Immigration Rates to Drop? Political Repercussions Tough to Predict

I found this article fascinating, given the potential implications it has for future immigration in this country.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/don-t-fence-them-in.html

Reflecting on it further, it seems to me that this could spell tremendous changes for the Democratic party. There probably aren't 10 congressmen/women who won't flop on 90% of the issues in order to save their jobs, so I would never predict the death of a party. That said, if immigration drops, not only will that be a tremendous blow to the economy, but it could push the Democrats in directions they've never gone before. The three biggest questions I have in that regard are...

1) Will Hispanics be a lock for future democrats. I live in a Hispanic state, and though I've seen a strong trend toward Democrats, Hispanics have never struck me as an ideal fit in the Democratic party. For one, they tend to be very conservative on social issues. They value family a lot. They have lots of kids. Statistically speaking, among whites, these are strongly correlated indicators of political conservatism. Also, most Hispanic immigrants do well economically (or at least their children do well), and there isn't the same level of social injustice/victim mentality/(insert pet cause) that seems to have wed the black community so closely to the Democrats.
2) Will Hispanic birthrates stay the same or drop? If they do drop, will there be a breakdown along political lines like we see in the white community? In 2000 George Bush famously carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates. In 2004, there was a 0.86 correlation factor with Bush's vote.
http://www.isteve.com/2000_Bush_Won_19_States_with_Highest_White_Birthrates.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/dec/20/0004/
3) Given the current fecundity of white democrats (or rather the lack of it), how would their party change in the future in order to attract new members (assuming Hispanics are not a lock for the party). Democrats are fans of big government and, specifically, big social programs. Ironically, most of these end up being generational wealth transfer programs which are then dependent on both immigration and the increased fecundity of Republicans to maintain. If social programs are cut for Republicans, it will hurt, but many of them will be able to get by with the support of their social support networks (primarily family and religious). They likely won't starve to death. Democrats have much lower fertility rates and don't go to church nearly as often. If social programs are cut for them, they are more likely to be totally screwed. This is doubly true for older Democrats (at least those I know).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

All of this is highly speculative. It is most probable that the political divisions of today will be drastically altered in another 20 years, but it's fun entertainment for a political junkie like myself.

Greene Wins SC Primary:

Alvin Greene is one audacious candidate, no matter how you slice it. Also, either South Carolina Democrats are really stupid or Vic Rawls is one hated politician/ asshole to lose to an unknown by 18%. I've written in Mickey Mouse or voted for a relative unknown when I didn't like any of the frontrunners, but I never thought any of my Hail Mary votes would actually win. Maybe Democrats in SC just don't like ugly, old white guys 1 year away from collecting SS checks representing them. Does anybody else have a better theory on why Greene won the SC primary? I find the whole situation incredibly amusing myself. That's partly because I can't imagine the GOP hijacking this election at the ballot box, so it strikes me that the dems shot themselves in their own foot. A coordinated get out the vote effort is too difficult to manage statewide without garnering tons of attention and negative publicity. Every party has plants in the other party and people on their opponents e-mail lists, plus plenty of people on their own side who despise dirty politics enough to blab to the press and buck a move toward sabotage. An 18% statewide differential translates into a massive get out the vote effort, if that was the driver in this election. At least, if some GOP operatives did engineer this, they will be easily found out and likely offered a job in Harry Reid's campaign. He could use that kind of miracle working.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2544

Anyway, if reports like the below turn out to be true, it wouldn't be funny. I'm just skeptical people would be so stupid as to actually rig an election that would receive such scrutiny. It's practically a guaranteed jail term, as it should be.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html