Phyllis Schlafly is very sure that the acceptance of new immigrants, legal or otherwise, and particularly those of Latino or Hispanic background, will mean more liberal voters and so the end of our nation. I don’t share her sense of impending doom.
Schlafly cites a 2012 study from the Pew Hispanic Center when she says that “75 percent of Hispanics prefer a ‘bigger government providing more services,’ and only 19 percent prefer a smaller government.” The same study states that “53 percent of Hispanics have a negative view of capitalism.” In 2008, the “National Annenberg Election Survey found that 62 percent of immigrants prefer a single, government-run health-care system.” She even cites Professor George Hawley of the University of Alabama who admits that recent immigrants trend to more liberal positions.
She concludes, then, that “everyone else who has looked at the polls comes to the conclusion that significant majorities of immigrants and their children are big-government liberals.”
Well, not everyone.
I think Schlafly and many Republicans are suffering from a kind of myopia that comes from having lost two straight presidential elections. Schlafly is right that passing immigration reform will not win them elections in the near future. The polling data seems to support that. But passing it probably won’t cost them elections in the near future either, not with so much antipathy for all things Obama from the Republican base. The question is about the long term.
Another Look at the Data
Let me point out a thing or two about Hispanic voters. Hispanics might prefer “big government” with more services, but they also believe in hard work. When asked “Can most people get ahead with hard work?” 78% of Hispanics said that most can. That’s compared to just 58% of the general U.S. population. And it suggests that Hispanics believe more in hard work than they do in government hand outs.
When asked how they compare the U.S. to their own country, Hispanics believe that there is greater opportunity to get ahead here in the U.S., that the U.S. is better for raising children, that the U.S. has better morals and that the poor here are already being treated well.
When describing their political views, Ms. Schlafly fails to report that more Hispanics describe themselves as conservative or moderate than they do liberal. Indeed, amongst foreign born Hispanics 35% self-identify as conservative, 30% as moderate and only 27% as liberal. What those terms mean in the mind of the Hispanic voter is a legitimate question, but those were the parameters put within the study, and that shouldn’t be ignored.*
Still, let’s look at the question on big government. Pew asked: Would you “rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services.” Ms. Schlafly is right that 75% wanted bigger government, but she didn’t tell you that with each generation, Hispanics grow less and less fond of bigger government.
What’s more, what possible concept of “bigger government” does the foreign born Hispanic really have? “Bigger” is a comparative term after all. Bigger than what? Bigger than the barely functional governments they fled to come here? Bigger than the banana republic dictatorships they’ve experienced over decades? Who wouldn’t want that?
Anyone who’s lived overseas or in Latin America has new eyes when they return to the U.S. and have to go through the DMV. We complain, but compared to other nations, the DMV is the height of bureaucratic efficiency.
Also, the way the question was asked in the study makes it sound to me like they’re asking, would you rather have more things done for you or fewer things? Who would say no? No wonder only 19% said they wanted smaller government.
The limited government question and the response is not insignificant, but for Schlafly and others to point to it as demonstrable proof that Hispanics are liberals is misleading at best. The larger picture from the Pew study is:
- Hispanics believe in hard work and the reality of upward mobility;
- Less than a third of Hispanics self-identify as liberals, whereas over a third self-identify as conservative, particularly those who are foreign-born;
- Hispanics believe our country is a great place of opportunity, high in morals, already generous to the poor and great for raising a family;
- Hispanics also attend religious services weekly at greater rates than the rest of the population with 61% saying that their religion is important in their lives, which outpaces the general population;
- Hispanics are more pro-life.
An Opportunity Not A Danger
Schlafly points to Professor George Hawley for support. He shows that in recent elections, Hispanics have voted in favor of Democratic candidates over Republican. That’s a fact. Dr. Hawley also notes in his study titled “Issue Voting and Immigration: Do Restrictionist Policies Cost Congressional Republican Votes?” that there is little reason to believe that Hispanics will start voting for Republicans because they start to pass immigration reform.
Dr. Hawley states elsewhere that “immigrants support the Democratic Party in greater numbers than they support the Republican Party for reasons other than immigration.” In other words, it seems that positions on immigration policy will not significantly affect the way Latinos vote. For this reason he argues that liberalizing immigration will be mean liberalizing the nation.
