“The biggest problem is we are not asking them for their vote,” said Dr. Julie Martinez Ortega, vice president of  policy and advocacy for PowerPac, a progressive political action committee.  Ortega conducted a poll of over 2,600 randomly selected Hispanic registered voters.  According to the poll, 57 percent of Latino registered voters said Democrats best represent their views on social issues like same-sex marriage, religion and abortion, and 57 percent say Democrats best represent their views on jobs, economy and immigration.

And though Texas is considered a “red” state, only 23 percent of Latinos said they generally vote Republican, whereas 52 percent said they generally vote Democrat and 16 percent say they vote Independent.

One of the reasons why Republicans are still winning elections by about a million votes is that there are over 3 million Latinos “sitting on the sidelines,” according to Democratic state representative Trey Martinez Fischer and founder of One Texas PAC.   There are over 2 million Latinos in Texas not registered to vote, he says, and another million mostly Hispanic registered voters who are not voting.

Yet one of the poll’s findings was that only 54 percent of Latinos recall being contacted by a campaign in the last presidential election. “When pretty much half of Latinos didn’t even get a piece of mail, we have a problem,” said Martinez Ortega.  She added that while a third of Texas Latinos who voted for Obama also voted for conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz, about a third of Latinos who voted for Senator Cruz did not know he was a Republican, according to the poll’s findings.  ”Here in Texas we didn’t make a concerted effort to educate Latinos on who Ted Cruz really is,” said Martinez Ortega.

Texas Republican Joshua Treviño takes issue with the Democrats’ contention that more Latino voters would turn Texas blue. “This is the old trope that gets trotted out, that demographic change in the state will go Democrat, and you hear this a lot these days from them,” says Treviño, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and is currently vice president of communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “While there are partisan tendencies among groups, the fact is that as affluence and social integration occurs, political pluralism increases,” he says.

Treviño adds it is not a “safe assumption” that more Latino voters will translate to increased Democratic numbers and Democratic elected officials, though he does say current Hispanic voter participation does not represent the proportion of Latinos in Texas.

But Texas Democrats say a focus on 6 key counties in the state where the majority of Latinos reside can make a big difference in increased voter registration, turnout — and future Democratic victories.

“Some look at my district and think it should be functioning as a Republican district,” says Senator Wendy Davis, who represents an area that is 29 percent Latino, 19 percent African-American and 47.6 percent non-Hispanic white.  ”But we’ve demonstrated that by talking and connecting with these voters — it will happen,” Davis said.  She adds that while many areas have been redistricted as “purely Democrat” or “purely Republican,” the strategy is to take a district approach and apply it statewide — “focus on places where you have the biggest potential gain,” says Davis.

Democrat Martinez Fischer stated he is not concerned whether Texas turns blue in 2016 or 2020 — “the key is not to be fast, but to be right,” he said.

This week a high-profile Latino Republican, the former head of Hispanic outreach for Florida’s RNC, publicly left the party.  For Pablo Pantoja, the straw that broke the camel’s, or in this case the elephant’s, back was the Heritage Foundation’s anti-immigrant report and its co-author’s public defense of Latinos as a group having low IQ scores.  In his public farewell letter Pantoja references the general harshness of the Republican rhetoric toward immigrants, then points to a specific racist exchange at this year’s Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), and concludes with a rejection of the likes of Dr. Jason Richwine (author of the Heritage study) as a voice for the GOP.  To sum up his rationale, Pantoja simply states that his former party had resorted to “intolerance and hate.”

He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.

Another high-profile Republican departure occurred close to two years ago, half way across the country in Arizona.  Dee Dee Garcia Blase had helped establish the Somos Republicans, a national organization for Latino Republicans based out of Arizona.  But in the wake of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 she also publicly rejected her party.  Though a fiscal and social conservative, she simply could not synthesize the GOP’s anti-immigrant rhetoric into her politics.  So she left the Republican Party and Somos Republicans and became officially “unaffiliated.”  Not too long after her departure the organization itself, Somos Republicans, took a similar route, officially abandoned the GOP and became Somos Independents.

The departures of Pantoja and Garcia Blase made the headlines because they were public partisan figures.  However, thousands of other Latinos have taken the same path of migrating out of the GOP.  Their decision is just not public, but rather taken in the privacy of a voting booth.

