Best GOP position on immigration/DREAM for primary AND general?

[Likely Voter]

In the post 2012 GOP "autopsy" there was only one policy recommendation - embrace comprehensive immigration reform. The only GOP candidate to win the popular vote since GW Bush in 1988 was Bush Jr. in 2004 who got 40% of the Hispanic vote, and he supported comprehensive immigration reform (but didn't have a GOP primary to worry about). But 4 years later McCain had to renounce his own support for it during the primaries, but he still lost general (with big dip in Hispanic and Asian support). In 2012 you can say that Mitt Romney used his opposition to immigration reform and any kind of DREAM act or benefits to immigrants to win the GOP nomination (lets not forget 'self-deportation').

So how does a GOPer thread the needle? What is the right position on immigration and DREAM Act for 2016? Is there any position that could get a GOPer back into the 40% range of Hispanics and Asians for the general (what is needed to win) that could survive the primaries?

 

[SPC]

(40%-28%)*10%=1.2%
Romney's margin of defeat: 3.9%

Republicans can pander to the Hispanic vote all they like, it will not be sufficient to win. While it might not be polite to suggest within mixed company, the fact that minorities are becoming an increasing share of the American population (and consequently, perceived recipients of government benefits) will inherently drive an increasing fraction of the "white" population toward opposition to government benefits. While a successful long-term strategy would inevitably entail appealing to an increasingly large minority group, I see no reason to suggest that swaying Hispanic Republican votes to unprecedented highs would be more achievable than swaying White Republican votes to unprecedented highs, and general election victory is actually a mathematical possibility with the latter strategy.

Thus, in the short run the best Republican platform on immigration would be that which most endears them to white voters. Of course, white voters are likely to be protectionist and oppose immigration to the extent that they believe it is harming their interests, and thus the strategy of implausibly painting illegal immigrants as welfare queens may be effective (in reality, legal immigration ought to be the target of Republican animus, although that's would be a politically suicidal position to take.) In the long run, encouraging Hispanics to assimilate into the "white" category may be the safest position to take for long-term survival, which is difficult to the extent that legal Hispanics feel greater kinship toward their illegal counterparts than to whites. However, I suspect that such sentiment is vastly overrated, and any effort to blur the difference between the two categories (as amnesty would do) would be vastly counterproductive toward that goal.

[IceSpear]

(40%-28%)*10%=1.2%
Romney's margin of defeat: 3.9%

Republicans can pander to the Hispanic vote all they like, it will not be sufficient to win. While it might not be polite to suggest within mixed company, the fact that minorities are becoming an increasing share of the American population (and consequently, perceived recipients of government benefits) will inherently drive an increasing fraction of the "white" population toward opposition to government benefits. While a successful long-term strategy would inevitably entail appealing to an increasingly large minority group, I see no reason to suggest that swaying Hispanic Republican votes to unprecedented highs would be more achievable than swaying White Republican votes to unprecedented highs, and general election victory is actually a mathematical possibility with the latter strategy.

Thus, in the short run the best Republican platform on immigration would be that which most endears them to white voters. Of course, white voters are likely to be protectionist and oppose immigration to the extent that they believe it is harming their interests, and thus the strategy of implausibly painting illegal immigrants as welfare queens may be effective (in reality, legal immigration ought to be the target of Republican animus, although that's would be a politically suicidal position to take.) In the long run, encouraging Hispanics to assimilate into the "white" category may be the safest position to take for long-term survival, which is difficult to the extent that legal Hispanics feel greater kinship toward their illegal counterparts than to whites. However, I suspect that such sentiment is vastly overrated, and any effort to blur the difference between the two categories (as amnesty would do) would be vastly counterproductive toward that goal.

Demographics have ceilings and floors. It's going to be very tough for the GOP to hold a Democrat (especially a white one) under the 39% that Obama got in 2012.

[SPC]

(40%-28%)*10%=1.2%
Romney's margin of defeat: 3.9%

Republicans can pander to the Hispanic vote all they like, it will not be sufficient to win. While it might not be polite to suggest within mixed company, the fact that minorities are becoming an increasing share of the American population (and consequently, perceived recipients of government benefits) will inherently drive an increasing fraction of the "white" population toward opposition to government benefits. While a successful long-term strategy would inevitably entail appealing to an increasingly large minority group, I see no reason to suggest that swaying Hispanic Republican votes to unprecedented highs would be more achievable than swaying White Republican votes to unprecedented highs, and general election victory is actually a mathematical possibility with the latter strategy.