There are two take-aways the way I see it. If Republicans are seeking to win Hispanic votes by passing immigration reform, they’re barking up the wrong tree. But of course this ought not be the only reason why Republicans work towards reform. There are moral and economic reasons to do so as well.
Second, Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats not because of immigration but because of other issues. What are those issues? My guess, given the big picture the Pew study gives, is that they are probably the same issues that motivate white, blue-collar voters to vote Democratic. They are probably the same issues that characterized the so-called Reagan Democrats. They are kitchen table issues about taxes, jobs, the plight of the working poor, their kids’ education, national defense, the economy and a sense that the government cares.
I see the Reagan Democrat as a pragmatist at the end of the day. They’re not concerned with ideologies or classical approaches to political philosophy. Big government vs. limited government is just rhetoric. They’re asking concrete questions: Where is my job? Why am I not getting a raise to match the inflation which is already here (pace Paul Krugman)? Why is my kid taking expensive remedial classes to do well in college? What the hell is happening to my health insurance? Can’t anyone do something about the high price of gasoline? Why is milk $4 a gallon?
Republicans have the opportunity, thanks to the completely inept administration of President Obama, to win on these issues. These are all issues which place Hispanics in the moderate category more than the progressive. And we should note that only until recently – namely a couple speeches by Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan – have Republicans been talking about the working poor. Rubio’s brilliant speech on poverty has it right:
Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream. And our current government programs, offer at best only a partial solution. They help people deal with poverty, but they do not help them escape it.
Republicans, then, have a golden opportunity. With a country reeling from the evidence of big government failure, now is the time for Republicans to step forward and claim the cause of the little guy. Take back the Reagan Democrats who have been so desparate for a party that cares as much for them as it does for college coeds who want free contraception and for wealthy gay men who want to marry. Now’s their chance.
Even if immigration reform is passed, Dr. Hawley admits, we don’t know how these new immigrants will vote. We can make an educated guess, but we don’t know for sure. After all, the Senate plan would have allowed for citizenship for new immigrants 13 years from passage of the act at the earliest. Thirteen years is an epoch in politics.
So the equation Schlafly and the rest put forward, i.e. that more immigration equals more Democrats, is true only if Republicans are lazy or stupid or both. Political leadership is supposed to be about convincing, cajoling and inspiring your fellow citizens. So instead of writing off Hispanics, why not convince them the same way that Reagan convinced those blue-collar Democrats?
Why not try to do for all Hispanics what Republicans in New Mexico did with now Governor Susana Martinez, who, over one lunch, was convinced that she and her husband had been Republicans all along?
Ideas like those put forward by Sen. Marco Rubio about jobs and education and poverty are how to win Hispanic voters. During his campaign, California State Representative Andy Vidak had his people canvas the district and sit down around the kitchen table of Hispanic families to talk about real struggles. As a result of that effort, he garnered twice an many Hispanic votes as any Republican had gotten. It was the “bread and butter” that got people’s attention.
The future is far from a foregone conclusion. And the past can give us hope. While Kennedy and LBJ got 85% and 90% of the Hispanic votes in the 60’s, Al Gore only got 67% of the vote in 2000. Republicans should screw up their courage and their moral sensibility and pass reform so that they can spend the next ten years and more influencing Hispanic voters with language that appeals to their strong sense of family, morals, faith and economic prosperity. Now’s the time to do it.
* It is interesting to note from this study that while more Hispanics self-identify as Democrats than they do as Republicans, more Hispanics self-identify as independent or Republican than they do as Democrats.
Omar Gutierrez writes from Omaha, NE. His new book, The Urging of Christ’s Love:The Saints and the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church can be purchased through respectable online book sellers.
A brief tour of South Omaha immediately reveals the entrepreneurial spirit of the Hispanic population. Small business is booming and hard work can be seen everywhere. This is a solid argument Omar. Even as a libertarian I am willing to stand behind your assessment.
Democrats fight for the votes of “groups.” Republicans simply need to espouse true conservatism and stop trying to pander like our Liberal friends.
Omar Gutierrez said:
Aron, I think all politicians fight for groups because we are social beings and often think with groups. I think what I’m trying to say is that “true conservatism” ought to include the kind of bread and butter issues that they’ve seemingly ignored for so long.