The out migration is especially stark when we compare the most recent presidential election with George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.  The 2004 election was the Republican Latino high water mark.  At that time half of Latinos identified as being Democrats, 27 percent Republican, and 24 percent Independent.  Democrats clearly were the preferred party of Latinos, but slightly more than half did not identify as Democrats.  Moreover, in his re-election, Bush received 40 percent of the Latino vote.

Fast forward to President Obama’s re-election.  In 2012 the percentage of Latinos identifying as Democrats jumped to 57 percent and the number of Republicans decreased by half with only 14 percent of Latinos claiming a GOP affiliation.  The group that had the least movement was Independents or those unaffiliated.  In 2012 they rose to 29 percent.  But the biggest shift came in presidential vote choice, with Romney receiving only 27 percent of the Latino vote.

The correlation between the GOP’s Latino communications and outreach strategy is linear.  The harsher and more racially negative the messaging, the fewer Latinos will stand by your label and vote for you.  It’s not a complicated concept.

The Republican National Committee has publicly discussed its intention to not just retain but actively recruit Latinos.  However, mixed messaging will not staunch the migration.  Being a Latino-friendly party will require all segments of the party, not just the moderate ones, to put aside harsh rhetoric, or what Pablo Pantoja pointed to as intolerance.  No one wants to stick around where they’re not welcome.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin.

Pantoja, who was recognized for his service as a member of the National Guard in Iraq and Kuwait after 9/11, was Florida outreach director for the RNC from April to around June of 2012. Pantoja sent a letter to his friend Kevin Cate, a Democratic strategist and editor of the site Florida Nation, explaining his party switch.  Cate then made the letter public with Pantoja’s permission.

“Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party. It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today.” Pantoja took issue with what he called the “racist and eugenics-based innuendo” of some of the rhetoric surrounding immigrants, alluding, though not by name, to Jason Richwine, who wrote a dissertation about Hispanic immigrants and lower IQs.

RELATED: Jason Richwine on Hispanic IQ comments: ‘I don’t apologize for any of the things I said”

Today, Republicans brushed off Pantoja’s decision.

“People switch parties all the time,” says Republican consultant Danny Vargas.  ”I remember a slew of Democrats who switched parties a few years ago, and plus, he was not at a high level in the party,” Vargas adds.

And a Republican strategist who wishes to remain unidentified says Pantoja had sought work with RNC officials a few months ago.   ”This is a personal decision he is making, but if you go from asking the RNC for a job to a public statement saying you’re switching parties, then it looks like you are not sure of what you are doing,” says the Republican strategist.

But Pantoja says seeking job opportunities and looking for personal growth “has nothing to do with it.  It’s not my goal or intent to attack a specific organization or people, I am talking about the overall culture of intolerance,” he states.  He says that though the RNC as well as some in the Republican leadership have been reaching out to Latino voters, some of these overtures are not welcomed among many in the Republican base.

“There are many Hispanics that cannot take a stand right now, but I can — and that is why I am doing it,” Pantoja adds.

Pantoja currently works for The Libre Initiative, a non-partisan, center-right organization espousing limited government and free enterprise.  When asked about Pantoja’s party switch, Executive Director Daniel Garza says, “we are non-partisan, and when talking to Pantoja he feels very strongly about the immigration policy and he felt compelled to talk, though he remains committed to the principles of economic freedom, free enterprise and capitalism, which is our mission.”

“We’ve had probably five or six lunches with a bunch of Republican senators standing up and looking at Rand and Mike and me and yelling at the top of their lungs — I mean really upset – why did you do this,” said Senator Cruz, referring to the letter Cruz, Rand and Lee sent to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to filibuster if need be to make sure gun control legislation did not pass.  Cruz said that the senators said, “as a result of what you did, when I go home, my constituents are yelling at me that I’ve got to stand on principle,” said Cruz.

“I mean, I’m really not making that up,” added Cruz to laughter. “I don’t even argue with them. I just sort of let them yell,” said Cruz. The Texan Senator added that in the closed-door hearings, the Senators said they would now look like a bunch of “squishes” if they voted in favor of background checks.  The vast majority of Republican Senators did not vote for background checks, and the gun control measure failed in the Senate.

Cruz credited his, Senator Paul’s and Senator Lee’s filibuster letter with mobilizing the anti-gun control “grassroots” which then pressured Republican Senators to vote against the gun background checks.

“Let me tell you something the media ain’t telling you — we’re winning,” said Cruz to cheers.

