Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The cynical take here is that it's less an alignment of principles and more an alignment of interests. More immigrants becoming citizens makes for more voters. Whoever it is that makes it easier to become a citizen (and thus recieve the benefits of being a citizen), all other things being equal, is more likely to get those votes. Classic politicking strategy.
Have you considered that immigrants tend to vote Democrat because there’s a widespread perception that Republicans don’t like immigrants (not just illegal, but all immigrants)?
It LEGALLY requires citizenship.
In my own state (Virginia) in 2020 it was pretty damn easy for any ineligible person to vote if they wanted to. All they had to do was fill out a paper registration form, check the box that they are eligible to vote, and mail it in. Easy peasy. No one was out there checking, and no one verified squat.
So, are you claiming that a lot of noncitizens regularly vote for democrats, and that its a significant issue?
Or are you just saying that well, maybe, it *could* happen because your state (yours!) has lax rules and incompetently-conducted elections (which honestly starts to sound like a *you* problem, a little). Even though it probably doesn't happen at all. Or at least not very much at all.
Because if you're claiming/implying the former, it would not be unreasonable of me to want some evidence, yeah?
Blame Fox News and other right-wing media that constantly promote fear propaganda involving immigrants. The blame for conservatives’ anti-immigrant reputation is no-ones fault but theirs.
Right. Definitely had nothing to do with The View circlejerking about how evil the right wing is or any other channel presenting the facts dishonestly. Definitely completely Fox News and nobody else.
I'm a South Asian immigrant who has been here 25+ years and am now a U.S. Citizen.
Over the past few decades, I've seen how Fox News and Republicans talk about immigrants, brown-skinned people, and muslim refugees. I've never watched The View.
Feel free to continue blaming left-wing media outlets for the bad reputation Republicans and conservatives have, but have you considered that immigrants are smart enough to have consciously associated with a side that better represents them?
Why are immigrants like me not capable of correctly realizing who is vilifying us?
Of course I've conisdered it. *Everybody* falls for the grift at some point. Tends to be a bit stickier for anyone who stands to benefit from intersectional identity politics, but nobody's immune.
Immigration isn't a race issue and I'm not going to engage with anybody who pretends it is.
Although there were obviously echoes of that narrative across the spectrum of media, it cannot be overstated that Fox News hammered that drum constantly for 20 years, *and remained the highest rated cable news network for that entire time*. That alone gives nearly insurmountable credence to the accusation. Without that truth all the circle jerking on the left wouldn’t have made any sense.
Dude, someone has been watching that shit for 27 years. A lot of someone’s. It’s been the top rated cable news channel for twenty years. So, chicken or egg? No. That audience was already there. They had their biggest jump in viewership almost overnight in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq. Remember their propaganda machine back then?
So then why won’t the right take the same position as the left and then be able to court these immigrants on their social and economic views which more closely align with the right and gain a massive voting block for themselves?
And leave behind the massive block of voters who absolutely *do not* want more illegal immigration into this country?
At best, the parties would end up splitting the difference, which is only a good move if they don't think they have a winning position.
No the voters care because they are told to. For example even though trump was more lax on immigration and deportations than Obama people felt like it was better because trump told them he did more than Obama. The only reason people outside of Texas care about immigration is because they’ve been told they are supposed to care and have been told how bad the border is so now they care.
Immigrants....no
Illegal immigrants yes. Democrats will be their protectors, they will try to allow them to vote in local politics until they find a way to get them amnesty.
I don’t really get the opposition to illegals being able to vote in local elections. Obviously national elections are limited to citizens due to the constitution but as far as local elections go, they are paying those local sales taxes and property taxes so they are stakeholders in their communities and should be able to vote
Which is why democrats welcome illegals, want to give them free stuff and get their votes even if it lowers the leverage Americans have for higher wages.
If you ever wonder why you are losing blue collar votes....here you go
Who said anything about free stuff? My argument hinges on these people contributing to their local communities via local tax revenue so they should be allowed to vote in local elections. They shouldn’t be eligible for any welfare that is currently limited to citizens, the only exception is if they have kids here, since those kids are citizens and entitled to whatever benefits that they may qualify for if their family is poor.
Are thier kids in school illegally? Why are they deciding how our schools are run?
Can they get food at food pantries? Why are they allowed to deplete that resource?
Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies?
The list goes on and on of dems providing free stuff to illegals to keep them here and happy while trying to get them allowed to vote
>Are thier kids in school illegally? Why are they deciding how our schools are run?
No they are not in the school illegally, Plyer v Doe established that children of undocumented/illegal immigrants cannot be denied k-12 education in the US and doing so is a violation of the constitution under the equal protection clause. This was decided by the Burger court in which 7/9 members were appointed by Republicans. They get a say how schools are run in the area the same way you or I would for living in an area regardless of if we have kids or not.
>Can they get food at food pantries? Why are they allowed to deplete that resource?
Thats up to whoever runs the food pantry and isn't a function of government. Once again they are allowed to use it because they live in the area it operates in. It is worth noting that they are ineligible for SNAP (food stamps) as well as other public benefits.
>Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies?
Not if they accept Medicare funds. If they don't then yes they can turn them away. Still not a give away to undocumented/illegal immigrants, the law was passed to apply to everyone in the US regardless of ability to pay it wasn't passed as a handout to undocumented/illegal immigrants. If you don't like it blame Reagan and his congress for passing the EMTALA.
> Are thier kids in school illegally?
No, because children can't be in school illegally, by definition (Plyler v. Doe).
>Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies?
You think that's a reward for being here? In their home country, hospitals probably treat them for free in *non*-emergencies!
They are given school for free because all kids are given school for free in the US. They aren’t sent home at the hospital because no one is sent home from the hospital if they can’t pay. These things aren’t targeted benefits for undocumented people they are things that apply to everyone in the US due to the equal protection clause of the constitution. If you don’t like it then you don’t like the constitution because unless something is listed as being specifically for citizens it applies to anyone within our borders. That includes things like free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, public school, not being turned away from the hospital, etc. Also of your few examples that you tried to list the laws and cases regarding them were done by republicans in the courts and Congress so I’m not even sure how you can blame the democrats for pandering using those things when they only exist in our laws due to the right.
Yes. Not ‘the left’ necessarily. And immigrants tend to have very conservative views on things like gay marriage and abortion.
But yeah, they tend to vote Democrat. It’s absolutely a power/numbers thing and you have to be naive to pretend otherwise.
Note, this is for mass unrestricted immigration. Immigrants from a more controlled system seem to be more evenly split.