I am sure you wrote this with the best of intentions, but unfortunately your research is not solid enough to sway Republican opinions. Republicans overall have been burnt way too much by Hispanic voters voting for Democrats in order to switch their opinion purely based off of your article. For every one article of yours stating the above opinion, there are 10 coming from a Rep Luiz Gutierrez (D-Illinois) stating the opposite. And as long as NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR putting out everyday Hispanic opinions saying how evil Republicans are, you are not going to change many minds. Stop the hate from the media and maybe you have a chance.
Omar Gutierrez said:
Greg I’m not sure where you got the impression I think that one article will make all the difference, but even odder than that, is the alternative to do nothing and keep quiet?
Hispanics don’t automatically trust the mainstream media either. They don’t have the time anyway. They’re too busy working. That’s kind of my point. Appeal to Those issues which they care about and you might sway enough of them to make a difference.
Republicans don’t need to convince all Hispanics. They only need to convince enough to win elections.
There’s a certain sense among Hispanics that the Republican party is the party of white suburban middle and upper middle class folk. Also the ‘southernization’ of the GOP doesn’t help.Most Hispanics live in urban areas dominated by liberal politics where GOP presence is anemic or only among select groups. I think that the mindset of the southernized GOP just doesn’t resonate with most Hispanics and the GOP base is nervous about the demographic changes going on and not too open to Hispanics. What we hear from republicans is ‘ assimilate,leave your country and traditions behind… etc’ while the dems say ‘ be who you are,bring your culture, become American’. In GOP world there’s a very WASP ideal of American society.I respect and understand that, but just like my traditional Catholic ideal of Hispanic culture, it just doesn’t resonate with most Hispanics.
Omar Gutierrez said:
Alejo, I agree that there is a nativist streak in some of the Republican base that won’t budge. And I agree that the perception of the GOP is of a kind of white suburban middle class. But perceptions can change. And policy can sway votes. And historically, in the South, Hispanics actually have voted for Republicans in large numbers.
Look mindsets can be changed. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Since they can be it is foolish for Republicans to write off Hispanics as though mindsets are static.
Just Some Dude said:
Good article, but I remain skeptical for two reasons:
1) Race trumps everything. A university professor in Singapore studied global voting patterns and reached a sobering conclusion: In every multiracial democracy in the world, the electorate is balkanized along racial lines. That certainly applies in America: 90 percent of Republican voters are white, 80 percent of minorities vote Democrat, and diversity is pushing liberal whites to vote Republican. It’s going to be whites voting Republican and everyone else voting Democrat. If you think we’re heading toward a post-racial, multicultural paradise where people transcend ancient tribal loyalties to cooperate for the common good, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
2) Hispanics don’t practice what they preach about traditional values. When comparing Whites and Hispanics in America, the magic number seems to be 3: Hispanics are 3x more likely to drop out of high school, 3x more likely to have a child out of wedlock, and 3x more likely to commit violent crimes. In the old days, the descendents of European immigrants reached the middle class in one or two generations; Hispanic families typically languish in the lower classes for four or five generations after coming to America. As long as Hispanics keep making bad decisions–neglecting education, committing crimes, and making babies they can’t afford–they’ll continue voting for the politicians that promise them free stuff at the expense of white taxpayers.
Final note: Although Hispanics are 3x more likely to be Catholic than Whites (there’s that number again!), less than half of young Hispanics identify as Catholic, and Hispanics are only 10 percent more likely to attend church. In other words, the “religious” or “Catholic” character of Hispanics in America is both exaggerated and fleeting.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful for every Hispanic American who votes for conservative candidates, but the best strategy for those candidates is to maximize white voter turnout and hold the line on immigration.
Omar Gutierrez said:
If race trumped everything, then why do Hispanics vote so disparately? Precisely the odd thing about Hispanics is that we identify more closely with nationality than we do with race. Mexicans might not trust Salvadorans who don’t trust Dominicans who are not trusted by Puerto Ricans, and nobody likes Cubans. I’m exaggerating, but my point is that “race” is a manufactured concept. A concept manufactured by white, European intellectuals.
Hispanics do and have and will continue to vote for Republicans because they care less about race than they do about making sure their kids can go to a good school, that they can get a decent job, that they can start a small business.
