Mathematically, how would supporting citizenship for illegal immigrants help the GOP?

Politics & Elections
1

The argument has been made that the Republican Party must support immigration reform if it wants to remain relevant as a party, but mathematically speaking, wouldn’t supporting citizenship for illegal immigrants hinder the GOP even more, vote-wise?

Note: This thread isn’t about whether supporting citizenship for illegal immigrants would be a ***good ***thing or not - that’s a separate debate. This thread is simply about crunching the math and numbers.
Seems to me that the GOP supporting citizenship for illegal immigrants would affect the math this way:
**1. The GOP might gain a tiny bit of support among Hispanic voters, but only a tiny bit. **Why? Because Hispanics vote liberal for many reasons, and the illegal immigration issue is only one of them. Let say your average Hispanic voter has 10 reasons to vote Democratic rather than Republican. Now let’s say the GOP suddenly does an about-face and supports citizenship for illegal immigrants. Such a voter would still have 9 reasons to vote Democratic rather than Republican.

Furthermore, regardless of what stance the GOP takes regarding illegal immigration, the Democrats’ stance is likely to be more liberal still. In other words, the average Hispanic voter still has no reason to vote Republican. If, hypothetically, the Hispanic vote were 75% Blue vs. 25% Red, then GOP support for citizenship for illegal immigrants might only move that to, say, 70% Blue vs. 30% Red.

**2. The Democrats would immediately gain millions of extra votes. ** Let’s say that 11 million illegal immigrants are granted citizenship, and that 7 million of them are voting age and register to vote. Now, since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic, let’s say that five million become Democratic voters and two million become Republican voters - a roughly 70% Blue vs. 30% Red divide, not unrealistic. This means the Democrats just added a 3-million-vote advantage.

**3. Many Republicans would be disgruntled with their own party. ** The vast majority of Republicans would still vote Republican regardless, citizenship for illegal immigrants or not. But some might abstain from voting or vote for political fringe parties, in protest. Translation: Loss of votes for the GOP.

Seems like supporting citizenship for illegal immigrants would significantly *harm *, not help, the GOP, in terms of votes. Is there anything amiss with the math here?

2

If the question is why should Republicans support moderate policies for immigration, it’s because the alternative is worse. If Republicans aren’t seen as the anti-Latino party, they have a chance in the next several decades to get a chunk of the growing Latino population. If they are seen as the anti-Latino party, they could lose Latinos for generations, just as being seen as the anti-black party has meant overwhelming black support for Democratic voters for several decades.

3

But how?

As said earlier, Hispanics vote liberal for many reasons. The illegal-immigration issue is only one of them. If the average Hispanic voter has 10 reasons to vote Democratic rather than Republican, then GOP support for citizenship for illegal immigrants still leaves such a voter with 9 reasons to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
This is like saying, *“GOP support for affirmative action will make black voters switch from Blue to Red.” *It’s only one issue out of many.

4

What do you think the reasons are?

5
  1. Illegal-immigration issue
  2. Welfare / social net
  3. Affirmative action
  4. The Democratic Party is perceived as more pro-Latino
  5. Views on role of government
6

Well, you can knock out 1 and lessen the hell out of 4 by not attacking Latinos in general in the guise of a fight against illegal immigration. If someone is attacking you, attacking your family and your culture, and appears to be operating from a base of xenophobia and racism, you’re not likely to vote for them.

How many of these other things are strongly held positions? Can you show statistics on support for 2, 3, and 5?

7

Again, any GOP immigration reform proposal is likely to be less liberal than a similar Democratic platform. In other words, it still doesn’t give Hispanic voters a reason to vote GOP.

And it doesn’t address this issue:

8

In the long run, they could craft a message that appeals to Latino voters.

I’m comparing this to Civil Rights (and follow up legislation and issues) – by instituting the Southern Strategy, the Republicans branded themselves as the anti-black party (in the eyes of most black voters). This has lasted for decades, and it shows no sign of stopping.

The same hasn’t happened for Latino voters – yet, at least. But by opposing any form of moderate immigration policy, Republicans could potentially brand themselves in the same way as the anti-Latino party (or just the anti-minority party in general) – and this could cost them all but a tiny fraction of Latino support not just now, but for many decades. If they were to shift to a moderate immigration policy, Latino voters would not be closed off to them.

Imagine it’s the 60s and I’m talking to Republican leaders – “if you institute the Southern Strategy, you’ll get the white racist voters, but you’ll lose black voters for many decades.” Now, it’s a similar issue, in my view, with respect to Latino voters. With moderation, the GOP might not lose Latino voters for generations – they might be able to keep 30% or so and grow that slowly. But if they give in to the anti-immigrant nuts like Steve King, they’ll lose Latino voters for a long, long time. And the only ones they’ll win are the extreme anti-immmigrants.

9

Stop showing hatred, xenophobia, racism, sexism, cowardice, and fear, and it’s amazing how many people might start listening to the rest of the message.

10

This is Poisoning the Well.

11

To try to head this off before this becomes a political debate, I think the math would enhance the Democratic vote by several million votes in the short run, but maybe not more beyond a decade or two.
Still, several million extra votes is huge.

12

I think this branding is already there, but it doesn’t have to be permanent. It’s there because the hateful voices are not getting shouted down within the Republican party. People inside the party either ignore that the tone is hateful or argue that SOME Republicans might believe X but that it shouldn’t tarnish the rest of the party.

But, you know, it tarnishes the rest of the party. I’ll use an analogy of… a party! You just met some people and they invite you to a party. You go to the party and some loudmouth there is spouting racist things and everyone else is just standing there. Chances are, you’re going to feel that the people at the party are supporting or at least tolerating the racist speaker. If, on the other hand, everyone was shouting back and telling him to get out, you wouldn’t feel that way.

13

Why would illegal immigrants, if given citizenship through a jointly passed Democrat+Republican initiative, choose to vote Republican?

14

Because they might oppose abortion? They might want laissez-faire capitalism? They might support other Republican policies?

15

Not really. You think that Hispanics and Latinos vote for Democrats because they are inherently liberal. I think they vote for Democrats because they perceive the Republican party as hateful racists and that if they did not perceive the Republicans that way they might be/would be open to hearing the rest of the Republican message. The immigration fight, then, becomes a proxy for many H/L voters for the ideologies of the parties.

It’s a given that once you embrace a party for whatever reason, you become more likely to support the other things that party stands for. You can see that in the black community, where very socially conservative, very highly religious people end up voting for Democrats not because they agree with the Democrats on everything, but because the Republican party is tainted (not irrevocably) with racism. Then religious orgs that would otherwise be standing against SSM end up ambivalent or with lukewarm support because that’s where the party is. (Not all orgs, obviously.)

16

This thread is actually kind of funny. I guess the OP thinks that Republican positions are so incredibly awful that no one could be convinced to vote for them.

17

Why wouldn’t they opt for the other party, that supports affirmative action, a higher minimum wage, and emphasizes welfare and a social net?

18

Why wouldn’t everyone?

19

We’re referring to illegal immigrants and the Hispanic voting bloc. Not the whole electorate.

20

Everyone should, but some people disagree with these policies and/or put more emphasis on other issues.