RELATED: Latino voters support gun control laws, regardless of political party

That is not the case for all Republican senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun purchases. In a recent poll, New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating went down 15 points after voting against the background checks, and another poll found lower ratings for Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. In addition, 65 percent of  Americans said in a Gallup poll released today that the Senate should have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases, while 29 percent agree with the Senate’s failure to pass the measure.

In terms of policy, however, Latino Decisions political scientist Sylvia Manzano says Cruz is right.

“Right now, Cruz raises a fair point — months after the president was re-elected, and even after the Newtown shooting, in the policy scoreboard, the Republicans won against gun control legislation,” says Manzano.

What about Cruz? While he may be ruffling many feathers — including those of Republican colleagues — Manzano says the Texan Cuban-American Tea Party Republican has been consistent.

“The voters who elected him like his style; and he plays well to that base and the national Tea Party base which feels like it doesn’t have that much representation left,” says Manzano.

But what happens afterwards?  What does a post reform political landscape look like?

The scenarios can be boiled down to three – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

First, the good–immigration disappears as a political wedge issue.

All of the components of the reform bill work as intended and we see millions of undocumented immigrants gain citizenship within a context of efficient border security and a legal immigration system seamlessly shift toward a work-based system.

Within this first scenario, immigrants, primarily Latino immigrants, are folded into America’s political system.  For example, how European immigrants assimilated into the American political system over the course of the 20^th Century.  If all goes as planned, close to ten million new voters, previously undocumented immigrants, could enter the political landscape by 2017.  Those who had been living in the shadows would not only be able to emerge from the shadows, but do so with a political voice and vote.

And the incorporation of Latinos into the political landscape does not necessarily have to be politically one-sided.  If Republicans continue to support immigration reform and if the GOP draws away from the right and moves toward the center, then some of these new immigrants may be amenable to calling the GOP home.

Next, comes the bad—immigrants live in a legalization limbo.

According to the legislation, current undocumented persons can apply for non-citizen Registered Provisional Immigration Status (RPI) status.  After ten years, RPIs can apply for legal permanent residency (LPR) but only if border and immigration enforcement has been deemed successful.  But what if enforcement is deemed unsuccessful?

The enforcement “trigger” may not be met for years or decades after its deadline.  There could be millions of RPIs living in a civic limbo.  They will be able to live in the United States, but without any of the safeguards or rights of a citizen or even legal permanent resident.  In other words, a two-tiered system could emerge of citizens and non-citizens with (RPI) status.  The status of these individuals couldn’t even be classified as that of “second class” citizens, they would merely be “provisional people.”

And finally, the ugly, the worst of both words — immigrants live in a legalization limbo and undocumented immigration reappears as an issue.

In this policy nightmare scenario, RPI status becomes indefinite because of the border enforcement trigger not being met.  But on top of that, the legal immigration system, namely the temporary visa system, does not work as planned.  The idea in reforming the current temporary visa program is that U.S. labor demands will be met by a labor supply supplemented by a temporary immigrant labor supply.  It’s Econ 101, making sure that demand is met by supply.

Currently, labor demand outstrips U.S. labor supply (both for high-skill and low-skill workers).  Moreover, labor demand is also greater than the number of available work visas.  This imbalance is the primary cause for the growth of undocumented immigration.  What if this imbalance cannot be balanced?

Under the proposed immigration reform, temporary worker supply and demand issues would be overseen by a new federal entity, the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research.  In theory, the bureau would calibrate the number of visas to ensure that in times of economic contraction fewer immigrants would be allowed in and in times of expansion, more.  For high-skilled workers a proposed range of 65,000 to 180,000 has been proposed.  Such a wide range requires careful calibration by the bureau of Immigration and Labor Market research to get the balance just right.  Otherwise, we again enter the cycle of employers ignoring legal pathways and seeking out illegal pathways for bringing in employees.

The current immigration legislation holds out the opportunity for only good coming out of the reform.  However, unintended consequences can and do arise.  In moving the legislation forward, both Republicans and Democrats will need to consider the potentially bad and ugly scenarios.  By planning for the worst, we can better ensure the best.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin.

A group of eight lawmakers, equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, planned to formally introduce the bill Tuesday, although a press event with activists, business leaders and religious groups was delayed until later in the week after the tragedy at the Boston marathon.

Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., planned to meet with President Barack Obama Tuesday to discuss the legislation with him, according to a person with knowledge of the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting. Immigration legislation is a top second-term priority for the president.

The legislation would be the culmination of months of closed-door meetings among a so-called Gang of Eight senators, including McCain, Schumer and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

Their legislation aims to strike a balance between enforcement provisions sought by Republicans, and Democratic priorities, including making citizenship widely accessible.

McCain, Rubio and other Republicans who wrote the immigration bill briefed other members of the Senate GOP caucus on its contents Monday night.

Afterward, some senators said they appreciated the briefing but still have much to learn before they can commit to supporting the legislation. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said there needs to be a focus on enforcement before anything else. And Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said he has concerns about anything that could be perceived as amnesty.

“It shows we can do deficit reduction and invest in our future,” said the Administration’s top-ranking Latina.  Under the heading “Strengthening the Economy for Latino Families,” the Administration listed several of their budget priorities: increasing preschool access through a federal tax on tobacco products, allocating $1.6 billion for high-quality infant and toddler education through Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships, and investing $15 billion in evidence-based home visiting programs to help new parents and families.

On education, the Administration’s budget calls for more funding for expanded teacher education in minority-serving institutions, as well as support programs to help minority youth prepare for college.  The Administration is asking for $12.5 billion in job training programs which would help support jobs for low-income youth and adults.

But President Obama’s proposed budget also calls for cuts in Social Security and Medicare spending, as a way to curb the deficit and gain concessions from Republicans who have called for entitlement reduction as a prerequisite for negotiation.   The Administration’s budget calls for a new way of calculating cost-of-living increases which would slow the increase in Social Security benefits and put some taxpayers into higher brackets.

Some Latino legislators and groups have expressed concern over some of these proposed cuts.

“While the president’s plan reflects a wiser approach to deficit reduction than the sequester or the House-passed budget proposal, it raises only $600 billion in revenue in exchange for $1.2 trillion in troubling cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other programs, continuing down a path of severe austerity instead of investment,” said Eric Rodriguez, Vice President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

Jason Furman, Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, said in the conference call that the President’s new proposed formulation for Social Security benefits (known as chained CPI) “was not the President’s first choice.”  He also defended some of the proposed cuts in Medicare, saying it would help bring down the cost of healthcare and protect Seniors in the long run.  Furman added the Administration would not agree to these reductions without tax increases.

On the Republican side, the President’s proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security have come under fire.   “As opposed to playing politics with entitlement reform, the president should be reaching across the aisle to strengthen and protect these programs so that we can keep our promises to current seniors and future generations.” said Texas Republican Congressman Bill Flores.

While Republicans such as Flores have criticized Social Security and Medicare proposed reductions, which benefit older Americans, the House Republican budget calls for steep reductions in Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps and Pell Grants, which would affect younger families.

The one thing which is certain, say economists, is that reductions will take place.

“Clearly, all of the budgets look at revenues in different ways, but all of them look at cuts in one fashion or another,” says economist David Molina, president of the American Society of Hispanic Economists. “At issue is not whether there will be cuts, but who is going to carry the burden of the cuts,” Molina says.

RELATED: Opinion: The sequester will disproportionately affect Latinos

Pie is part of our political speak–“as American as apple pie” or getting “a piece of the pie.”  But talk of pie is particularly useful when it comes to immigration.  Simply put, reform boils down to how you cut up the current immigration pie or if you make a bigger one.

In the last fifty years, the immigration pie has expanded.  In other words, we haven’t had to cut some folks a smaller slice in order to give others a bigger one.  At the main immigration policy junctures of 1965, 1986 and 1990, the United States has refrained from skimping on slices.  Family reunification visas and worker visas have not come at the expense of the other.  However, we are on the verge of a paradigm shift where the pie may have gotten as big as it’s going to get and the family slice may get cut into.

First, a little background on family reunification visas.  Family considerations in immigration policy have been around since immigration was first regulated in the late 1800s.  But it wasn’t until 1965 with the Hart-Cellar Act that family reunification became the centerpiece of America’s immigration policy.

The Hart Cellar Act established two classes of family visas.  The first family visa category is for the unmarried minor children or the parents of U.S. citizens.  This visa category has no cap.  The second family visa category includes adult children, brothers and sisters, and the spouses or unmarried children of green card holders.  Each of these specific family preferences has a cap attached to it.

