Election 2016

Mexicans for Trump? "It's a New Mundo."

Despite nativist positions, Trump pulls more Latinos than any of the other GOP candidates.


Can Donald Trump, who kicked off his campaign for president last June by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, win over Latinos—especially Mexicans?

Sure, why not, writes Ruben Navarette, Jr. at The Daily Beast:

The relationship between U.S.-born Latinos and Latino immigrants, and even between foreign-born Latinos who have been naturalized and Latino immigrants, is complicated to say the least. There is an ambivalence there.

As a Mexican-American, I can tell you that many Mexican-Americans think that Mexican immigrants who come to the United States illegally are taking advantage—of a porous border, of the social-services safety net, of loopholes in immigration law, and of an insatiable appetite among U.S. employers for cheap and dependable labor. And they're not wrong about that.

Navarette says you'll find Latinos, especially Mexicans, for Trump in "red states like Texas and Arizona, and the battleground state of Colorado. There's a lot they like about Trump, including his independence, plainspokenness, success in business, and disdain for political correctness. They see him as strong and resolute, and not having to cater to moneyed interests since he is self-funding his campaign. And either they don't buy the idea that he is anti-Mexican, or they don't care."

More here.

Navarette points to a poll in January that found 

Donald Trump is the favorite among Latino Republicans, according to new polling results revealed to The Post.

Thirty eight percent favor Trump, followed by Cuban American Ted Cruz (15 percent), Jeb Bush (14 percent) and Cuban American Marco Rubio (8 percent), according to the national poll conducted by the Beck Research for the American Federation for Children.

Of course, it's true that there aren't all that many "Latino Republicans" in the country. Running candidates such as Mitt Romney, who pushed for self-deportation by illegal Mexicans during the 2012 election, will do that to a party. So will constantly talking about building walls on the U.S. border with Mexico, tripling the Border Patrol, stepping up immigration laws, and the like.

But it's also true that as any broadly or even narrowly defined ethnic group gets exponentially larger (as Latinos are), they will spread out over the political and ideological spectrum. And at some point, the GOP will acknowledge demographic shifts that will force them to at least reach out to Hispanics even if the party doesn't change any of its positions. The GOP risks going down the tubes nationally if it relies solely on the white vote, which is shrinking as a percentage of the overall total. As Karl Rove has noted, this is not impossible. Greg Abbott won 50 percent of the Latino vote while running for governor of Texas and George W. Bush and Rick Perry cracked the 40 percent margin in various of their state-wide elections. 

Here's relevant data from Pew Research on the topic:


NEXT: Trump Threatens Suit Against Cruz, but Don't Have Sympathy for the Senator

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s true. My in laws are legal immigrants and they fucking hate illegal immigrants. Also I gather all of South America hates each other due to Futbol or something.

    1. They spent all that money to become legal, and I hate them all because soccer is dumb.

        1. I hate to go all John here, but she has the figure of a little boy.

            1. Somewhere in between those two women is the perfect girl. Or me.

    2. Ever seen a second-generation Jamaican-American or Haitian-American get into it with a 15th generation Nigerian-American or Congolese-American? I’m pretty sure the latter don’t even consider the former to actually be African-American.

      1. I thought it was the reverse, Jamaicans don’t want to be considered African. (At least the first few generations)

      2. No. Do you mean slave descendant blacks don’t like immigrant blacks?

      3. I’m pretty sure the latter don’t even consider the former to actually be African-American.

        That’s because they’re not.

    3. My in laws are legal immigrants and they fucking hate illegal immigrants.

      So much this. Hispanics who are here legally are generally not big fans at all of the illegals, for a variety of reasons.

      True fact: when I lived about 90 miles from the Rio Grande in Texas, there were very few illegals around. They were much easier to find in Dallas and in North Texas (never mind Chicago, for crying out loud). We had plenty of Hispanics, but they were mostly “Tejanos” whose families went back generations. They created what you might call a “hostile immigration environment” for the illegals, who just kept heading north for the most part.

    4. Tell us more about your exotic wife.

      1. She is Peruvian and Guatamalan with a great sense of humor. Although not a libertarian, she is libertarianish. But we usually don’t discuss religion or politics.

        1. But we usually don’t discuss religion or politics.

          Should be in the short list of rules for a happy marriage.

