Now, based on faulty/dubious polling and revisions by groups like the National Elections Pool, the "Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote in 2004" myth was created. That was due to revisions of his latino vote percentages in places like Texas and Oklahoma ( we're talking about 59 to 74 percent ). Initially, the NEP was saying that Kerry was likely to defeat Bush, and well, when that didn't pan out, they were forced to "revise" their numbers in order to help save face. In the end, Bush still got under 40 percent.
Long story short, is that if you truly want to win and retain the hispanic vote, then you have to bring in the better skilled/educated immigrants from Latin America.
Look what happened in Florida : Prior to the 1980 Mariel boat lift ( 1960's and early seventies ) Cuban immigrants were from Cuba's bourgeois class who fled in the aftermath of Castro's revolution. From '80 forward, the Cuban immigrants came from Cuba's underclass.
Pre-Mariel Cubans and their children were decidedly anti-communist and pro business reflecting their bourgeois outlook and values. Post-Mariel Cubans and their children simply didn't have the same kind of ideological outlook and adopted an outlook typical of individuals on the lower half of the socioeconomic ladder; - consequently, they didn't have much of a problem gravitating towards the Democratic party.
The end result is that Obama ran away with Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012.
The same kind of turning point happened in with the 1986 Amnesty with regards to Mexican Americans. Millions of illegals were given amnesty; - millions more were legalized via the rolling extensions. All of those immigrants wound sponsoring all sorts other relatives to come to the country. These groups were at the bottom end of the socioeconomic ladder. And illegal immigration only got worse post-1986.
All of this wound up tilting the Mexican American segment of the electorate even further to the left. The GOP would actually be in a better position right now if the '86 amnesty had never been passed in the first place.
The old guard has been dying off, and the "new guard" is gaining ascendancy. That's the actual underlying reason for the declining percentages of the Latino vote.
Sotomayor deserved to grilled considering how this jurist said that she didn't even know, post- Heller, if a right to self defense actually existed. That type of position should have stunned anyone that considers themselves even remotely conservative. Then her ridiculous ruling that claimed that a job test, in and of itself, could be biased against black applicants. And thus, had to changed. Can anyone give me an example of a "biased" test question...? Answer : No.
The papers please controversy is nonsense. The Arizona legislation was based almost word for word on federal legislation that had been signed into law by Bill Clinton.
And what do you think happens in Mexico? Law enforcement down there has always had the right to inquire about someone's status. I'm talking from personal experience. You get pulled over for any sort of traffic violation, the officer in question does have the right to ask you those type of questions.
Moreover, our government and State Department have always recognized the right of law enforcement entities in other countries to ask these types of questions of our own citizens who are traveling and working abroad. Americans understand this sort of thing is S.O.P..
"150 Million Adults Worldwide Would Migrate to the U.S" - gallup.com
Solving the illegal problem in 1986, with an Amnesty (by another name*) for 3 million, gave us an invasion of 12-20 million new illegals today. How many of those 150 Million hopeful migrant adults - with how many million of their spouses and children - will be encouraged by another Amnesty (by whatever name) to join in a continuing invasion?
But some "conservatives"/GOPers do not want to stop this historically unprecedented outrage - they only want to throw out the welcome mat to maximize their minority cut of votes.
Coupling another Amnesty with a border wall would not be the answer, because even a wall with the security of the Soviet era Berlin wall would only reduce the flow of illegal invaders by half; half the illegals here today came here "legally" by misrepresenting themselves as tourist or other temporary visitors with visas and then never leaving.
Because the million/year legal immigrants that have been admitted are increasingly less skilled, less educated and less self-sufficient they have been pre-selected for a pro-welfare, pro-affirmative action, pro-entitlement voting Democrat future. Which means legal immigration laws needs to be brought back to their original and historical basis: to admit only those who will not be a burden on society or the government (including earned income credits).
* In 1986 it was call the "Immigration Reform and Control Act."