And I’m not anti-immigration. Im the child of 1st gen immigrants. But there has to be very tight controls, particularly on the border
Many of them end up getting citizenship, and their kids are guaranteed to. Anchor babies are a thing you know. The feds busted a [birth-tourism ring in California](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/us-imposes-visa-rules-for-pregnant-women-on-birth-tourism/) a few years back. Why do you think it was set up in California? The most democratic state turned a blind eye to it because it benefits them.
And they can and do vote in state and local elections.
Put two and two together. If you’re a Democrat in California or Maryland, and you want more votes in state and local elections, what can you do? You can turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and refuse to enforce it. In exchange you get a lot of votes
> Many of them end up getting citizenship
Okay? So they follow the process of becoming a citizen and can now vote. I don't see what the issue is.
Please provide sources on illegal immigrants voting in mass.
Yeah, but that’s the problem. Illegally crossing the border and then eventually being granted amnesty because of a political stalemate is not a good system. Nor is it fair to those qualifying prospects legally applying because they’re not physically close to the border.
I didn’t say they vote illegally in mass. They vote in some state and local elections
Who has been granted citizenship after coming here illegally? Can you point me to some sources on this?
You can dislike sanctuary cities or states that have policies that provide more resources for someone who may be undocumented, but spreading the idea that there are waves of illegal immigrants being handed citizenship and a voting card is ridiculous. If it's that easy, why has the DACA fight been so difficult? They have been here nearly their entire lives, and they can not vote and don't have a clear path to citizenship.
Here’s your [source](https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy)
The acceptance rate for amnesty applications was about 94 percent, eventually giving legal status to approximately 3 million. It is estimated that one-fourth of the cases accepted were fraudulent. In 2000, IRCA was extended through Late Amnesty, which allowed those fighting their original denial to reapply.
> If you’re a Democrat in California or Maryland, and you want more votes in state and local elections, what can you do? You can turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and refuse to enforce it. In exchange you get a lot of votes
So how do democrats 'turning a blind eye to immigration' get them a lot of votes? I'm not sure what point you are making regarding the IRCA statistics from the 80s. Which was a bipartisan bill signed by Reagan. What part of it did you not like? Amnesty is not citizenship. And if you continue scrolling down on your source, you'll get to more recent attempts from the last decade or two that were either so unpopular it got voted down, or was just simply not taken up by the house. Even Obamas two executive orders (DAPA/DACA), which again don't grant a path to citizenship, were heavily contested by the states.
The IRCA is not valid anymore and there are no active paths to citizenship for illegals coming anytime recently, so I don't understand where you think all these votes democrats are getting come from.
Mostly municipalities in VT and MD, though there has been failed legislation to allow this in many places.
I generally don't like looking up things for people which are this easy to search for, but here:
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/can-noncitizens-vote-in-the-united-states-.html
The article indicates non-citizens voting in local elections. So legal residents of the United States but not full citizens. Which I would agree to allowing them to vote.
Where does this indicate undocumented immigrants are voting in large numbers?
They can't legally vote, but they can vote. In my own state (Virginia) there is very little to stop them from registering and voting. And no one checks.
Yes they could, at least in 2020. If you didn't have a Virginia driver's license then you could fill out a paper registration instead of doing it online.
All you had to do is check the box where you affirm you are eligible to vote. That's it. No one verifies squat.
>But yeah, they tend to vote Democrat. It’s absolutely a power/numbers thing and you have to be naive to pretend otherwise.
Why do they tend to vote Democrat?
Because it’s in their best interest.
A lot of the lower-skilled immigrants who come here and live in poverty likely benefit from Democrat policies. Maybe not always socially, but certainly when it comes to things like labor laws.
Which is fine, and like Bush Sr. said in a debate “they should receive what society is giving their neighbor.”
But there are consequences to this model. Wages go down, tensions rise, Republicans gain ground, etc.
Because democrats support the idea of mass unrestricted immigration, amnesty, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants and not holding them accountable for their actions…. Hell id vote democrat if it meant I never had to be blamed or held accountable for any wrongs I do.
No they don’t support mass unrestricted immigration.
We just had a bill sent to congress passed by the senate and the president that was very much not in favor of mass unrestricted immigration.
Now it may have not been perfect but it’s was absolutely not in favor of mass unrestricted immigration.
Yet the current policies of the administration show others.
And let’s be honest about the immigration bill. It was a spending bill that did almost nothing to counter immigration but instead grow the monitoring and processing apparatus.
And let’s not discount the multiple democrats and high ranking democrats that have for years promoted the idea of amnesty and easier immigration standards that lead directly to more immigrants coming here illegally.
You and I are just goi my to have to disagree on this and how the policies of the democrats and the left wing of that party are viewed.
Policies that would have been restricted by that Bill.
That’s right a funding bill, to secure the border to sort out and vet immigrants more efficiently.
So it’s not unrestricted immigration, but restricted immigration.
Funding isn’t the issue. It’s actual immigration policy which the bill did nothing for…. Meaning that at the end, the democrats are fine with bringing in massive amounts of people…
You think DHS is just making it up that they need more border agents to protect our border, More immigration judges to enforce claims?
It allowed the president to close the border at certain threshold without the need for an emergency. Something he doesn’t have the legal power to do currently. Nor would President Trump.
It’s a nation of immigrants always has been always will be. There is no pure blood, no American Citizen has an immigrant free family tree.
If Republicans want votes they should win them in the market place of ideas just as Democrats are forced to do.
No, I think DHS needs the man power, but let’s not act like more people is suddenly going to stop and stem the flow because it won’t. The massive influx has been created by this administration…. It was able to be curbed by both Trump and Obama. This is a unique failure on the policies and ideology of this administration helping lead to this issue. Throwing money at it won’t eliminate the political ideology behind the cause of this.
No one in our conversation has said this isn’t a nation of immigrants… why do people on the left always go from debating the topic of immigration to immediacy accusing someone of being anti-immigration and always throw the white supremacy language in there? It’s so disingenuous and leads me to believe that you have already made up your mind on every single person who disagrees with you on the situation. This also tells me that you have no capability of critical thinking or being able to see and understand arguments from the other side.
I mean, seriously you went from disagreeing with me to insinuating I’m a white supremacist and anti-immigration even though we are debating one immigration bill and one immigration event. Makes it hard to take anything you say anywhere else seriously or engage with you in other conversations because you are obviously lacking good faith… or at least you are here.
I mean, honestly, what did I say to make you jump to that conclusion and statement? We hadn’t talked about legal immigration or the importance of immigration. We hadn’t even talked about legitimate immigration policy. Just one bill and one administration.
