Yesterday, the Pew Hispanic Center released a polling data indicating that two-thirds, or 65 percent, of Latino registered voters say they plan to support the Democratic candidate in their local congressional district. Meanwhile a couple of articles have appeared in recent weeks authored by conservative pundits attempting to convince Latino voters that they should “rethink” their party loyalty.

The first one appeared in Politico. Joel Kotkin accused Latino Democrats of “mindlessly following” Democratic leaders, suggested that Latino Democratic politicians have no “independent thoughts,” and called Latino Democratic politics “dysfunctional.” After belittling the Latino electorate and the Latino lawmakers that represent it, Kotkin suggested that the solution might be to start embracing “growth-oriented Democrats and enlightened Republicans”:

As Latinos become a critical part of our emerging economy, they need to develop a policy agenda that focuses less on old-style, machine ethnic politics and more on the critical issue of upward mobility.

Latino voters might also consider avoiding the African-American one-party model by embracing both growth-oriented Democrats and enlightened Republicans. This is most likely to increase their political leverage, while creating a politics that supports their most fundamental interests.

The second article appeared today in the National Review. The author, Dennis Prager, had two messages — one for Latinos illegally living in the U.S. and another for “legal” ones. “If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come in. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally,” explained Prager to undocumented Latinos. Prager later asserted, “Democrats will act as your defenders, telling you that opposition to your presence here is race-based. There is no truth to that…you have come to the least racist place on earth.”

Prager’s second message to Latinos who are legally living in the U.S. was two-fold: “First, while many of you understandably sympathize with the plight of fellow Latinos who are here illegally, you surely must understand that America cannot afford unlimited illegal immigration. [...] For your sake as well as America’s, please do not succumb to the politics of victimization.” Prager also told Latino voters, “by voting for Democratic candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.”

Kotkin at least acknowledges that the GOP has contributed to its own isolation, lamenting the “party’s increasing embrace of its noisy nativist right.” Nonetheless, rather than recommending the Republican Party adopt a more welcoming immigration policy, Kotkin argues that Latinos should consider embracing the GOP in spite of its immigration platform and Prager seems to suggest they should go as far as embracing the party’s platform itself. Kotkin assures Latinos it will improve their economic situation. Prager simply warns that “a vote for the Democratic party is a vote to undo the great American achievement of uniting the children of immigrants from all over the world as Americans.” Neither claim is very convincing.

The reality is that the hostile and obstructionist approach that many, if not most, Republicans have adopted towards immigrants has touched every corner of the Latino community. It has promoted the separation of Latino families through increased enforcement measures. It has pushed relatives in Latin America who want to be reunited with their loved-ones in the U.S. to the back of an endless visa line or through a perilous journey across the border. It has lowered the wages and working conditions of all Latinos who work side-by-side undocumented workers. It has led to the widespread demonization of the Latino population as a whole. And, with the passage of SB-1070, it threatens to further expose Latinos to racial and ethnic profiling.

The majority of Democrats support comprehensive immigration reform as way to remedy this problem. Not a single Republican has jumped on board. Instead, they have blocked legislation at the federal level while pushing enforcement-only bills on the local level that will make life even harder for all Latinos. Simply put, Latinos have turned their back on the GOP with good reason. However, that doesn’t mean that Democrats should assume the Latino vote is in the bag. The Pew survey also found that among Latino registered voters, Republicans may be more likely to turn out and vote.

A while back, an immigration judge denied asylum to a young Serbian gay man, Mladen Todorovic, who claimed to have suffered persecution by government officials and others in his native country because of his sexual orientation. The judge justified the ruling by reasoning that Todorovic “does not appear to be overtly gay”:

The Court studied the demeanor of this individual very carefully throughout his testimony in Court today, and this gentleman does not appear to be overtly gay. The Court does not know whether he is or not, his testimony is that he is overtly gay and has been since he was 17 years old. Be that as it may, it is not readily apparent to a person who would see this gentleman for the first time that, that is the case, since he bears no effeminate traits or any other trait that would mark him as a homosexual.

