Latinos don’t vote very much, but if we got the ones who want smaller government to vote for us wouldn’t that be good? Same thing with blacks. We need conservative populism. It’s an opportunity for us. It reminds me of the story where the factory manager is informed by his accountant that he is losing 5 cents a widget. The manager says don't worry, we will make it up in volume.
Immigrants and minorities vote more than two to one Democrat. If you keep bringing in over 1 million immigrants a year, 87% of whom are minorities as defined by the USG, the GOP will be the permanent minority party. I don't care how many of the ones who want smaller government we get to vote, it is still a losing proposition.
I am not for amnesty, but don’t you think that conservative ideas can appeal across national origins and races? I do. People vote their interests. The GOP message of lower taxes, limited government, and returning to the vision and values of our Founders isn't resonating with minorities because it is not in their vested interest to support such principles.
We are getting about a quarter of the minority vote so conservative ideas appeal to some. But you don't win elections with such numbers, especially with a growing minority population that will equal the non-Hispanic white population by 2043. Each cohort that turns 18 every year is more and more Democrat. If the GOP wants to start winning national elections again, it should follow the advice of Jeff Sessions:
Becoming the Party of Work --How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself.
I’ll buy that (the concept of a 3rd reality for the top 1% that can for the most part make its own rules.)
For that matter, I would postulate at least one more “reality”: That of the low-to-no-productivity half(?) of the population who are generally the beneficiaries of socialism. Ie., this is the “somebody else pays for it” crowd, which, much like the top 1%, is generally disconnected from being “responsible” for their behavior, albeit in a somewhat different way. This too is not healthy or sustainable, at current or higher levels, in the long run.
Now, to be clear, barring something like a Carrington Event (etc.), I do not foresee economic collapse of the US in the near future. By “collapse” I mean an event like the Great Depression or (more likely*) worse. The US has too much size / momentum, the US has many resources and advantages (think of our river transport system or natural gas resources, for example), and those “in control” of the economic & political systems have much more control than they did in 1929. I estimate 10 - 40 years before a major collapse, which not coincidentally is also approx. the time frame I give us before our weak foreign policy causes a large war (significant nuclear exchanges somewhere on the planet.) Political, social, and economic forces are all tied together, and one cannot analyze them in isolation.*
*For example, it is precisely because the moral fiber of the nation has deteriorated that I believe the next economic collapse will be much more “ugly”, across the board, than the Great Depression.
Finally, regarding “data”, as an engineer I have both a healthy (I think) respect AND skepticism toward “data”. But rather than discussing a case from my field, let me give a more pertinent example: In the 2010 Census, I had the opportunity to (at some length) observe & talk to some U.S. Census field workers. To be blunt and brief, though I do not believe those workers would, through some sort of “conscious wrongdoing” of their own, skew the data, the odds that the Census Bureau got back unbiased data from that source are zero.