Conservative Republican Conference and Liberal Brookings Institute Report both Focus on Hispanics

The 2023 “Road to Majority” conference June 23 and 24 in Washington DC of the Faith and Freedom Coalition - presented all ten GOP presidential candidates, including former President Trump. The conference also appeared to focus particularly on Hispanic voters. Several of the breakout workshops concentrated on Hispanic issues. Some were organized by Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, the most prominent Hispanic candidate for President. They covered public safety issues, school choice, Hispanics reshaping the Americas, media bias against conservatives, and abortion in the post Roe v. Wade era.

The conference was attended by an estimated 200 Latinos, including students from Georgetown University. At one of the panels, a graduate student in engineering voiced his opinion: “We Latinos are natural conservatives, particularly when it comes to traditional family life values.” he added that he knew he had doomed his chances to get a university fellowship when the interviewers asked him if he supported the ideology of “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity” (DEI) on campus. He answered, “No.”

In contrast, Latino political analysts at the liberal Brookings Institute think tank in Washington DC came out with a report on July 15 that reported that Latino voters – especially those under 30 – will vote Democratic because of anger at supreme court decisions. “2023 is just like 2022 when abortion policy emerged as a key priority for Latino voters due to the unpopular SCOTUS decision,” the Brookings experts wrote. This will likely happen once again in 2024, helping the Biden campaign capitalize on the enthusiasm (against) the SCOTUS decisions that generate among Latinos. Large percentages of Latino voters identified gun violence as a top issue driving their vote,” the report concludes.

National polls have shown more nuanced opinions, however. Most Americans do not believe race should be used as a factor in college admissions, employment, and government contracts; there have been no widespread protests about the entirely expected ending of affirmative action by the Supreme Court in late June. In addition, national polls show general discomfort nationwide with allowing children (before the age of 18 and certainly before puberty, about age 11) to undergo life-altering medical and surgical gender-changing procedures without parental consultation.

Hispanics at the crossroads of different views on abortion rights

At the conservative ‘Road to Majority’ Conference, Ralph Reed stated that “My goal when I founded the Christian Right was to make the 1973 law Roe Vs. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the U.S. up to 23 weeks of pregnancy, be declared unconstitutional.” Ironically, this 2023 conference was held exactly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 23, 2022, effectively ended Roe v. Wade by declaring that state limitations made on the law by Mississippi were constitutional; this has allowed each state to decide their own access and limitations to abortion. As conferees at the Washington Hilton Hotel cheered their victory, the streets in front of the Supreme Court were filled with hundreds of protestors from throughout the country during a “Woman’s March” advocating for expanded and, in some cases, unlimited rights to abortion throughout the nation. This led to perhaps the biggest surprise of the conference – almost all the candidates declared they supported a federal law that would give a universal right to abortion up to 15 weeks (some said 12 weeks) of gestation, with some exceptions for medical reasons affecting the mother’s survival.

Myth: the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship for everyone

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States”.

Here are the questions anyone who reads that first sentence of the 14th Amendment should ask: Q1: When was this law written? A: 1868, Two years after the end of the civil war. Q2: Why was it written? A: as part of the 12th and 13th amendments to assure that blacks born in the United States were considered full citizens.

So the big question then is: who was not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and could not qualify for birth-rights citizenship? A: at the time four groups were not eligible. Two were later changed: one by a supreme court ruling in 1884 (giving birthright citizenship to children of legal Chinese immigrants who themselves were not allowed to naturalize); and one by a law passed by Congress in 1920 giving citizenship to Native Americans or Indians born on reservations. The other two still exist: children born of foreign invaders, and children born of diplomats with full diplomatic immunity from U.S. laws.

Legal scholars have argued that the clause ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ implies that congress is empowered to exercise its discretion on this issue, making it a matter of policy that can be modified by statute. There are multiple legal debates regarding the definition of ‘jurisdiction’, as well as the duty of the state to provide equal protection, and issues of allegiance and ‘genuine connection’ to American society. It is in the context of these complex legal debates that discussions arise periodically on whether the children of ‘birth tourists’ – those who only come to the US to give birth and then leave - and children born on American soil but whose parents live and work in the country without authorization, should be granted citizenship or not. Currently, these children are granted citizenship as their parents’ immigration status is not considered, but this is a matter of political debate and not a right guaranteed absolutely by the constitution, as is commonly thought. •