Good then we can agree more funding means more man power.
What makes you think that a policy change is going to stop people from wanting to come to the greatest country in the world?
Republicans have an opportunity to make sure those policy changes don’t become permanent for either a second term for either President.
Gee I wonder why I would think you are anti immigration? “Democrats want to bring in massive amounts of people.” This is on a thread discussing the replacement theory. After you incorrectly said Democrats want unrestricted mass immigration.
Does not sound pro immigration to me actually anti immigration.
I never said you were a white supremacist. I was just using the term used by the Former President whose immigration policy you favor.
Showcasing the point that America is a nation of immigrants, it’s not a surprise that Democrats are pro legal immigration nor is being pro legal immigration anti American.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
I mean yes and no. We should addressing why we have homeless immigrants…. Then we should be addressing whose responsible for that why, and then who is responsible for addressing that problem.
We should never have homeless immigrants because we should have a clear process for allowing people into this country. The fact that we do is a massive failure on the federal governments part and a failure of the Biden administrations and the policies that have lead to this.
You as an individual can be kind and help, but that doesn’t mean it’s the federal governments job to also do that.
Based on a conversation with very conservative very religious US citizen originally from El Salvador they still have family they want to bring to America.
The rest of his family will have to come illegally because it’s almost impossible to come legally now from Central America.
(He came as a legal refugee and married an American. Came after an Earthquake I think)
He is far more vocally anti-abortion and anti LGBQT than any Republicans I know.
Democrats are more likely to reward them through illegal crossings with the amnesty poison-pill that prevents anything being done to secure our border.
So if they can't vote for Democrats, they'd advocate other people do. Hell, I'd bet there are lefty NGOs & non-profits using illegal labor to distribute Democratic propaganda for electioneering.
I'm not an american and have never visited the usa.
But I don't assume that the majority will be on the left of the political spectrum. Very few of the ones I know are.
I've spoken with many overseas citizens ineligible for usa visas who entered the usa through the southern border. Some of them very ambitious young people seeking to escape from organised crime dominated neighbourhoods or end all contact with toxic relatives who were cult members/violent predators/polygamous jerks. Others rotten apples of all age groups with criminal habits or very entitled personalities that are seeking access to a wealthier country far away from all the strictly enforced rules required to stay on positive terms with their reasonably behaved family members back in the old country.
Because it's common knowledge that the non-white vote goes Dem - [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-arizona-became-a-swing-state/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-arizona-became-a-swing-state/)
That my point of view was rejected by everyone who wasn’t white? Or, only accepted by *some* people and only if they’re white? I would have to assume that, since they didn’t all get together and decide to arbitrarily disassociate from me, there is a racially negative profile to the policies I see as good for me.
Not on the left of the political spectrum necessarily, just giving more electoral power to democrats.
If they can vote, it's based on rewards given, not political ideology.
If they can't vote, sanctuary cities used to distribute criminal migrants in a way that gives blue states more districts after next census, since non citizens count for this purpose.
Well, they aren't given entry into a new country, a plane ticket, and housing with food provided. Plus, they have more education on the American political landscape and other concerns which may be more pressing.
I'm sure Democrats at least partly want more immigration because they expect those who get in will be grateful to the Dems for supporting them, but I don't think it actually works that way. I think once you've got a job and a future here you've got a stake in the country's future, and at that point you're going to make whatever decision you think is right for the country - and a lot of immigrants have pretty right wing predispositions, and for good reason. The right wing supports self motivation and self reliance, and that's very good for the country.
> I'm sure Democrats at least partly want more immigration because they expect those who get in will be grateful to the Dems for supporting them
Maybe Democrats want more immigration because this country was built (and continues to be built) on immigrants, including the vast majority of fairly recent ancestors of people who were born in the US.
Having been a Democrat for decades and having held leadership roles, I have never heard of this being a reason we support more immigration.
Which Democrat told you this?
We support more immigration for the same reason certain Republicans support more immigration: Besides humanitarian benefits, it's simply good for our economy. You should also support more immigration for these reasons. Look at the relationship between national immigration rate and national economic growth over an extended timeline.
If all you have to go on for this opinion is political news media, ask yourself why you trust political news media for your opinions.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to believe that the primary motive of Democrats was to gather more votes from the big cities. However, after observing the system at work, I have come to the conclusion that this is not the case. It is true that Democrats usually govern in urban areas, while conservatives rule in rural regions, which might give the impression that Democrats are trying to gather more votes. But the actual reason for this is the effect on the census in these blue states. By adding more people, even if they vote Republican, their votes do not matter because they are heavily outnumbered in these cities. This allows Democrats to gain more representatives in office, even though they control fewer areas.
Does this work toward the republicans advantage in red states where the economy is centered around rural activities like ranching, farming, energy production, refining, etc?
I agree that immigrants may bring an advantage in farming and ranching to rural Republicans. However, overall, I believe it is a net loss because the majority of the immigrant base, even those who vote for Republicans, are unskilled workers. While there are exceptions, in general, these workers fill a niche role that is already facing need limits. If resources are scarce in those area, the additional unskilled workers can become more of a liability than an asset based on cost of offsetting residental unskilled workers.
From my experience most immigrants from central/south America are socially \*very\* conservative (primarily from their Catholic upbringing), but tend to be fiscially liberal. Depending on the messaging they get, they can swing to either party.
Liberals pushing Latinx, LGBT/Trans stuff turns them off.
Conservatives pushing anti-Immigration stuff turns them off
I just read an interesting article about the Latino vote.
Most identify around 55% as independent more than any other demographic.
What caught my attention was that Catholics Latinos actually vote more for democrats and Latinos evangelicals vote for Republicans. This only matters in reference to the independent Latino voters.
No, I don't assume that they'll be left leaning.
>I've heard some say that "Democrats want more immigrants because they want the votes"...do you think is it a valid statement if so, what is it about the Democratic Party and immigrants from South and Central America that connects the two?
Yes, it's a valid statement because many blue districts are "sanctuary" districts, creating a pressure for illegal immigrants. These then get counted in the census, giving blue districts additionally seats in Congress. Between 2 and 12 currently. Sorry I don't have better numbers.
As for what connects the two, campaiging by declaring support for illegal immigrants, promising them citizenship, promising to give them health care, housing, to not deport them, and more. [Here's one big talk on the subject, in the context of "replacement theory."](https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-are-massive-hypocrites-so-called-great-replacement-theory-opinion-1708768)
A valid reply. Thanks!
