The problem we are having is not one of securing a share of the ‘Hispanic vote’, the problem is the fast growing ‘immigrant vote’ is upsetting the balance faster than we conservatives can plug the holes; especially with Democrats bestowing citizen privileges and rights through illegal means. The problem is expanding the franchise always favors the political-party willing to subvert a stable, sustainable and just franchise just to win, and is a game we can never win except by becoming the thing we most fervently wish to prevent. The individuals to whom this article would have us appeal are, overwhelmingly, recent immigrants with little to no regard for our history, values, and culture; who have been taught from childhood the reason they are so poor is that America stole their birthright (false). They come here from a country that has been socialist (varyingly) for nearly two centuries, with little real experience of the personal freedoms we cherish (other than as governmental weakness), whose experience of authority is of a system frequently disrupted and often indifferent, in which lawlessness and brigandage (especially along the border) is often the norm. They are acclimated to a poverty that encourages them to break laws even as they flee lawlessness; and propagate this lawlessness here. Those already here are as desperate to bring their families across as they were in coming, and unwilling to side with those trying to restore order; assuring the lawlessness must continue with or without our help. For the most part they are poorly educated (if at all), making supplying physical wants accompanied by demagoguery and sound-bites the most effective means of outreach. They are, for the time being, unable to earn enough to house, feed, clothe, educate, and heal themselves without nanny-state intervention or fraud. Given all this, what possible dialogue can we have with them that will get them to vote with us and against their interest as invaders; other than by seriously gutting our own (conservative) values? What have we to offer to compete with Democrat largess (at our expense) and promises to keep the border open?

conserativesingleguy.com

As much as I agree with the tenor of this article, I have to disagree with its main premise, that conservatives are failing to capture the Hispanic vote because we stereotype and suppress Hispanic culture.

I have to ask where you see all this conservative stereotyping of Hispanics. I realize you live in a border state and are much closer to the invasion, but we also have a large and growing Hispanic population in Maryland. Perhaps, you are seeing it at the local level from invasion anxiety, but I don’t think you can generalize this.

Though non-Hispanic, I am a product of a mixed heritage; including some Amerindian. I read and speak Spanish, have close-relatives of Hispanic and Philippine origin, have been to Central America, my dad was born and raised in Panama (my great-grandfather helped build the Canal), my son is part-Hispanic, and I have worked with and befriended Hispanic-Americans all my life. Though I am no multi-culturalist in the sense I don’t support the “all cultures are equal” rubbish, I do regard the mixing-pot as a source of cultural strength and approve some cultural leavening that isn’t blind to baggage; and don’t think I am all that atypical in this viewpoint among fellow conservatives. If I am this much of a Hispano-phile, how much less ‘bigoted’ must be pandering Republicans trying their utmost to curry Hispanic votes.

I have commented on the illegal immigration issue and always distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate aliens (of whatever race). There are cultural issues regarding assimilation and political stability that are valid concerns, but it is the large scale invasion and marauding-disruptive behaviors of some that most concern all reasoning people; be they white, black, Asian, Hispanic, conservative, liberal, independent or any other. Illegal-immigration is a violation of sovereignty and a threat to our way of life, no different than some burglar invades your home, helps himself to your property, and threatens or harms your family; and then has the gall to camp out in your living room with no intention of leaving. That is bad enough, but some of these marauders are staking a claim to what is ours and mean to oust us from what is not (and never was) theirs by more than a weak claim. They are convinced of a myth they lost this territory through a purely American aggression and theft that ignores the aggressions of Mexico. They are further convinced ‘they’ were evicted from the territory (few Hispanics were ever evicted, most were assimilated and are part of us), that their poverty stems from denial to the greater bounty we have wrested from it, and who spread this fiction to others. The only ones evicted were Mexican grandees hated by those they oppressed.