The current round of immigration talks has revolved around the other main visa type, worker visas.  There has been a great deal of discussion of visas for individuals in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields. There has been similar attention to the need for immigrant workers at the opposite end of the skill spectrum.  Beyond agricultural workers, the U.S. finds itself in need of a wide array of low-skilled employees.  For example, with the aging of the Baby Boomers the home health care industry is growing beyond the current supply of workers.

RELATED: Immigration bill hopes to create a steady flow of agricultural workers

Both parties agree on the need for these new worker visas.  Republican and Democratic Senators have already agreed to create a new visa class, the W Visa, for low-skilled workers.  Senators from both parties have also signaled that they plan to expand the cap of the H1-B Visas for people from high-tech fields.

The Democratic and Republican Parties agree on the end—more visas for workers.  However, they differ on how to get there.  Today, the majority of immigrant visas go to family members of immigrants through the family reunification preference.  Republican lawmakers instead want to see the bulk of visas go to workers.  They want to increase the W or H1-B visas by decreasing the family visas.  In turn, Democratic lawmakers want to leave the family reunification visas in place but at the same time increase the number of work-based visas.

RELATED: Senators add high tech visas to immigration bill 

In very non-technical terms, Republicans lean toward re-slicing the current pie, while Democrats want to bake a new, bigger pie.

What Republican lawmakers like Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, have proposed is doing away with the visas for non-immediate family members.  The rationale is that the slice of those visas would go toward worker visas and the gross number of visas would remain relatively similar to current levels.

In contrast, the argument for broader family visas is that viewing the immediate family as only minor children and parents is a very Anglo view of the family and not sensitive to other cultures.  Moreover, family visa advocates ask why worker visas and family visas are mutually exclusive.

Debate over the broader family visas is not a new one.  Since it was put in place, family reunification has faced challenges.  But it seems that in the current reform package family reunification visas may have met their match.

RELATED: Religious and labor leaders push for family unity with immigration reform

The most pressing issue in the current immigration reform is normalizing the status of the 11 million undocumented persons in this country.  If Republicans can agree to placing these individuals on a path to citizenship, then perhaps their request of limiting family reunification visas may prove to be the lynchpin for agreement.  Doing away with the second class of family visas may be the lesser of two evils for immigration advocates.

Democratic lawmakers have vowed to keep the current family reunification system.  Democrats may succeed in again making the immigration pie bigger.  But they may not, in the midst of so many moving parts within a comprehensive piece of legislation and such an acrimonious political context.  If this is the case, this will mark a momentous break from immigration policy over the past half a century and reshape yet again the contours of our immigrant nation.

Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto is an NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin.

Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and secretary of state and oft-mentioned 2016 candidate for president, would beat three top GOP contenders — Florida Senator Marco Rubio, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, if the election were held today.

Clinton bests Rubio  50 to  34 percent and Ryan 50 to 38 percent. Christie, who has angered some Republicans at times for being seen as too friendly with President Obama, is most competitive with Clinton, coming in at 37 percent support to her 45 percent.

RELATED: Bipartisan group of Senators looking at early April for immigration bill

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would start a 2016 presidential campaign with enormous advantages,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “She obviously is by far the best known and her more than 20 years in the public spotlight allows her to create a very favorable impression on the American people. But it is worth noting that she had very good poll numbers in 2006 looking toward the 2008 election, before she faced a relative unknown in Barack Obama.”

Rubio has been no slouch in gaining attention and clout in a Republican party transitioning from a humbling 2012 election loss. Time magazine named him the “savior” of the GOP on a recent cover and he has also been front and center as a member of the Gang of 8 bipartisan group of Senators working on comprehensive immigration reform.

On the lighter side of things, he took it all in good fun when he was mocked for awkwardly lurching to the left for a bottle of Poland Spring water during the GOP response to the State of the Union, and has lately taken to defending Tupac as a rapper far ahead of the likes of Lil Wayne and invoking the lyrics of “modern day poets,” rappers Wiz Kalifa and Jay-Z during a marathon filibuster on the Senate floor.

For her part, Clinton may be out of politics at the moment, but one needn’t go very far to find possible clues to her future. Her new official website, HillaryClintonOffice.com, which launched the day after she resigned as Secretary of State, shows a photo of Clinton that many are calling “presidential.”

RELATED: It’s going to be Clinton/Castro in 2016