(This opinion piece is in response to the two-part analysis by Southern Political Report feature columnist John A. Tures, who examined the phenomenon of Hispanic voter behavior in the recent US Senate race in Massachusetts. (“Did Hispanics catapult Brown to Massachusetts Senate win?, Jan. 28; and “Are Hispanics more conservative than we thought?, Feb. 1.)

Professor Tures certainly has a point when he warns Democrats and Republicans alike to not make assumptions and generalizations regarding the Hispanic vote. It is good advice.

But in the process of “myth-busting” he has advanced several myths that may mislead some Americans – including Hispanics.

Contrary to endless news and commentary references, including an implication in Tures’ two-part analysis, the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” do not denote a race, but an ethnicity. Hispanic is not a separate category from white or black.

In fairness, it is difficult to remember this fact when militant Latino “civil rights” groups that push for a repeat of the “one time” amnesty for illegal aliens of 1986 constantly strive to associate their endeavor with the genuine civil rights struggle of black Americans to gain their full constitutional rights as citizens.

It becomes perhaps even more difficult to recall this when many of those groups use the Spanish term “La Raza” in their name. As in “La Raza Unida Party” (“The United Race Party”), or “The National Council of La Raza” (“The National Council of The Race”) or …well, you see what I mean.

Most Americans, this one included, long for the promised day when we are merely “Americans” – no hyphen.

The myth regarding an imagined “anti-immigrant policy” endlessly promoted when immigration is discussed deserves some attention. Tures’ columns, focused as they were on the Hispanic vote in the recent Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, provide an excellent example.

As the world knows, the more conservative candidate, Brown, defeated the liberal Democrat. Tures tells us a huge majority of the Hispanic vote went to Brown. Each candidate had vastly different platforms on how the United States should handle its immigration laws.

On this, Tures writes: “I know what you’re thinking…Coakley must have run some anti-immigrant policy, while Brown was soft on immigration. But Coakley was the one with the pro-immigration policy. ‘“Immigration policy needs to be resolved on a federal level, and the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants need ‘a path to citizenship,’ Attorney General Martha Coakley said.”

Tures goes on to tell the reader that Brown, on his website, said, “I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. I oppose amnesty, and I believe we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.”

The clear implication here is that because Coakley favors a repeat of the 1986 legalization scheme and another citizenship path for people who were able to escape capture while sneaking into our republic, she is “pro-immigration.”

Anyone, like now Sen. Scott Brown, who advocates for actual application of the immigration laws, is somehow “anti-immigrant” or “anti-immigration.”

Not only is this absurd newspeak, it is the ultimate immigrant bashing. The rich tradition of immigration into our nation has been regulated for years. And with good reason: Without regulation and border security, many of the billions of people on planet Earth would migrate here faster than you can say, “I am a victim of geography looking for a better life, where is my entitlement program?”

The term “immigrant” should always describe someone who plays by the rules and joins the American family lawfully. The millions of immigrants who have waited in the line and obeyed the rules deserve better than to be used as pawns, and intentionally compared to the illegal aliens who scoff at the American borders and laws from which they do not directly benefit.

Myth busting 101: Granting amnesty again – rewarding the crime of illegal immigration – is not “pro-immigration.” It is clearly anti-enforcement. Refusing to consider rewarding illegal border crossers with citizenship is not a program of “demonizing Hispanics.” Just ask the millions of Americans who happen to be Hispanic who also support enforcement of American immigration laws.

The United States of America takes in more legal immigrants than any nation on the planet. We have nothing to apologize for when it comes to immigration.

To preserve the integrity of the term “immigrant” and “citizen” we must end illegal immigration and discard forever the agenda of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

For both parties, one myth that should be dispelled with the lesson from Massachusetts is that mainstream American voters, Hispanics included, don’t support open borders, another amnesty or a liberal big-government agenda.

In any language.

King is a nationally recognized authority on illegal immigration and president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which advocates for enforcement of immigration laws. On the Web: (http://www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org.) .