At the time of the cession, Mexico exercised very little actual control over this territory, which contained less than 1% of Mexico’s population. Those few actually living in the southwest (Indians and Hispanics) were in a state of near rebellion against Mexico, many from having lived in impoverished serfdom. Mexican ownership of California and northern-Mexico was largely an artifact of Spanish administration lumping unaffiliated populations together, most of whom regarded themselves as victims (i.e., both non-Aztec and non-Spanish) of Mexico, and would have been happier had they been administered separately. Some of these people had been subjugated by Aztecs prior to the coming of the Spanish, and the Spanish and Mexicans effectively continued and extended that domination. The rest had little contact with either Mexico or the Spanish, and would have been surprised to learn they belonged to Mexico. There was some popular resistance to the American takeover, but this was mostly along the border with Mexico. Upper California, with its large American infusion, favored annexation. In Lower California, however, reactions were more mixed with some preferring American annexation and some rebelling (especially the coast from Los Angeles to Baja). Most of the rest (of the ceded territory) were indifferent to the change. In both New Mexico and Lower California, it was mainly landowners who resisted and there is no real way to gauge how the peons felt as their opinion was suppressed. They fought for Mexico because they were ordered to and whipped if they shirked. It was Mexico that declared war on the United States over the annexation of Texas; which Mexico had initially surrendered but then repudiated after Texan independence. It was also Mexico that committed the initial acts of aggression, attacking and killing U.S. troops sent to defend recently annexed Texas.

Now, we have LaRaza, Mecha and others, manipulating the descendents of these victims of Spanish and Mexican oppression into believing they were abused by white-America only, that they are Mexican in origin and owe loyalty to Mexico. Yes, we treated our own Hispanics shabbily, but never as harshly as did Mexico and Spain. And, yes, they had little say in their assimilation. Had they remained a large, unassimilated northern appendage of Mexico, it is probable the majority would have continued to suffer as peons only worth what could be wrung from them. Instead, these Hispanic-Americans have thrived while the real Mexicans have been impoverished through bad (socialistic) governance. We are within our rights (including those of Hispanic-Americans), then, in demanding both this violence and nonsense be stopped; and, assuming our government won’t do anything about it, take steps to bring these facts to public attention. If that is stereotyping, then color me guilty.

I respectfully disagree with you that the answer is to change our approach to Hispanics. All you say we should be doing, we conservatives have been doing. Other than a few fringe types, most of us (including politicians) have long recognized the splits within the Hispanic community. We have always appealed to ‘traditionalists’ within this community based on shared values and studiously avoided stereotypes; which, BTW, are more the way liberals operate than conservatives. It is the same way we penetrate the black community; finding and encouraging the naturally-conservative among them drowned out by the liberal zeitgeist. It is Democrats who generally play on racial fears and divisions with which to polarize, alienate, and exploit. It takes far more effort persuading based on disarming a fear than it does exploiting such fears; which gives the advantage to whichever side is the less scrupulous. By that calculation, then, what we have been doing wrong is to not imitate Democrats more. Clearly, to win votes by racial-group, we’d have to pander to race-bias. If this is how we must win, I say the heck with that. I would rather lose to such people than become them. Absolutely, keep doing the things you say we should, and maybe find more ways to disseminate the message; but this is a difference of quantity, not quality.

http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/history/intro.htm – historical background

Furthermore, I think it is important for the GOP to begin a serious grassroots outreach through church meetings, gatherings, or conventions. By doing this, these two groups would begin to realize important commonalities.

If conservative ideas aren’t winning over Hispanics, is it the ideas that are at fault? To what extent can you change the ideas to suit the tastes of Hispanics and still call yourself a “Right” party ideologically? More pointedly, to what extent are you willing to sell out your ideas to pander to a demographically strong racial/ethnic group and maintain political power? At what point does the ideology become so weak that the political power loses its value? These are all important questions to ask when you are deciding on just the right compromise of ideology for votes. Just don’t try to dress the pandering up as something more high minded than it actually is.