Author and historian Victor Davis Hanson ripped an Obama-appointed Nevada judge’s decision to declare the federal law prohibiting reentry by previously deported illegal aliens to be unconstitutional based on her assertion that the law is racist.
U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du handed down the ruling tossing the federal government’s case against Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, who was initially deported in 1999 but later reentered the United States and was indicted during the Trump administration.
“Well, she read the law too — the difference is she doesn’t think it has any currency as she is an advocate of critical theory, critical legal theory, and critical race theory,” Hanson said of Du on “Fox News Primetime“.
Hanson called that claim ridiculous, adding that a recent Pew poll found only 3% of Latinos use the socially acceptable term “Latinx”.
“[Spanish] is a very complex sophisticated beautiful language and they have a male and female masculine and feminine plural Latina and Latino. We don’t in English we just have Americans. They can’t let that alone. They created a fake word that nobody uses — except this judge.”
Hanson explained that Du’s adherence to left-wing critical race theory begets the assertion that a law is “racist” if the number of people affected by it doesn’t reflect the current racial makeup of the country.
Therefore, in the case of Carrillo-Lopez, the law suddenly “has no currency and should be thrown out – it’s called disparate impact.”
He said that Hispanics make up about 20% of the U.S. population, but likely more than 20% of the collective deported individuals, because many come from Mexico or the Northern Triangle.
“If they are being deported more than their numbers, then there has to be implicit racism [in critical race theorists’ minds]. You don’t have to prove it. And you know, it’s really applied selectively,” he said.
In her ruling, Du wrote that “the Court is unpersuaded by the government’s argument that geography explains disparate impact. As Carrillo-Lopez notes the Ninth Circuit has previously found disparate impact in situations where “geography” might arguably explain the disparity… Moreover, the government’s argument is circular and inconclusive.”
“It cannot be the case that the mere over-policing of certain locations—here the Southern border as opposed to the Northern border—prevents a specific group from raising equal protection challenges. Or that because Mexican citizens will likely make up more unlawful reentries because they are a higher percentage of the overall illegal alien population, they cannot raise equal protection challenges,” Du continued.
Hanson went on to note Du and other critical race theorists “selective” application of “disparate impact” – noting that there is no similar outcry by adherents to “Woke” ideology when White U.S. soldiers represent nearly three-quarters of the battlefield casualties during the War on Terror or that Asians may be underrepresented in major league sports.
“If you say to retired General Lloyd Austin or General [Mark] Milley, wait a minute, if you are going to do woke stuff and we believe in disparate impact, 73% of the people killed in Iraq were White males of the middle class, [and] about 74% in Afghanistan, let’s hold off putting any more White males in combat until other groups are proportionately represented in the casualty rates, people would think you are insane,” Hanson said.
“So they pick and choose how they apply this legal theory and they use it on the construct that all of these nefarious White males floating around somewhere rigged the system against people of color, rather than the law says we don’t care what color you are, we don’t care what gender…”
“You break U.S. Federal immigration law, we deport you. Do it again, we are going to up the penalties so you don’t do it anymore. And anybody with any sense knows the logic of that.”