Yes, this is probably true. Republicans will probably cave on this thinking it will help them win Hispanic votes. It won’t. Hispanics are voting Democrat because a high percentage of them are poor and rely on government. They want free stuff. Period. It isn’t really any more complicated than that.
Should we be more mindful how we speak on issues of immigration? Yes. Should we make every effort to reach out to Hispanics so we don’t lose them by massive margins like we do now? Absolutely. But this nut is going to be tough to crack. The problem is they support big government social welfare programs. We could literally spearhead immigration reform and it wouldn’t help much since that is not why they don’t support the GOP.
Your Post #10 is spot-on.
McCain DID spearhead immigration reform...
They also hate Jews and blacks.
Eventually they'll figure out the Jews and blacks are Democrats ~ that hasn't happened yet but it will.
We could literally spearhead immigration reform and it wouldn’t help much . . .
Perhaps. It all depends on what “reform” encompasses. The Republicans can advocate certain minor changes in the immigration law that will, IMO, make them more attractive to immigrant communities but will not open any ‘floodgates.’
Two specific changes come immediately to mind. First, remove the “3/10” bar, which provides that an alien who is outside the US and seeks to re-enter is barred from doing if he had previously been “unlawfully present” in the US for more than 6 months but less than a year (barred for 3 years), or for more than one year (barred for 10 years).
Second, bring back “Suspension” (of Deportation/Removal) whereby an alien in removal/deportation proceedings can be granted Lawful Permanent Residence if s/he’s been in the country for at least 7 years, has “Good Moral Character” (no criminal record), and can show (to the Immigration Judge) that leaving the US would cause him (or a spouse, child, or parent who is a US citizen or has a green card) “extreme hardship.” There were no numerical limits to the number of grantees.
At present (8 USC § 1229b, if anyone is interested), “Cancellation of Removal” requires 10 years in the country, Good Moral Character, and showing (again, to an Immigration Judge) that leaving the US would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his spouse, parent, or child who is a USC, etc. Only 4,000 cases can be granted in any fiscal year.
I think that most Americans would ask for immigration reduction if they knew that there was over one million immigrants entering the country every year. Yet we are not allowed to speak of decreasing immigration, we are only allowed to speak of increasing immigration.
Conservatives ought to have polls asking people how they feel about what the yearly immigration numbers should be. Of course, the Democrats control the immigration bureacracy so they have no desire to reduce the numbers. We have to find ways to sharply reduce immigration or our children will be a minority in their own country.