David over at ramblinboy has a post that I agree with part of and disagree with another part of (like many of his posts, it presents some interesting thoughts, then becomes polemic).
The part I agree with (sort of):
"Hispanics are here to stay. They work hard. They are naturally conservative, politically. They appreciate a stable, safe society. They don't really mind if it's not particularly democratic. They don't mind if the rich get richer. They don't mind if it's a police state. Best of all, they are Christian and a large number are even observant, unlike most Americans that identify as Christians. Moving the Hispanic vote into their party, should be the number one priority of the Republicans. It would guarantee them political ascendancy for generations to come."
I don't think Hispanics are ok with a non-democratic police state, and I refute the implied argument that only "the rich" get "richer" (the poor get rich, too, after working hard or exercising their natural mental acuity,or in the case of athletes, their physical prowess), but, the rest of this is true, and leads one to need to consider that this nation needs to figure out a way to welcome the large number of immigrants we need for our economy, while respecting the territorial integrity of our borders.
To ramblinboy, I suggest that many on the right get this, but, we're wary of past efforts that promised an orderly immigration process, then reneged on that promise. Like many things our government has promised, that was botched, and we're tired of it. I think McCain heard that loud and clear last year, and he's not a nativist, as many on the right are. It is certainly true that most of our immigrants from South of the border are conservative (90% Catholic, and practicing, indeed), work hard, and inclined to be Republicans. The GOP is best positioned to both satisfy the people who already live here and obey our laws (us), and those we need to bring here, while all the Democrats offer is more unlimited illegal immigration, in the hopes of buying votes, while still satisfying their wealthier constituents (the farm lobby mostly).
It's interesting to me that two of the blocs that most reliably support Dems are those most likely to be hurt by the continued influx - blacks and union members.
Now, I disagree with this part:
"The problem is that the majority of their [the GOP's] coalition are black dirt ignorant, ethnocentric racist, sexist, scum..."
You might win that argument by saying that "some" of their coalition fit that mold, and I might also argue that black dirt ignorant, ethonocentric racist, sexist, scum need to vote for somebody.
But, when you make the assertion that it's a majority, I have to say, "Huh????"
W won in 2004 (I'll use the last national election as it's the best data we have) by 3 million votes, and he didn't win a majority in the portions of the electorate where you might think that black dirt ignorant people come from. Kerry won a majority of those making between $15k and $50k. Bush doesn't pick up majorities until we get to the $50-$75k bracket, where he took 56% of the vote. I don't know, maybe a lot of "black dirt ignorant" people are able to pull down $50k/year. Somehow, I think not. Interestingly, Bush's majority is greatest in the >$200k bracket, where he won 63%. Maybe he won all the black dirt ignorant (but no longer poor) lottery winners??
Looking at education, Kerry won the non-HS crowd (barely) and Bush carried the HS and college demos. Only until you get to the post-graduate group does Kerry win again. Surprise, surprise.
So, I don't think there's any way to really defend that statement. Lots more interesting info here.