    5. My observation among the immigrants in my family as well. More or less summed up: “I did things legally, why should these people be rewarded for breaking the law?”

      Every time Gillespie or other open-border advocates paint hostility towards illegal immigration as “anti-immigration”, I think of this and call bullshit. They’re anti-breaking-the-law. Considering that many immigrants come from countries where obeying the law is for some people but not others*, I think it’s perfectly-understandable that they want the law enforced consistently.

      * Yes, it happens here, too (I’m looking at you, Hillary) but in the Third World, it’s way, waaaaay worse.

  2. OT: news to warm a cold Balko’s heart. And anti box-punch, if you will.

    1. + 1 John Voight’s Pencil

    2. anti box-punch, if you will.

      Now I want a juice box…and am aroused.

      1. Oh, dear

        1. Doesn’t take much for any Florida man to become aroused. Even the Mennonites on Sarasota beaches aren’t safe.

  3. Lots of truth about Latino citizens hating on immigrants. There’s a woman running for Congress from Houston who’s anti-illegal as anyone else. Her name? Maria Espinoza. Granted, I like the sound of many of her issues, but 6-9 clearly fit better with Trump than many other candidates.

    1. I think Democrats underestimate the amount of legal immigrants who are genuinely pissed at illegal immigration, and the funny part is that it is those legal immigrants than can vote, unlike the illegals they pander to.

      1. unlike the illegals they pander to

        So naive. Its kind of endearing, actually.

        1. Yeah if dead folks still manage to vote then you can bet illegals are doing it too.

      2. Amnesty and citizenship to illegals really is a huge “fuck you” to every who went through the very difficult legal process.

        1. I get that opinion, but I disagree. It’s like all the stupid hazing people continue to do, because they had It done to them. You didn’t appreciate the capricious and expensive hoop jumping, so why insist it continue?

          1. There’s a difference between wanting to reform the law and wanting to reward people that break it. You can want the city to fix traffic on a road that jams up without feeling inclined to let in the assholes that run up the shoulder and then try to cut back in farther up.

        2. Legalizing marijuana is a really huge “fuck you” to everyone who went through hell for pot use during the drug war.

          Making the DMV more efficient is a really huge “fuck you” to everyone who had to put up with the long wait of the DMV beforehand.

          Expanding the vote to universal suffrage instead of only allowing landowners to vote is a huge “fuck you” to those people who went through the lengthy process to work and save to be able to afford land to achieve the right to vote.

          And so on.

          Just because some people will feel shafted that they had to deal with horrible bureaucracy before the bureaucracy was fixed or removed doesn’t mean that we should keep all of our horrible bureaucracy.

          1. I think you are taking a reason why illegals aren’t popular with Hispanics who are legal residents, as a justification for not reforming immigration.

            They are two different issues.

          2. There is a huge difference between reforming a broken immigration system and unequally enforcing the law for political reasons.

            If say they decided to end the drug war, but only for white people, do you think blacks would be happier by that news or would they get pissed off?

            No matter how fucked up a law is, it’s a huge fuck you to only enforce it on certain people.

  4. So can we do away with the whole myth that Republicans can’t do anything about illegal immigration or else they’ll lose the Latino vote?

    Actually I always found the belief that Hispanics just automatically support illegal immigration offensive, and a bit racist.

    1. The whole of the lefty perspective is based on racism and collectivism. That’s their entire ideology. Put people into neat little boxes and require them all to think and act the same way.

      1. Yeah I guess I can’t expect much better from progressives.

  5. Can Donald Trump, who kicked off his campaign for president last June by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, win over Latinos?especially Mexicans?

    I’ll donate $50 dollars to the Reason Foundation if Nick posts a link to the quote where Trump called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.

    1. No shit. Way to push the truthy proggy meme, there, Reason.

      Donald talks a lot, so I’m sure he said it more than once in various ways, but this is what I think Nick is misrepresenting:

      When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

      IOW, Trump is saying that the problem with illegal immigration is that it selects for bad actors. Kinda the opposite of saying every single Mexican is a rapist.


      1. He never specifically referred to illegal immigrants. You can’t call other people out for putting words in his mouth and then put your own words to make him look better. Even if he was, that’s it’s absurd to characterize them as mostly drug-dealing rapist criminals, with a half-assed “oh yeah, some might not be complete shitbags” added on at the end. If you think the reason for the backlash to that quote is that people didn’t hear what he actually said, you are sorely mistaken.