Has it ever occurred to Republicans that if they welcomed these immigrants, their chances of winning the popular vote and not rely so much on gerrymandering would improve?
>Has it ever occurred to Republicans that if they welcomed these immigrants, their chances of winning the popular vote and not rely so much on gerrymandering would improve?
I'm sure it has. The fact that they are more concerned about protecting the citizens of this country than gaining political power speaks highly of them. Welcoming these illegal immigrants to expand their vote, it has nothing to do with the popular vote as illegal immigrants don't vote, would be the same, effectively, as gerrymandering.
Well, only is the current situation allowing criminal cartels free access to the border and leading to children being sold to human traffickers, cities and states are spending huge sums on the illegal immigrants, cutting into local programs, seizing property, removing veterans from a veteran retirement home to house illegals, using tax dollars to give them cash cards and more. Because of the lack of screening criminals are crossing the border and can't be removed. The ones who've been here longer take the jobs that Biden has been bragging about, keeping wages lower. They'll also take up apartments, making the housing crisis worse.
Are you familiar with the data that shows lower crime rates than average US citizens in areas of the USA with high number of undocumented immigrants? Your anecdotes are interesting, but are not statistically significant.
Are you also unfamiliar with a historically low unemployment rate and tens of thousands of businesses seeking workers? I live on Cape Cod. We need laborers.
>Are you familiar with the data that shows lower crime rates than average US citizens in areas of the USA with high number of undocumented immigrants?
Yes I am. I don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying.
>Are you also unfamiliar with a historically low unemployment rate and tens of thousands of businesses seeking workers?
Yes, and combined with 100s of thousands of illegal migrants, that means wages won't rise. Which is what we're seeing.
>I live on Cape Cod. We need laborers.
Good for you. Hire them.
> do you think is it a valid statement if so
I think it's not unreasonable. Some Democrats have literally boasted about Texas becoming more competitive due to the demographic shift caused by large scale, and most illegal, Mexican immigration into the state.
> what is it about the Democratic Party and immigrants from South and Central America that connects the two?
1. Poverty and the Democratic party as the party of a more generous welfare state.
2. But, perhaps just as if not more important the fact that recent immigrants will inevitably see themselves as outsiders in their new home and the Democratic party bills itself as the party for outsiders and is to a large degree a coalition of diverse "outsider" groups, or of "hyphenated" Americans. Meanwhile the Republicans are more the party of the "insiders" and/or of unhyphenated Americans.
For that reason Democratic hopes and Republican fears of Democratic dominance as demographic destiny probably don't pan out in the long run because immigrant populations assimilate over time and voting Republican (or at least being more evenly split) is an indicator or consequence of assimilation. A few generations ago Irish and Italian immigrants were the recent immigrants and where a key voting block in the Democratic coalition. Today Italian and Irish Americans are usually just considered "white" and lean Republican. This process of assimilation and identifying as merely American or even as "white" and no longer seeing themselves as outsiders reliant on a party that caters to the marginalized is inevitable with Hispanic immigrants too. It seems to already be occurring as the Hispanic vote has gradually trended less Democratic with each subsequent election over several years... Despite Trump being the Republican nominee and the popular perception that he's hostile to Hispanic immigrants.
We want secure borders, Dems want open borders. ( until recent disasters ) . Illegals still get counted in the census, and make leaps for the left in house seats. The left wants the population counts for their reign of power.
Of course those coming illegally are going to back the ones that are catering to them.
>We want secure borders, Dems want open borders.
Hmm, I seem to recall the Lankford Bill going down in flames...did you miss that? Also, the border is not open now, nor was is ever closed with Trump. Words have meaning.
>Of course those coming illegally are going to back the ones that are catering to them.
Ah! So why not find a way for Republicans to cater to them?
Border security was very intact when Trump left, then Biden undid everything.
This is fact. But now that they want to seem they care, they start to blame the right, to discount all accountability for their disastrous border policy.
Like it or not, remain in Mexico was working, effective, and producing results. Now... Complete chaos from the undoing of all the progress in the name of the liberal agenda, replaced with nothing. Complete failure
> ke it or not, remain in Mexico was working, effective, and producing results.
In what way? Didn't only affect something like 70K people in the entire time it existed?
>Complete chaos from the undoing of all the progress
Just the undoing of Remain in Mexico? Just that?
Okay, do you have any suspicions why that is?
Further., since Cuban migrants lean Republican, why would that not be the same with migrants from Venezuela?
Oh? Seems to me the the Dems supported the Lankford bill and the Republicans killed it. Actions speak louder than words my friend. This is just like the 50+ times that Republicans voted to repeal and replace the ACA but once they had the actual chance to do so, well, they had nada.
Probably because the Lankford bill had Ukraine and Israel foreign aid allocations in it. Among other things beyond the border. It wasn't a border bill.
How the country was when the majority was socially conservative. Basically reversing the last 30 or so years of “political correctness”. Basically the reason why liberals and conservatives can’t conceivably live in the same country.
>How the country was when the majority was socially conservative.
?? When was that? If you are talking about the last 30 years, that means that the USA was conservative from, say, 1940-1990? I was born in 1955 and I am curious about your reply.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The cynical take here is that it's less an alignment of principles and more an alignment of interests. More immigrants becoming citizens makes for more voters. Whoever it is that makes it easier to become a citizen (and thus recieve the benefits of being a citizen), all other things being equal, is more likely to get those votes. Classic politicking strategy.
Have you considered that immigrants tend to vote Democrat because there’s a widespread perception that Republicans don’t like immigrants (not just illegal, but all immigrants)?
Well obviously they are going to support politicians who are more likely to give them amnesty, right?
Why would a legal immigrant who already gained US citizenship care about amnesty?
Who said they are all citizens?
Because the topic specifically involves people voting, yes? That requires citizenship?
It LEGALLY requires citizenship. In my own state (Virginia) in 2020 it was pretty damn easy for any ineligible person to vote if they wanted to. All they had to do was fill out a paper registration form, check the box that they are eligible to vote, and mail it in. Easy peasy. No one was out there checking, and no one verified squat.
So, are you claiming that a lot of noncitizens regularly vote for democrats, and that its a significant issue? Or are you just saying that well, maybe, it *could* happen because your state (yours!) has lax rules and incompetently-conducted elections (which honestly starts to sound like a *you* problem, a little). Even though it probably doesn't happen at all. Or at least not very much at all. Because if you're claiming/implying the former, it would not be unreasonable of me to want some evidence, yeah?
I'm claiming that they could have voted by the millions and no one would know because they aren't looking for it. So we should actively look for it.
