whether salvation via Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie or (yes), even Rand Paul.  Witness this.

John Galtius:

Romney is slick, and I don’t like slick. Slick will play games. Jeb was a great governor of Florida, did a good job, and would make a decent president – if we NEEDED a decent president. We don’t. We need a GREAT president.

Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul – Rand Paul

You media elite can try to shove these guys off on us if you like, but I will ONLY vote for Rand Paul.

Herschel Smith:

Rand Paul = Pro-Immigration (legal). He just wants to turn currently illegal immigration into legal immigration. He is an open borders fanatic just like his Dad. I’ll never vote for him.

John Galtius:

“I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.

So what part of your lies, Herschel, do you want us to believe?

Herschel Smith:

” … the country has been enriched.” Yea. Only if you are on the board of directors for Monsanto or Archer-Daniels-Midland or the Chamber of Commerce.

“I support legal immigration …” Rand Paul knows exactly what that means.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/tic…

Apparently you don’t.

Oh, and make sure not to neglect what “legal” immigration means for gun control too.

http://www.captainsjournal.com…

John Galtius:

So, Mister Democrat, why are YOU supporting Bush?

And frankly, I really am not interested in your conspiracy theories.

Herschel Smith:

You must be joking. Seriously. Is this a joke? If the GOP puts up Bush, Romney or Christie, I’ve already said what I’ll do election night. I won’t even go to the polls. I’ll stay at home, grill steaks, walk the dog, clean my guns, and count my boxes of ammunition. And if they put up Paul, voters may as well put up a democrat. It’s all the same. Count them. Millions upon millions upon millions of new collectivist voters from South of the border to rob your paycheck. Bring on dystopia. Buy guns now. You’ll need them in the coming years.

livingthehighlife:

“clean my guns, and count my boxes of ammunition”

Another internet tough guy.

Herschel Smith:

Off subject. Full stop. Return to on-point comments. Immigration = corporate welfare + collectivist voters. Do you have anything useful to say about the subject? I thought not.

Generally folks don’t understand, but there is no voting our way out of this mess.  No candidate – Romney, Christie, Bush or Paul – has proposed to make a corollary of repeal of the entitlement state a condition of and stipulation for immigration.  Not a single one.  That means welfare, health care, SNAP, etc.  And my daughter is a nurse in an ER, and I know all about the penalties associated with receipt of a patient into the ER, discharge, and receipt of that same patient later for the same condition (meaning that the system is set up to provide beds and long term medical care for patients, regardless of immigration status, in order to avoid astronomical fines to the federal government).  Don’t allow anyone to tell you that we won’t be funding medical care for immigrants.  It’s a lie.  That’s all you need to know.  And immigration includes millions of Islamic voters as well as Hispanic and Latino voters who will vote your gun rights away.

Crisis Group:

“Mexico cannot go on like this”, President Enrique Peña Nieto said on 27 November, addressing the country from the National Assembly. Most Mexicans would agree, yet Mexico remains embroiled in a political crisis over the disappearance of 43 students, apparently at the hands of police and local thugs and assisted by city officials, in the southwestern state of Guerrero. Protests, sometimes destructive, continue, while on this issue the government seems paralyzed: Peña Nieto’s security and justice reform package is stuck in Congress and his approval ratings have sunk to record lows.

The popular outrage reflects not only Mexicans’ exhaustion with criminal violence but also their deep distrust of a political class widely associated with corruption. So far the government seems unable to turn the tide of public opinion and undertake the institutional reforms needed to combat violence in a country where powerful criminal groups still dominate many areas.

Few would have predicted such a crisis earlier this year. In August, Peña Nieto celebrated passage of legislation to implement a comprehensive energy reform, ending the state-run oil company’s 76-year monopoly and opening the sector to private, including foreign, investment. The energy measures were the culmination of a sweeping package of new laws and constitutional amendments designed to make Mexico more competitive through fiscal and financial reforms, new education policies and an end to monopolies in telecommunications.

Then, on 26 September, several busloads of students from the rural teachers’ college of Ayotzinapa were attacked in the city of Iguala by municipal police, allegedly acting on orders of the mayor. According to witnesses interviewed by federal prosecutors, police turned the students over to members of a criminal gang known as “Guerreros Unidos”, who killed them and then incinerated the bodies in a local dump.