As for Hispanics and traditional values, I think what you’re forgetting is that while what you say may be true, Hispanics are still more faithful to their values than American Catholics are. The odds still favor Republicans who have tended to draw more votes from regular church attendees. Why not take advantage of that and reach out to them instead of writing them off?
The best strategy you describe might work for a time, but it won’t eventually… and that’s inevitable. Don’t hold the line on immigration since new Hispanic voters won’t be eligible to vote for at least another decade or so anyway. Start reaching out now so that ten, fifteen years down the line, when white voters no longer hold majorities, the Republicans have relationships with Hispanics that will mean something.
Omar Gutierrez said:
A couple more points that occurred to me. You are right Dude that “less than half of young Hispanics identify as Catholic” but you don’t mention that more and more young Hispanics are turning to Protestantism… mostly evangelicalism. Right or wrong theologically, evangelicals trend toward Republicans. Also, the percentage of young Hispanics 18-29 that are “nones”, that is who do not believe in anything, is lower than their millenial brothers and sisters. It is wrong, then, to conclude that the religious character of Hispanics in America is exaggerated and fleeting. It is in fact far better than that of the average white American and will appear to remain so for quite some time.
Just Some Dude said:
Interesting comments. I hope you’re right.
Let me ask you a question: How do Hispanics feel about immigration? Do they want to “slow the flow” behind them or keep ’em coming?
It seems to me that Hispanics should oppose mass immigration for the same reasons white people do: It leads to lower wages, higher housing costs, higher taxes, lower-quality public services, more crime, more congestion, and more pollution. But sometimes I get the impression that Hispanics want more people like them in America in order to feel more comfortable, and some of the more extreme La-Raza types bear historical grudges against whites and relish the idea whites “losing” their country.
Is there any hope of Hispanics getting behind anti-immigration efforts?
Omar Gutierrez said:
That’s an interesting question. It depends on who you talk to and what their situation is. Right now, I think most that are here would be fine with a reform that would allow for more immigration in the future. From their perspective America can handle it. After all, we spent 53 billion dollars on pets in 2013, more than that in 2012. Pets. No livestock but pets. I’m not saying there isn’t an economic crisis, but it’s just not obvious from their perspective. That said, I am sure that as jobs grow scarce, the very jobs which they tend to inhabit (i.e. low-skilled ones) you will see those same Hispanics wanting to stem the tide.
I don’t share your feeling that “Hispanics want more people like them in America in order to feel more comfortable.” Hispanic isn’t a race. So there is less of a tribalism there than I think you believe. Mexicans probably do want more Mexicans around them, just as Germans wanted more Germans and Irish wanted more Irish. Strength exists in numbers. But Germans didn’t want more Irish around and the Irish didn’t want more Italians around, but they are all “whites.” There are Mayan “Hispanics” and white Hispanics and black Hispanics and everything in between.
La Raza doesn’t speak for the Hispanic community. It may have the loudest bull-horn, it may be well connected but it doesn’t speak to us or for us.
Just Some Dude said:
Well that just stinks. You’re basically saying that Hispanics have no problem with immigration as long as America remains a few levels above the craphole homelands from whence they came. (No offense.) A Mexican might prefer a slum in LA to a slum in Mexico City, but what about the white people who watched poor immigrants turn their native California from a middle-class paradise into a failed state? Do they have a right to preserve their culture and way of life?
California is a preview of what’s coming to America. You suggest that America’s problems are manageable because we spend lots of money on pet food. By some estimates, the federal government is $200 trillion in debt. Even if the government confiscated all the assets of the rich and the profits of every Fortune 500 company (including PetSmart), the loot could only fund existing federal operations for one year. We’re broke, broke, broke! And we continue accepting more legal immigrants than every country in the world COMBINED. It’s INSANITY.
And I still say Hispanic identity is a real thing: La Raza calls itself a Hispanic civil rights organization, UFC fighter Cain Velasquez has a tattoo that reads BROWN PRIDE (not Mexican pride), most Hispanics supported George Zimmerman, my Salvadorian ex-girlfriend defended the unfunny Mexican George Lopez only because he was Hispanic, and my Bolivian best friend mocked “tea baggers” because “they’re just a bunch of white guys.” Hispanics might not get along with each other, but I think most of them believe they stand to benefit by reducing the power of the white majority—you know, those people whose ancestors built the greatest country in the history of the world.