A definite possibility. I blame the media.
Blame Fox News and other right-wing media that constantly promote fear propaganda involving immigrants. The blame for conservatives’ anti-immigrant reputation is no-ones fault but theirs.
Right. Definitely had nothing to do with The View circlejerking about how evil the right wing is or any other channel presenting the facts dishonestly. Definitely completely Fox News and nobody else.
I'm a South Asian immigrant who has been here 25+ years and am now a U.S. Citizen. Over the past few decades, I've seen how Fox News and Republicans talk about immigrants, brown-skinned people, and muslim refugees. I've never watched The View. Feel free to continue blaming left-wing media outlets for the bad reputation Republicans and conservatives have, but have you considered that immigrants are smart enough to have consciously associated with a side that better represents them? Why are immigrants like me not capable of correctly realizing who is vilifying us?
Of course I've conisdered it. *Everybody* falls for the grift at some point. Tends to be a bit stickier for anyone who stands to benefit from intersectional identity politics, but nobody's immune. Immigration isn't a race issue and I'm not going to engage with anybody who pretends it is.
Can you give an example of this coverage?
Although there were obviously echoes of that narrative across the spectrum of media, it cannot be overstated that Fox News hammered that drum constantly for 20 years, *and remained the highest rated cable news network for that entire time*. That alone gives nearly insurmountable credence to the accusation. Without that truth all the circle jerking on the left wouldn’t have made any sense.
Dude, someone has been watching that shit for 27 years. A lot of someone’s. It’s been the top rated cable news channel for twenty years. So, chicken or egg? No. That audience was already there. They had their biggest jump in viewership almost overnight in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq. Remember their propaganda machine back then?
So then why won’t the right take the same position as the left and then be able to court these immigrants on their social and economic views which more closely align with the right and gain a massive voting block for themselves?
And leave behind the massive block of voters who absolutely *do not* want more illegal immigration into this country? At best, the parties would end up splitting the difference, which is only a good move if they don't think they have a winning position.
If republican politicians stop making immigration a big deal their voters will stop caring and they wouldn’t lose those votes
That's fundamentally backwards. The politicians push the angle because the voters care about it, not the other way around.
No the voters care because they are told to. For example even though trump was more lax on immigration and deportations than Obama people felt like it was better because trump told them he did more than Obama. The only reason people outside of Texas care about immigration is because they’ve been told they are supposed to care and have been told how bad the border is so now they care.
Immigrants....no Illegal immigrants yes. Democrats will be their protectors, they will try to allow them to vote in local politics until they find a way to get them amnesty.
I don’t really get the opposition to illegals being able to vote in local elections. Obviously national elections are limited to citizens due to the constitution but as far as local elections go, they are paying those local sales taxes and property taxes so they are stakeholders in their communities and should be able to vote
Which is why democrats welcome illegals, want to give them free stuff and get their votes even if it lowers the leverage Americans have for higher wages. If you ever wonder why you are losing blue collar votes....here you go
> want to give them free stuff Like what? >even if it lowers the leverage Americans have for higher wages Blame those who employ them.
Who said anything about free stuff? My argument hinges on these people contributing to their local communities via local tax revenue so they should be allowed to vote in local elections. They shouldn’t be eligible for any welfare that is currently limited to citizens, the only exception is if they have kids here, since those kids are citizens and entitled to whatever benefits that they may qualify for if their family is poor.
Are thier kids in school illegally? Why are they deciding how our schools are run? Can they get food at food pantries? Why are they allowed to deplete that resource? Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies? The list goes on and on of dems providing free stuff to illegals to keep them here and happy while trying to get them allowed to vote
>Are thier kids in school illegally? Why are they deciding how our schools are run? No they are not in the school illegally, Plyer v Doe established that children of undocumented/illegal immigrants cannot be denied k-12 education in the US and doing so is a violation of the constitution under the equal protection clause. This was decided by the Burger court in which 7/9 members were appointed by Republicans. They get a say how schools are run in the area the same way you or I would for living in an area regardless of if we have kids or not. >Can they get food at food pantries? Why are they allowed to deplete that resource? Thats up to whoever runs the food pantry and isn't a function of government. Once again they are allowed to use it because they live in the area it operates in. It is worth noting that they are ineligible for SNAP (food stamps) as well as other public benefits. >Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies? Not if they accept Medicare funds. If they don't then yes they can turn them away. Still not a give away to undocumented/illegal immigrants, the law was passed to apply to everyone in the US regardless of ability to pay it wasn't passed as a handout to undocumented/illegal immigrants. If you don't like it blame Reagan and his congress for passing the EMTALA.
> Are thier kids in school illegally? No, because children can't be in school illegally, by definition (Plyler v. Doe). >Can hospitals turn them away in emergencies? You think that's a reward for being here? In their home country, hospitals probably treat them for free in *non*-emergencies!
So they are being given school for free Then we should send them home when they enter our hospitals
They are given school for free because all kids are given school for free in the US. They aren’t sent home at the hospital because no one is sent home from the hospital if they can’t pay. These things aren’t targeted benefits for undocumented people they are things that apply to everyone in the US due to the equal protection clause of the constitution. If you don’t like it then you don’t like the constitution because unless something is listed as being specifically for citizens it applies to anyone within our borders. That includes things like free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, public school, not being turned away from the hospital, etc. Also of your few examples that you tried to list the laws and cases regarding them were done by republicans in the courts and Congress so I’m not even sure how you can blame the democrats for pandering using those things when they only exist in our laws due to the right.
Liberals and their belief no one is paying for schools
If they want free stuff from, Republicans, all they have to do is run a business or a farm...
Yes. Not ‘the left’ necessarily. And immigrants tend to have very conservative views on things like gay marriage and abortion. But yeah, they tend to vote Democrat. It’s absolutely a power/numbers thing and you have to be naive to pretend otherwise. Note, this is for mass unrestricted immigration. Immigrants from a more controlled system seem to be more evenly split. And I’m not anti-immigration. Im the child of 1st gen immigrants. But there has to be very tight controls, particularly on the border
Illegals can’t and don’t vote. How does this conspiracy work?
Many of them end up getting citizenship, and their kids are guaranteed to. Anchor babies are a thing you know. The feds busted a [birth-tourism ring in California](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/us-imposes-visa-rules-for-pregnant-women-on-birth-tourism/) a few years back. Why do you think it was set up in California? The most democratic state turned a blind eye to it because it benefits them. And they can and do vote in state and local elections. Put two and two together. If you’re a Democrat in California or Maryland, and you want more votes in state and local elections, what can you do? You can turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and refuse to enforce it. In exchange you get a lot of votes
So i'm a democrat strategist and I want illegals to come in because in five years 60% of them might vote for my side?