        1. He never specifically referred to illegal immigrants.

          Nope. He also made it crystal clear that he wasn’t referring to all Mexicans, as Nick implied.

          1. He also made it crystal clear that he wasn’t referring to all Mexicans, as Nick implied.

            Now who is imputing things to people that they never actually said?

          2. If you want to get technical, Nick never said Trump called all Mexicans rapists. Just that he called Mexicans rapists. Which is literally true. You can’t attack Nick for what you he’s supposedly implying and then refuse to hold Trump to the same standard.

            1. What is the difference between saying “Mexicans” and “all Mexicans”? None that I can see. And since we know Trump did not mean “all Mexicans”, lets endeavor to interpret things in a way that fosters greater understanding, something both you and Nick are failing to do (on purpose).

              1. Because, technically, “Mexicans” could mean “all Mexicans” or it could mean “more than one Mexican.” And Trump did literally call multiple Mexicans rapists. So in that sense Nick’s statement is not incorrect.

                “And since we know Trump did not mean “all Mexicans”, lets endeavor to interpret things in a way that fosters greater understanding”

                I don’t know why you (and other Trump defenders) seem to think that as long as he didn’t refer to all Mexicans, then there’s no reason anyone should take issue with his comments.

        2. Why don’t you get Trump’s nuance, Calidissident?

          1. What nuance is there supposed to be that makes his comments ok? Even under the most charitable interpretation, I still think it was uncalled for, inaccurate, and despicable (as well as a cynical ploy to get the attention of angry GOP voters, which has worked wonderfully for him so far). And despite the attempt to deny it by some people in this thread, most Latinos feel the same way.

            1. Apparently they don’t – see the article above.

              1. The article is about one poll that finds that a minority of Latino Republicans would vote for Trump. That tells us nothing about the broader population. There is absolutely no debate, Trump is tremendously unpopular among Latinos.


                1. regardless, you don’t have much evidence it has anything to do with a particular statement. it could have to do with the fact that he’s running as a Republican and his negatives are high among many populations.

                  1. Really? That’s what you’re going with? Why then is there such a huge gap between the white and Latino populations?

                    And if Trump is only unpopular because he’s a Republican, then why is his net favorability rating among Latinos 44 points lower than it is for any other GOP presidential candidate?


                    1. I don’t know why, and neither do you. that’s kind of the point.

                    2. “Seventy-nine percent of the 1,400 Hispanic voters said that Trump’s comments were offensive; 71% had an unfavorable opinion of the candidate. A healthy majority of 61% said that his derogatory remarks were Trump’s views alone and did not reflect his party’s. Only 7% said they would vote for him, far fewer than the 38% who preferred former governor Jeb Bush and the 22% who preferred Senator Marco Rubio.”


                      Maybe this is all a coincidence though.

                      Also, I live in a majority Latino neighborhood in a majority Latino city, and a majority of my friends are Latino. I can get a pretty good feel for how they feel about him without even looking up a poll.

        3. I think it’s patently obvious he was talking about illegal immigrants.

          1. I don’t see how it’s that obvious. Legal immigrants are “sent” from Mexico just as much as illegal ones. I also don’t really see how that makes it ok. Not liking illegal immigration doesn’t mean you have to (falsely) characterize them as being largely violent drug-dealing rapists. You’re also kidding yourself if you don’t think that a lot of legal Latino immigrants and native-born Latinos aren’t going to interpret that statement as indicative of broader anti-Mexican/anti-Latino sentiment.

            1. well it was obvious to most people.

              “In his July 6 statement, Trump clarified that he was referring to cases where undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes or smuggle drugs.”

              1. So because he clarified it afterwards, that means it was obvious at the time? You still haven’t addressed the main point of my argument either. Whether he was referring to all immigrants or just illegals doesn’t matter much.

      2. Exactly the quote i recalled.

    2. Oh come on, next you’ll be telling me that the Republicans didn’t really want to ban all birth control.

    3. about a dozen times a day, he says he loves Mexicans. and why wouldn’t he? Mexicans are great people. now I’m craving Pollo Regio.

  6. But what do the millenials think?!?!

    Oh, they rather like Trump. Also Bernie Sanders, who is fairly hawkish on border issues.

