Combine this with your previous news item, and the path to disenfranchise the non-white majority seems obvious.

You have probably already read Michael LInd's Salon essay, "The Future of Whiteness".  I thought about posting it here in the news section but did not really want to engage on the subject then.  Also thought you might post it.  Anyway, here is an excerpt about a key demographic point that should, but has not yet, dampened the hip-hip-hoorah-ing over declining whiteness, a sentiment as racist and unbecoming as any of the worst Imperial Wizard, imo:

In the 1970s, the federal government came up with the bizarre “non-Hispanic white” label, lumping together Arab-Americans, Norwegian-Americans and Irish-Americans into a single government-created pseudo-race. To compound the absurdity, at the same time the federal government invented a category of “Hispanics” who, as government forms invariably note, “may be of any race.” The artificial “Hispanic” category is even more preposterous than the “non-Hispanic white” category, including blond, blue-eyed South Americans of German descent as well as Mexican-American mestizos and Puerto Ricans of predominantly African descent.

These government racial labels are increasingly out of touch with America’s fluid demographic reality. But for the sake of argument, let us take America’s official racial classifications, all too reminiscent of Soviet nationality labels, at face value. According to polls, a slight majority of Hispanics (or Latinos) identify themselves as “white.” Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of government-labeled Hispanics who identified as “other race” dropped in percentage from 42 to 37 while those who identified as white rose from 48 to 53 percent.

If Lind is right and the future is beige, practically everyone will have some whiteness about them.

Let the blending begin:

New appointees to the Supreme Court can support drastic reduction of labor rights, voting rights, citizen rights. 

As a Plutocrat might think 

Step 1 .... get the people and the government to  turn a blind eye to enforcing the existing immigration laws and you open the border, so workers can put pressure on indigenious labor;  rights. Decent pay with benefits.

the more workers than jobs  and the wages go down.

Besides with an unemployment rate of ++8 1/2 % ; workers will be glad for a job and they wont even think about making demands upon the Corporations. Push for amnesty. 

Maybe those corporations that located overseas might consider returning, once the American worker learns to accept less?   

Step  2 .... create fear and panic, so you can put in place, LAWS  that you were always trying to implement any ways, but didn't have the basis for attempting  until; you could get the Nation to cut their own throats first.

The plutocracy, (the minority)  didn't speak up...... why should they? 

The blind working class wont see, they were manipulated to do what the plutocracy wanted them to do.

Like leading sheep to the slaughter. 

First you let em all in.... then you reign them all in.

Further protections for corporate and lobbying power can be fixed by national and state legislators in laws difficult to undo or dislodge.

NAFTA, WTO ...  FREE TRADE 

"Not until the late 1800s did the public begin to question that policy. After the Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility. 

Immigration continued to rise in the 1880s,

 bringing an "avalanche of cheap labor."(1) With this" influx of foreign cut-rate workers", (2)        "economic conditions began to deteriorate in some areas," (3)

So Congress passed a series of immigration laws

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/history/legacy/ins_history.xml

At every opportunity, the exploiters of labor, have tried to overturn or ignore the will of the people.

1) WE THE PEOPLE don't want  an "avalanche of cheap labor."

2) WE THE PEOPLE don't want this "influx of foreign cut-rate workers," 

Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves; he did it to contain slavery's economic advantage 

3) WE THE PEOPLE don't want "economic conditions to deteriorate in some areas". 

WE ABOLISHED THE SLAVE STATES FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. 

Why do we want to return to those days? So Corporations can make more profits? 

The more Mexicans in a region, the better for manufacturing to relocate there?

Corporations and manufacturing leaders: "Screw you in the N.E. and Rust Belt regions; relocate to the Southwest where there is plenty of cheap labor, besides TACOs are delicious.

Frijoles and free cheap labor; kind of a good thing; NO?

"Si Senor manufacturing patron (boss) ; I work real cheap and so does my brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, "

"Si Senor you'll make mucho denario;  more than you will with American workers.