Neither this testimony nor the arrest of more than 80 suspects, including 44 police officers, has quelled demands for justice and the students’ return. Skepticism about the government’s version of events is high; leaked documents allegedly from government sources, published in the magazine Proceso, suggest federal and state police were alerted in real time about the students’ movements and their clashes with local police, but did nothing to stop the bloodshed. “It was the State” – a blanket indictment of all government institutions – has become a protest slogan and social media meme.

Remember folks, these are the hordes that are flooding across the border out of an act of love (and for all of you Rand Paul advocates, he thinks just like his father does on immigration). The Hispanics and Latinos don’t believe in your God-give rights to bear arms, but hey, the Chamber of Commerce will be happy and Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland will have some new field workers.

As we’ve discussed before, Pew research recently performed a poll in which they concluded that “62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.”  Yet another more recent Pew study concludes the same thing, but with worse statistics than before.

Today, about six-in-ten whites (61%) prioritize gun rights over gun control. By contrast, only about a third of blacks say this (34%) while six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. And Hispanics prioritize gun control over gun rights by a wide 71% to 25% margin.

And yet these are the people whom the government is allowing to cross the border, even abetting their permanent residency here, with states like Texas and Arizona deeply implicated in Hispanic voter proclivities.

Have you considered Scott Walker as a viable candidate for the GOP nomination for President?  Think again.

On the surface, Scott Walker seems like a gun owner’s dream candidate for president. The Wisconsin governor is backed by the National Rifle Association, which lauds his signing into law concealed carry and castle doctrine legislation. The “On the Issues” political leadership website notes Walker opposes restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s unsurprising then, that NRA Director Grover Norquist has co-authored a piece for Reuters explaining “What makes Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker a good choice for 2016.” But in this case, Norquist is wearing a different hat – that of president of Americans for Tax Reform, teaming with ATR’s director of state affairs, Patrick Gleason.

So what’s not to like? Don’t both issues track with greater freedom? Where’s the conflict?

Wearing that different hat, Norquist campaigned for and endorsed Bob Dold for Congress, in spite of the “Republican’s” support for restricting gun purchases and possession which was known at the time. The unsuitability of Dold’s Democrat opponent notwithstanding, NRA Director Norquist chose his priorities and endorsed a known gun-grabber who went on to accept an award from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

There’s an issue besides taxes Norquist has yet another hat for: immigration. Just like Barack Obama, Norquist endorses rewarding alien nationals who have broken U.S. law by entering and remaining in this country illegally with a “pathway to citizenship.”

And Walker agrees with him.

He’s owned by the Chamber of Commerce.  He’s no different than George Bush, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and most other republicans.  David’s article is well researched and full of URLs for you to go and study the issue yourself.  I intentionally don’t supply the reference material so that you will visit Gun Rights Examiner.

The reasons for my rejection of Walker because of his stance on immigration are multifaceted.  First of all, the envelopment of America by immigrants changes everything, from language and culture, to generational demographics, racial demographics, and economic health of the country.

The immigrants to whom we have opened our borders are in the main low paid, low skill workers.  Big business loves them, because they can cut their bottom line.  They get away with this because we – middle class America – foot the bill for their medical care, SNAP, welfare and other necessities, thus providing corporate welfare for executives and members of the boards of directors.

The Democrats love them because they will vote democratic.  Recall what we’ve already discussed.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

So Hispanics and Latinos think and vote as collectivists, but do their views on gun control reflect that heritage?

Latinos take a more conservative view on pot legalization and a more-pro view on gun control, according to a fresh report on politics from the Pew Research Center.

About 49 percent of Hispanics polled support legalization of marijuana versus 53 percent for the total U.S. population. Liberalization of pot use is gaining support around the nation. Come January, in Dallas County, there may be some loosening on pot prosecution with a pilot project that gives tickets rather than jail time for simple possession, as we reported here.

On gun control, 62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.

David warned you, and again.  And listen to me yet again on this.  With every immigrant crossing the border, you will see the government acceptance and acknowledgment of your God given gun rights evaporate, further every day.