    Huh. I guess the world wouldn’t end if someone decided to address border policy in a way that the staff of Reason and CATO don’t like.

    1. “Oh, they rather like Trump. Also Bernie Sanders, who is fairly hawkish on border issues.”

      Not at all surprising the generation that thinks they are entitled to jobs just because they have a degree in “liberal arts” also thinks its entitled to protection from workforce competition.

      1. No argument from me. Hell, I want more immigration: I’d just like Reason to do something productive and stop confusing “hysterical bitching about open borders and gays” with “original and new content”.


    2. Not sure this qualifies as “rather liking Trump.” I feel like people have a habit of defending Trump by cherrypicking polls that usually identify a small pro-Trump subset (usually a portion of Republicans) of a population that isn’t supposed to like Trump, thus disproving the narrative against him. When a full look at the data generally indicates that those groups really do dislike Trump.


      1. Which is why I included Sanders, the other candidate capturing millenial votes in this election. Both are to the right of their party’s stance on immigration, and neither has been particularly penalized for it by millenials. Sanders has a hard time with minorities, but that’s much more to do with Clinton allegiances and Sanders’ hard-left politics than his border stance.

        1. Fair enough, although I would have phrased that differently. Sanders has tried to play up his pro-immigration bona fides in this race, though. At the debate he said he’d be willing to issue amnesty through executive order if Congress didn’t go along with it, and in an earlier debate he defended his opposition to immigration reform in the 2000s on the grounds that he opposed a specific bill for having anti-worker provisions (Trevor Noah showed this wasn’t why he opposed it, using clips of him from that time period, but I digress).

  7. 30-40% seems like “many” to me.

  8. “Greg Abbott won 50 percent of the Latino vote while running for governor of Texas”

    How much of that was Abbott and how much of it was Latino Catholics voting against a one-issue candidate whose one issue was abortion?

  9. The people in this thread pushing the “legal immigrants hate illegals, so it’s no surprise they like Trump” narrative might want to pump the brakes on that. A minority of Latino Republicans saying they’d vote for him in one poll doesn’t say much about his broader popularity among Latinos. And there is no debate – he is deeply, deeply unpopular among Latinos.


    (There’s a lot of poll/survey information in that article, including one that goes against the one in this article. According to a different poll, Latino Republicans are much less likely than white Republicans to support Trump, and Rubio outpolled him among that demographic)

    And before anyone argues that it’s just cause he’s a Republican – Trump scored a -51 favorability rating among Latinos in a Gallup poll where no other GOP presidential candidate scored worse than -7


  10. “it’s also true that as any broadly or even narrowly defined ethnic group gets exponentially larger (as Latinos are), they will spread out over the political and ideological spectrum”

    I have been assured that the Hispanic birth rate is a demographic time bomb that will destroy any opposition to the Progressive Agenda within my lifetime

    1. it’s also true that as any broadly or even narrowly defined ethnic group gets exponentially larger (as Latinos are), they will spread out over the political and ideological spectrum

      How big before this happens? Because it sure doesn’t seem to have happened with black community, which still votes at least 80% Dem, decade after decade.

      1. I never said i agreed with Nick’s demographic theory of “bigger means mo’politically-diverse”

        it may be true for hispanics (there has actually always been a strong conservative-streak among latinos -), but i don’t think its necessarily a rule for any given racial/ethnic collective. If the point has any merit to it, its not because “the collective” is bigger, but because the collective no longer exists … because people define themselves as ‘american’ first rather than by their heritage.

        as a good libertarian, i tend to dislike collectivizing – unless the subject is millenials, of course. who are the worst

        1. unless the subject is millenials, of course. who are the worst

          You might want to get your eyes checked, old man; you misplaced your period.

  11. Hispanics want to Make America Great Again?.

  12. Greg Abbott won 50 percent of the Latino vote while running for governor of Texas

    Nope. teh Googles says he got 44% of the Latino vote en route to kicking Wendy Davis’ sorry okole.

  13. “Despite anti-welfare rhetoric, candidate x polls favorably with blacks.”

    Hey, non-Hispanic people: apparently you think it’s not fucking insulting to assume American citizens of a certain background only vote based on how unrelated illegal entrants are going to be hypothetically treated.

  14. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.