White Americans have every reason to be worried about living in a country dominated by people unlike them. Kevin MacDonald put it best: “Multiculturalism leads to conflict between groups, political alienation, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods, and, I suspect, increasing victimization of whites by groups that hold historical grudges against whites because of real or imagined conflicts in the past.”
Some people say we need Hispanic immigrants to make Social Security solvent again. Yeah, right. When the non-white coalition runs America, taking care of old white people will be the last of their priorities.
That’s my last post. It’s been fun—and like I said—I hope you’re right about everything. To any Hispanics who take offense at my xenophobic rantings, I welcome you in America as friend, a Christian, and a patriot. Now help me save America by slamming the door on immigration!
We’re all white nationalists now.
Omar Gutierrez said:
Actually, that’s not what I’m basically saying. And who turned California into a failed State? Was it illegal immigrants who voted for the ridiculous spending of the legislature? Was it Hispanics who tricked rich, liberal white people to adopt asinine public policy? Or was it the immigrant who forced city and state officials to write contracts for unions that defy math and logic? How is the ridiculous spending of Washington, which can be blamed on both parties and which are both dominated on the whole by non-hispanics, the fault of the Hispanic immigrant? Oh, and how is your racially charged screed not playing precisely into the hands of the race-bating inanity of the political left which runs on fear and hatred. Why do you so desperately want to hold on to your narrative which seems to be based on a boorish Hispanic or two and the tattoos of some fighter? How about you don’t judge Hispanics based on that, and I won’t judge non-hispanic whites by the behavior of Honey Boo Boo and Ted Bundy. Okay?
Brass Bancroft said:
Rich, liberal white people adopted asinine public policy on their own. Hispanics (by and large, there are exceptions, of course) just helped them to attain their majority, enabling them to implement it.
Brass Bancroft said:
I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but anybody with a brain supported George Zimmerman. If some thug is slamming my head into the pavement, and I have a gun, then it’s “goodbye, thug”.
Omar, Excellent article. I spent a lot of my life in Latin America and appreciate the good without overlooking the bad. Immigrants are good for a society. I disagree with the commenter that people vote along racial lines. For goodness sake, 75% of the US population is white or Anglo, but most Latinos consider themselves white, too.
Latinos tend to be very entrepreneurial and to want their own businesses. Connecting on a personal level is essential to making inroads into Latino voting communities. When Republicans remember that, they will win. Republicans need to remember that family is important, we need to connect with people of all kinds and with their values, then follow through on hose issues.
Btw, Latinos are heavily over represented in the military, especially the military. We need to thank them for their service.
Omar, just asking but why does it seem that every time I read of the encounters between pro-life people at, say, Planned Parenthood killing centers, who act as compassionate counselors for the pregnant women that ostensibly come to such centers to, well, kill their unborns (I’m being bluntly honest), SO MANY of them are described as HISPANIC women? In fact, a whole lot of them. Now, why is that? Are many of these women recent illegal immigrants or immigrants who’ve already lived here awhile ILLEGALLY, and n both cases, practicing what they euphemistically refer to as “back-up birth control?” Of course, that’s not a Hispanic term, but many seem to use it. This is one of the issues that concern me about immigration. And in California, you must know that the border is POROUS ON STEROIDS, They constantly pour over that border, and not one ever thinks of the ILLEGALITY of it. Why then are so many who do so lawless in that respect? And is that a good thing? Mexico’s immigration laws are way more stringent than America’s immigration laws. What really gives here?
Omar Gutierrez said:
I can’t account for your experiences, but the Guttmacher institute states that Hispanic women account for fewer abortions than non-Hispanic white women and African American women. Now, granted, the percentage of abortions among Hispanics is higher than their percentage of the population, but not by that much. What’s more, Hispanic women have a fertility rate much higher than non-Hispanic women or African American women. In fact, the increase – according to Pew – of Hispanics in the U.S. comes more from births than from immigration.
As for illegality, I’ve not written too extensively on that question but might in the near future. I’ll make two points, first that illegality is relative at times. Breaking the natural law is always wrong, but breaking the speed limit can be justified. Since border laws are akin to speed limit laws, the mere fact that the law is broken by a person is not enough evidence for me to condemn them. Second, we ought not judge Hispanics as a whole by the activity of some in a localized area.