Thus, in the short run the best Republican platform on immigration would be that which most endears them to white voters. Of course, white voters are likely to be protectionist and oppose immigration to the extent that they believe it is harming their interests, and thus the strategy of implausibly painting illegal immigrants as welfare queens may be effective (in reality, legal immigration ought to be the target of Republican animus, although that's would be a politically suicidal position to take.) In the long run, encouraging Hispanics to assimilate into the "white" category may be the safest position to take for long-term survival, which is difficult to the extent that legal Hispanics feel greater kinship toward their illegal counterparts than to whites. However, I suspect that such sentiment is vastly overrated, and any effort to blur the difference between the two categories (as amnesty would do) would be vastly counterproductive toward that goal.

Demographics have ceilings and floors. It's going to be very tough for the GOP to hold a Democrat (especially a white one) under the 39% that Obama got in 2012.

Is there any reason to believe that a Republican getting more than 40% of the Hispanic vote and holding Democrats under 36% of the White vote will be any easier than holding the Democrats under 35% of the White vote?

[Likely Voter]

It is not just Hispanics but also Asians. In 2016 it is likely that combined they will account for 15% of the vote. And more importantly both groups have shown a much larger range of swing than Whites and Blacks.

Here is the GOP vote share for each group in last 4 elections...

YEAR    W   B   H   A
2000   55   9   35   41
2004   58   11   44   43
2008   55   4   31   35
2012   59   6   27   26

So even with Romney's pedal to the metal focus on white voters, they could only squeak out 59%, more than Bush Jr. who won in 2004! Even in 1988 when Bush Sr. won in a landslide with race-baiting Willie Horton ads, he only got 60% of whites. So I really don't see how the GOP can just write off non-whites and assume they can keep running up the score with whites in the mid 60s. Especially against Hillary who is...um...white.

Clearly Hispanics and Asians have shown they are true swing voters, or at least they were. The GOP is risking turning them into a solid block for the Dems (just look at what has happened to the GOP in California post Pete Wilson and Prop 187 in 1994, since then GOP vote share among Hispanics in CA has remained in the 20s, Reagan won 45% of CA Hispanics in 1980).

So getting back to the OP point, how can a GOPer thread the needle and be for immigration reform for the general but somehow survive the GOP primary? 

[SPC]

It is not just Hispanics but also Asians. In 2016 it is likely that combined they will account for 15% of the vote. And more importantly both groups have shown a much larger range of swing than Whites and Blacks.

Here is the GOP vote share for each group in last 4 elections...

YEAR    W   B   H   A
2000   55   9   35   41
2004   58   11   44   43
2008   55   4   31   35
2012   59   6   27   26

So even with Romney's pedal to the metal focus on white voters, they could only squeak out 59%, more than Bush Jr. who won in 2004! Even in 1988 when Bush Sr. won in a landslide with race-baiting Willie Horton ads, he only got 60% of whites. So I really don't see how the GOP can just write off non-whites and assume they can keep running up the score with whites in the mid 60s. Especially against Hillary who is...um...white.

Clearly Hispanics and Asians have shown they are true swing voters, or at least they were. The GOP is risking turning them into a solid block for the Dems (just look at what has happened to the GOP in California post Pete Wilson and Prop 187 in 1994, since then GOP vote share among Hispanics in CA has remained in the 20s, Reagan won 45% of CA Hispanics in 1980).

So getting back to the OP point, how can a GOPer thread the needle and be for immigration reform for the general but somehow survive the GOP primary? 

First of all, appealing to Hispanics and Asians does not necessarily entail the same strategy. See the affirmative action debate for example. Second, Hispanics constitute 10% of the electorate with 17% range, while Asians constitute 3% of the electorate with 15% range. Adding these two together gives 2.2% of the total electorate as swingable votes. On the other hand, while the white vote is certainly more rigid historically, having a 4% range with 72% of the electorate gives 2.9% of the total electorate as swingable votes. If one is going to argue that the GOP cannot continue to pander to white voters since they are approaching their historic ceiling with whites, one could use the same argument that trying to get above ~40% with Hispanics and Asians is futile. The difference is that the former strategy actually has a chance of being successful.