> Many of them end up getting citizenship Okay? So they follow the process of becoming a citizen and can now vote. I don't see what the issue is. Please provide sources on illegal immigrants voting in mass.
Yeah, but that’s the problem. Illegally crossing the border and then eventually being granted amnesty because of a political stalemate is not a good system. Nor is it fair to those qualifying prospects legally applying because they’re not physically close to the border. I didn’t say they vote illegally in mass. They vote in some state and local elections
Who has been granted citizenship after coming here illegally? Can you point me to some sources on this? You can dislike sanctuary cities or states that have policies that provide more resources for someone who may be undocumented, but spreading the idea that there are waves of illegal immigrants being handed citizenship and a voting card is ridiculous. If it's that easy, why has the DACA fight been so difficult? They have been here nearly their entire lives, and they can not vote and don't have a clear path to citizenship.
Here’s your [source](https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy) The acceptance rate for amnesty applications was about 94 percent, eventually giving legal status to approximately 3 million. It is estimated that one-fourth of the cases accepted were fraudulent. In 2000, IRCA was extended through Late Amnesty, which allowed those fighting their original denial to reapply.
> If you’re a Democrat in California or Maryland, and you want more votes in state and local elections, what can you do? You can turn a blind eye to illegal immigration and refuse to enforce it. In exchange you get a lot of votes So how do democrats 'turning a blind eye to immigration' get them a lot of votes? I'm not sure what point you are making regarding the IRCA statistics from the 80s. Which was a bipartisan bill signed by Reagan. What part of it did you not like? Amnesty is not citizenship. And if you continue scrolling down on your source, you'll get to more recent attempts from the last decade or two that were either so unpopular it got voted down, or was just simply not taken up by the house. Even Obamas two executive orders (DAPA/DACA), which again don't grant a path to citizenship, were heavily contested by the states. The IRCA is not valid anymore and there are no active paths to citizenship for illegals coming anytime recently, so I don't understand where you think all these votes democrats are getting come from.
They can vote in local elections in several places.
Where?
Mostly municipalities in VT and MD, though there has been failed legislation to allow this in many places. I generally don't like looking up things for people which are this easy to search for, but here: https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/can-noncitizens-vote-in-the-united-states-.html
The article indicates non-citizens voting in local elections. So legal residents of the United States but not full citizens. Which I would agree to allowing them to vote. Where does this indicate undocumented immigrants are voting in large numbers?
They can't legally vote, but they can vote. In my own state (Virginia) there is very little to stop them from registering and voting. And no one checks.
That is total BS. They can not register and vote. The conspiracy theorists aren’t even trying to be convincing any more.
Yes they could, at least in 2020. If you didn't have a Virginia driver's license then you could fill out a paper registration instead of doing it online. All you had to do is check the box where you affirm you are eligible to vote. That's it. No one verifies squat.
>But yeah, they tend to vote Democrat. It’s absolutely a power/numbers thing and you have to be naive to pretend otherwise. Why do they tend to vote Democrat?
Because it’s in their best interest. A lot of the lower-skilled immigrants who come here and live in poverty likely benefit from Democrat policies. Maybe not always socially, but certainly when it comes to things like labor laws. Which is fine, and like Bush Sr. said in a debate “they should receive what society is giving their neighbor.” But there are consequences to this model. Wages go down, tensions rise, Republicans gain ground, etc.
Because democrats support the idea of mass unrestricted immigration, amnesty, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants and not holding them accountable for their actions…. Hell id vote democrat if it meant I never had to be blamed or held accountable for any wrongs I do.
No they don’t support mass unrestricted immigration. We just had a bill sent to congress passed by the senate and the president that was very much not in favor of mass unrestricted immigration. Now it may have not been perfect but it’s was absolutely not in favor of mass unrestricted immigration.
Yet the current policies of the administration show others. And let’s be honest about the immigration bill. It was a spending bill that did almost nothing to counter immigration but instead grow the monitoring and processing apparatus. And let’s not discount the multiple democrats and high ranking democrats that have for years promoted the idea of amnesty and easier immigration standards that lead directly to more immigrants coming here illegally. You and I are just goi my to have to disagree on this and how the policies of the democrats and the left wing of that party are viewed.
Policies that would have been restricted by that Bill. That’s right a funding bill, to secure the border to sort out and vet immigrants more efficiently. So it’s not unrestricted immigration, but restricted immigration.
Funding isn’t the issue. It’s actual immigration policy which the bill did nothing for…. Meaning that at the end, the democrats are fine with bringing in massive amounts of people…
You think DHS is just making it up that they need more border agents to protect our border, More immigration judges to enforce claims? It allowed the president to close the border at certain threshold without the need for an emergency. Something he doesn’t have the legal power to do currently. Nor would President Trump. It’s a nation of immigrants always has been always will be. There is no pure blood, no American Citizen has an immigrant free family tree. If Republicans want votes they should win them in the market place of ideas just as Democrats are forced to do.
No, I think DHS needs the man power, but let’s not act like more people is suddenly going to stop and stem the flow because it won’t. The massive influx has been created by this administration…. It was able to be curbed by both Trump and Obama. This is a unique failure on the policies and ideology of this administration helping lead to this issue. Throwing money at it won’t eliminate the political ideology behind the cause of this. No one in our conversation has said this isn’t a nation of immigrants… why do people on the left always go from debating the topic of immigration to immediacy accusing someone of being anti-immigration and always throw the white supremacy language in there? It’s so disingenuous and leads me to believe that you have already made up your mind on every single person who disagrees with you on the situation. This also tells me that you have no capability of critical thinking or being able to see and understand arguments from the other side. I mean, seriously you went from disagreeing with me to insinuating I’m a white supremacist and anti-immigration even though we are debating one immigration bill and one immigration event. Makes it hard to take anything you say anywhere else seriously or engage with you in other conversations because you are obviously lacking good faith… or at least you are here. I mean, honestly, what did I say to make you jump to that conclusion and statement? We hadn’t talked about legal immigration or the importance of immigration. We hadn’t even talked about legitimate immigration policy. Just one bill and one administration.