I think you are right that Mexico’s immigration laws are more stringent than America’s, but then I’m not sure if that’s because of the laws they passed, their enforcement, the fact that not too many Hispanics want to move to Mexico, or all of the above. It’s a lot easier to enforce tough laws when you’re not dealing with so many immigrants.
The Hispanics I have known, do indeed fit the profile you suggest, and immigration reform is badly needed. However, none of the reform measures considered, to date, have been honest efforts to improve the overall immigration laws. Reform, unless it improves the situation, should be rejected.
Omar Gutierrez said:
I’d be interested in hearing, Steve, why you think the Senate bill was not an honest effort. I ask that without any intention of catching you out. I’m not particular to the Senate bill. I just want something done. So, I would be truly curious as to why that wouldn’t have worked and/or what you consider an honest effort. Hope you can enlighten me. You might have read something I’m not aware of, after all. God bless.
Omar, I agree with you 100% on each point you make. At my 70% Latino high school (mostly Mexican, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran), I registered a newly arrived boy from Honduras a few weeks ago, and he was desperate to find another Honduran. He seemed to feel that the Mexican students around him were as “foreign” as the non-Hispanic races. Also, my grandfather was raised in a Swedish immigrant town and he once told me that the young people were strictly forbidden to date the kids in the Danish immigrant town a few miles down the road. So there you go, same race (Scandinavian) yet they also identified nationally. This is not just a Hispanic phenomenon. Btw, my wife’s Italian grandparents strongly identified not so much with Italy as with the province in Italy that they came from. They considered Italians from other provinces as an “out-group” and especially disliked northern Italians.
You are right on about Hispanic voting. The Hispanics I work with are more concerned with practical issues about jobs, the business climate, and family than anything else. If only the Republican party would pull out all the stops and woo Latinos rather than complain about them! Go Marco Rubio!!!
Omar Gutierrez said:
Amen Steve. Amen.
Very good evaluation. The Spanish flag flew over more of what is now the US and for a longer time than the stars and stripes. The US lost the Mexican Americans when President Polk ran his unjust war against them in the south west in the 1840s. Pat Buchanan totally blew it when he harped on the “illegals.” He ought to have lauded the Mexicans and Spanish for making part of America the land of the free that it once was and could still become. Yes, the Latinos are mostly anti-abortion. We need Americans, whose ancestors were from Europe, to emphasize that point, especially with the Mexicans and Central American immigrants. They have been here a long time, a very long time. And, of course they should be able to speak and write in English if they want to be part of the US. The Irish were shipped here and to Canada by the persecuting English in the early and mid 19th century, but they had the accidental advantage of speaking English. Sometimes they were quarantined on dirty ships and many died in harbors. Buchanan ought to have stressed that and put his support with the immigrants,legal and illegal. How long does it take for a Mexican to get citizenship, Mr. Buchanan? That is when they abide by the current law? Five years? Or more? After applying they must go back to Mexico and wait. And they wait and wait. Without a sponsor, they are usually left waiting. No wonder they cross the border “illegally.” The Rio Grande was not their border 150 years ago. It was imposed on Mexico because the US Army had bigger guns, canons, and drove them back and out of their rightful land. Long story. Viva Cristo Rey! And bravo to the pro-life actor Eduardo Verastegue, who has tried more than any other I know of to get the Latinos to vote for pro-life candidates.
Omar Gutierrez said:
Thanks for the history lesson Kelso. Yes, it is sadly true, that that land which we are so insistent on calling our border is rightfully Mexico’s.
Great post Omar! I agree that Republicans need to get on “bread and butter” issues pronto. The irony is that Conservatives naturally tend that way, but have been painted in a corner by the media that they are against it. Another thing to remember is that as most Hispanics and Latinos are pro-life, they seldom realize that the Democratic Party’s official stance is pro-abortion. I’ve met many immigrants who were shocked and didn’t believe me when I said to them that Obama was for abortion.
Omar Gutierrez said:
That’s fascinating Jim. Although perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re surprised. Thanks for sharing that insight.
See the majority of comments here are formulated on the principle of “every illegal alien is Mexican + every Hispanic is a Mexican + every Hispanic is an illegal alien.” Buddy, there is a part of the GOP that hates anyone who is not “White” whatever they think “White” means. When Hillary gets elected in 2016 go and tell that crowd that at least they have a “White” person in the White House!