The Asylumist blog reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled last week that the judge in question “improperly relied on gay stereotypes to reach an adverse credibility determination.” In fact, “the decision was so colored by impermissible stereotyping of homosexuals, under the guise of a determination on ‘demeanor,’” that the appeals court could not conduct a “meaningful” review of the judge’s decision and instead ordered immigration authorities to hold a new factual hearing on Todorovic’s case.

The appeals judge additionally highlighted the longstanding principle that an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum by showing that his or her “life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of …membership in a particular social group.” If Todorovic’s testimony is accurate, he certainly has a compelling case. Courthouse News reports:

Todorovic claimed that he had been repeatedly harassed by his high-school classmates, raped by soldiers and at least one commanding officer in the Serbian army, and beaten unconscious by an anti-gay mob.

He said Serbian police stopped him and his boyfriend, a gay-rights activist, and took them to the police station, where they forced Todorovic to perform oral sex on the “filthiest” inmate, saying they “brought a hooker up here so you can have some fun.”

An officer then interrogated and beat Todorovic, saying he “hates fucking faggots” and hopes they all get “exterminated,” according to Todorovic. Todorovic joined the crew of a cruise ship and sailed to Miami in November 2000, where he lived for two years before filing for U.S. asylum and withholding of removal.

Todorovic isn’t the the first person to be denied asylum simply on the basis of not seeming “gay enough.” In 2002, Jorge Soto Vega of Mexico was initially denied asylum on the grounds that he did not “look gay.” The decision was ultimately overturned.

Pakistani immigrant and U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty last June to charges that he attempted to set off a car-bomb in the heart of Times Square in New York City. Today, U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum sentenced Shahzad to life in prison. During the sentencing, Cedarbaum highlighted the utility of tying terror suspects in U.S. courts. The sentence was an “adequate deterrent to those inclined to follow the defendant and to protect the public against the crimes of this defendant,” she said.

Upon Shahzad’s arrest, conservatives cried foul when reports surfaced that he was read his Miranda rights. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was one of the most vocal critics, claiming that valuable intelligence would be lost if Shahzad was given the right to remain silent. “The Supreme Court has held there’s no constitutional obligation to give him Miranda rights,” he said, preferring that Shahzad get handed over to the military where he could have faced indefinite detention without conviction.

Given King’s objection to following the rule of law in Shahzad’s case, Politico asked him to comment on the result, which King attributed to luck:

“The case worked out well. I had questions about it. There was a bit of luck involved here,” he said. “He was advised of his rights and kept talking. If he had not, I don’t know what would have happened.”

“If he was more sophisticated or more trained, or if he had not talked there could have been a follow-up attack, he could have been part of a larger conspiracy,” he said, adding that Shahzad himself would have been convicted on the evidence whether or not he cooperated. “It worked in this case, but to me it’s too much of a risk to take in every case.”

Despite being read his rights, an FBI official said Shahzad was “cooperative and provided valuable intelligence and evidence.” Yet King would rather try to score political points and demean the justice system by calling Shahzad’s conviction and life sentence “luck.”

But King isn’t the only Republican to lack faith in U.S. authorities to handle terrorism cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in February that a cable news host would do a better job at interrogating terror suspect Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab than U.S. counterterrorism officials would. And even after reports that Abdulmutallab began cooperating with the FBI, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — a JAG lawyer who said in May that he wants to “stop reading these guys their Miranda rights” — said that getting information from Abdulmutallab was “blind luck.”

“This is obviously another crucial failure for a law-enforcement-based response to terrorism,” national security blogger Spencer Ackerman said sarcastically upon news of Shahzad’s guilty plea in June. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald noted, “[Y]et again, civilian courts — i.e., real courts — provide far swifter and more certain punishment for Terrorists than do newly concocted military commissions.” It’s too bad that Republicans lack such confidence in the American justice system.