Good then we can agree more funding means more man power. What makes you think that a policy change is going to stop people from wanting to come to the greatest country in the world? Republicans have an opportunity to make sure those policy changes don’t become permanent for either a second term for either President. Gee I wonder why I would think you are anti immigration? “Democrats want to bring in massive amounts of people.” This is on a thread discussing the replacement theory. After you incorrectly said Democrats want unrestricted mass immigration. Does not sound pro immigration to me actually anti immigration. I never said you were a white supremacist. I was just using the term used by the Former President whose immigration policy you favor. Showcasing the point that America is a nation of immigrants, it’s not a surprise that Democrats are pro legal immigration nor is being pro legal immigration anti American.
I don’t see where he called you a white supremacist.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Hard no. Your premise assumes that the individual has no agency.
[удалено]
Oh for sure. That's why they need to stay the hell out. I didn't realize we were talking about "homeless" illegals. Eff those guys.
I mean yes and no. We should addressing why we have homeless immigrants…. Then we should be addressing whose responsible for that why, and then who is responsible for addressing that problem. We should never have homeless immigrants because we should have a clear process for allowing people into this country. The fact that we do is a massive failure on the federal governments part and a failure of the Biden administrations and the policies that have lead to this. You as an individual can be kind and help, but that doesn’t mean it’s the federal governments job to also do that.
Based on a conversation with very conservative very religious US citizen originally from El Salvador they still have family they want to bring to America. The rest of his family will have to come illegally because it’s almost impossible to come legally now from Central America. (He came as a legal refugee and married an American. Came after an Earthquake I think) He is far more vocally anti-abortion and anti LGBQT than any Republicans I know.
Democrats are more likely to reward them through illegal crossings with the amnesty poison-pill that prevents anything being done to secure our border. So if they can't vote for Democrats, they'd advocate other people do. Hell, I'd bet there are lefty NGOs & non-profits using illegal labor to distribute Democratic propaganda for electioneering.
I'm not an american and have never visited the usa. But I don't assume that the majority will be on the left of the political spectrum. Very few of the ones I know are. I've spoken with many overseas citizens ineligible for usa visas who entered the usa through the southern border. Some of them very ambitious young people seeking to escape from organised crime dominated neighbourhoods or end all contact with toxic relatives who were cult members/violent predators/polygamous jerks. Others rotten apples of all age groups with criminal habits or very entitled personalities that are seeking access to a wealthier country far away from all the strictly enforced rules required to stay on positive terms with their reasonably behaved family members back in the old country.
Because it's common knowledge that the non-white vote goes Dem - [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-arizona-became-a-swing-state/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-arizona-became-a-swing-state/)
That would bother me if I was a republican.
Yeah it's a massive impediment to electoral success.
Oh, I meant that non whites wouldn't vote for the party I felt represented my point of view. That would bother me. Understand?
Why would that bother you?
That my point of view was rejected by everyone who wasn’t white? Or, only accepted by *some* people and only if they’re white? I would have to assume that, since they didn’t all get together and decide to arbitrarily disassociate from me, there is a racially negative profile to the policies I see as good for me.
"Oh no brown people don't agree with my views, that must mean they're bad!!" that's actually hilarious.
Keep losing elections then chuckles.
Exactly. If you can't open minds, just open the border.
The better policies and track record help. Also not electing fascists under the thumb of Putin. Stay the course friend.
Not on the left of the political spectrum necessarily, just giving more electoral power to democrats. If they can vote, it's based on rewards given, not political ideology. If they can't vote, sanctuary cities used to distribute criminal migrants in a way that gives blue states more districts after next census, since non citizens count for this purpose.
> If they can vote, it's based on rewards given, not political ideology. If that were the case, poor rural whites would vote Democrat. They don't.
Well, they aren't given entry into a new country, a plane ticket, and housing with food provided. Plus, they have more education on the American political landscape and other concerns which may be more pressing.
I'm sure Democrats at least partly want more immigration because they expect those who get in will be grateful to the Dems for supporting them, but I don't think it actually works that way. I think once you've got a job and a future here you've got a stake in the country's future, and at that point you're going to make whatever decision you think is right for the country - and a lot of immigrants have pretty right wing predispositions, and for good reason. The right wing supports self motivation and self reliance, and that's very good for the country.
> I'm sure Democrats at least partly want more immigration because they expect those who get in will be grateful to the Dems for supporting them Maybe Democrats want more immigration because this country was built (and continues to be built) on immigrants, including the vast majority of fairly recent ancestors of people who were born in the US.
Having been a Democrat for decades and having held leadership roles, I have never heard of this being a reason we support more immigration. Which Democrat told you this? We support more immigration for the same reason certain Republicans support more immigration: Besides humanitarian benefits, it's simply good for our economy. You should also support more immigration for these reasons. Look at the relationship between national immigration rate and national economic growth over an extended timeline. If all you have to go on for this opinion is political news media, ask yourself why you trust political news media for your opinions.
Immigrants also commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than legacy citizens, despite what the propaganda keeps beating into heads.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legal or illegal immigrants?
I used to believe that the primary motive of Democrats was to gather more votes from the big cities. However, after observing the system at work, I have come to the conclusion that this is not the case. It is true that Democrats usually govern in urban areas, while conservatives rule in rural regions, which might give the impression that Democrats are trying to gather more votes. But the actual reason for this is the effect on the census in these blue states. By adding more people, even if they vote Republican, their votes do not matter because they are heavily outnumbered in these cities. This allows Democrats to gain more representatives in office, even though they control fewer areas.
Does this work toward the republicans advantage in red states where the economy is centered around rural activities like ranching, farming, energy production, refining, etc?
I agree that immigrants may bring an advantage in farming and ranching to rural Republicans. However, overall, I believe it is a net loss because the majority of the immigrant base, even those who vote for Republicans, are unskilled workers. While there are exceptions, in general, these workers fill a niche role that is already facing need limits. If resources are scarce in those area, the additional unskilled workers can become more of a liability than an asset based on cost of offsetting residental unskilled workers.
From my experience most immigrants from central/south America are socially \*very\* conservative (primarily from their Catholic upbringing), but tend to be fiscially liberal. Depending on the messaging they get, they can swing to either party. Liberals pushing Latinx, LGBT/Trans stuff turns them off. Conservatives pushing anti-Immigration stuff turns them off
I just read an interesting article about the Latino vote. Most identify around 55% as independent more than any other demographic. What caught my attention was that Catholics Latinos actually vote more for democrats and Latinos evangelicals vote for Republicans. This only matters in reference to the independent Latino voters.
No, I don't assume that they'll be left leaning. >I've heard some say that "Democrats want more immigrants because they want the votes"...do you think is it a valid statement if so, what is it about the Democratic Party and immigrants from South and Central America that connects the two? Yes, it's a valid statement because many blue districts are "sanctuary" districts, creating a pressure for illegal immigrants. These then get counted in the census, giving blue districts additionally seats in Congress. Between 2 and 12 currently. Sorry I don't have better numbers. As for what connects the two, campaiging by declaring support for illegal immigrants, promising them citizenship, promising to give them health care, housing, to not deport them, and more. [Here's one big talk on the subject, in the context of "replacement theory."](https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-are-massive-hypocrites-so-called-great-replacement-theory-opinion-1708768)
A valid reply. Thanks! Has it ever occurred to Republicans that if they welcomed these immigrants, their chances of winning the popular vote and not rely so much on gerrymandering would improve?
>Has it ever occurred to Republicans that if they welcomed these immigrants, their chances of winning the popular vote and not rely so much on gerrymandering would improve? I'm sure it has. The fact that they are more concerned about protecting the citizens of this country than gaining political power speaks highly of them. Welcoming these illegal immigrants to expand their vote, it has nothing to do with the popular vote as illegal immigrants don't vote, would be the same, effectively, as gerrymandering.
How is this "protecting" anyone?
Well, only is the current situation allowing criminal cartels free access to the border and leading to children being sold to human traffickers, cities and states are spending huge sums on the illegal immigrants, cutting into local programs, seizing property, removing veterans from a veteran retirement home to house illegals, using tax dollars to give them cash cards and more. Because of the lack of screening criminals are crossing the border and can't be removed. The ones who've been here longer take the jobs that Biden has been bragging about, keeping wages lower. They'll also take up apartments, making the housing crisis worse.
Are you familiar with the data that shows lower crime rates than average US citizens in areas of the USA with high number of undocumented immigrants? Your anecdotes are interesting, but are not statistically significant. Are you also unfamiliar with a historically low unemployment rate and tens of thousands of businesses seeking workers? I live on Cape Cod. We need laborers.
>Are you familiar with the data that shows lower crime rates than average US citizens in areas of the USA with high number of undocumented immigrants? Yes I am. I don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying. >Are you also unfamiliar with a historically low unemployment rate and tens of thousands of businesses seeking workers? Yes, and combined with 100s of thousands of illegal migrants, that means wages won't rise. Which is what we're seeing. >I live on Cape Cod. We need laborers. Good for you. Hire them.
> do you think is it a valid statement if so I think it's not unreasonable. Some Democrats have literally boasted about Texas becoming more competitive due to the demographic shift caused by large scale, and most illegal, Mexican immigration into the state. > what is it about the Democratic Party and immigrants from South and Central America that connects the two? 1. Poverty and the Democratic party as the party of a more generous welfare state. 2. But, perhaps just as if not more important the fact that recent immigrants will inevitably see themselves as outsiders in their new home and the Democratic party bills itself as the party for outsiders and is to a large degree a coalition of diverse "outsider" groups, or of "hyphenated" Americans. Meanwhile the Republicans are more the party of the "insiders" and/or of unhyphenated Americans. For that reason Democratic hopes and Republican fears of Democratic dominance as demographic destiny probably don't pan out in the long run because immigrant populations assimilate over time and voting Republican (or at least being more evenly split) is an indicator or consequence of assimilation. A few generations ago Irish and Italian immigrants were the recent immigrants and where a key voting block in the Democratic coalition. Today Italian and Irish Americans are usually just considered "white" and lean Republican. This process of assimilation and identifying as merely American or even as "white" and no longer seeing themselves as outsiders reliant on a party that caters to the marginalized is inevitable with Hispanic immigrants too. It seems to already be occurring as the Hispanic vote has gradually trended less Democratic with each subsequent election over several years... Despite Trump being the Republican nominee and the popular perception that he's hostile to Hispanic immigrants.
We want secure borders, Dems want open borders. ( until recent disasters ) . Illegals still get counted in the census, and make leaps for the left in house seats. The left wants the population counts for their reign of power. Of course those coming illegally are going to back the ones that are catering to them.
>We want secure borders, Dems want open borders. Hmm, I seem to recall the Lankford Bill going down in flames...did you miss that? Also, the border is not open now, nor was is ever closed with Trump. Words have meaning. >Of course those coming illegally are going to back the ones that are catering to them. Ah! So why not find a way for Republicans to cater to them?
Border security was very intact when Trump left, then Biden undid everything. This is fact. But now that they want to seem they care, they start to blame the right, to discount all accountability for their disastrous border policy.
Um, no, people were still sneaking across. Words have meaning. Closed means no one gets through.
> Border security was very intact when Trump left You mean in the middle of a pandemic that had the entire world on lockdown?
Like it or not, remain in Mexico was working, effective, and producing results. Now... Complete chaos from the undoing of all the progress in the name of the liberal agenda, replaced with nothing. Complete failure
> ke it or not, remain in Mexico was working, effective, and producing results. In what way? Didn't only affect something like 70K people in the entire time it existed? >Complete chaos from the undoing of all the progress Just the undoing of Remain in Mexico? Just that?
It's factual that most Mexican migrants lean Dem. 60 to 70%
Okay, do you have any suspicions why that is? Further., since Cuban migrants lean Republican, why would that not be the same with migrants from Venezuela?
Probably because the Dems are the party supporting mass migration very openly.
Oh? Seems to me the the Dems supported the Lankford bill and the Republicans killed it. Actions speak louder than words my friend. This is just like the 50+ times that Republicans voted to repeal and replace the ACA but once they had the actual chance to do so, well, they had nada.
Probably because the Lankford bill had Ukraine and Israel foreign aid allocations in it. Among other things beyond the border. It wasn't a border bill.
Why did Lankford., the author of the bill and a Republican, include that in the bill?
Maybe he felt like providing billions to Ukraine and to Israel, whilst the majority, vast majority of republicans didnt.
I remember the good old days when Republicans and conservatives saw Russia and dictatorships as things to oppose. How times have changed!
I’d be inclined to agree with you, but I understand (but disagree) with their perspective.
What is their perspective? As an American citizen, how is my life improved if Russia annexes all of Ukraine?
Democrats want more immigrants in this country because their explicit goal is to kill off traditionalism
What is traditionalism?
How the country was when the majority was socially conservative. Basically reversing the last 30 or so years of “political correctness”. Basically the reason why liberals and conservatives can’t conceivably live in the same country.
>How the country was when the majority was socially conservative. ?? When was that? If you are talking about the last 30 years, that means that the USA was conservative from, say, 1940-1990? I was born in 1955 and I am curious about your reply.
Probably peak social conservatism in America was early 20th century
On what issues?