Elections Immigrants in the US shifted to the right by a whopping 40 points

[Rational Poster]

Plenty of conservative support legal immigration.

Just saying this doesn't make it true.

 

[Scott Stapp]

SCOTUS rejected the citizenship question on the census anyway. So nothing dramatically changed.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/supreme-court-ruling-census-citizenship-question-1385304

 

[SurferH2O]

How many extra seats have illegal immigrants netted Democrats? You seem unaware that areas with higher illegal populations (cough cough agriculture) tend to lean right.

1-3 at this time and had they been able to add all the illegals Biden let in that number would have more than doubled.

 

[avenue94]

Then why are red areas not sanctuary areas.

They are unofficially. Texas and Florida have as large or slightly larger an illegal immigrant population as California. Illegal immigrants tend to go where there are jobs.

Isn't it strange how we're seeing ICE raids targeted at random immigrants, as opposed to say, the Central Valley, or Las Vegas, or farms in Texas and Florida? It's almost as if this push is about optics more than results.

Note that due to the Republican imposed cap on Congressional seats, Republicans overwhelmingly represent fewer Americans that Democrats.

 

[avenue94]

1-3 at this time and had they been able to add all the illegals Biden let in that number would have more than doubled.

Which seats are you referring to? The shifts after 2020 favored Republican leaning areas.

 

[Hog-train]

Yes, because Trump deviated from the norm and violated the Constitution. Again, there is no debate on this matter: The Constitution calls for all residents of the US to be counted, regardless of legal status or voting rights.

Are you disputing that apportioning members of Congress by counting only citizens is unconstitutional?

No not disputing that. Trump's original executive order was a political move and so was Bidens.

I'm pointing out all this jockeying for power is part and parcel of both sides fighting for power.

What other explanation is there for specific Biden executive orders that allowed millions through.

No, having a higher population allows a state to apportion and redraw districts. There's no guarantee that those districts will be blue. In California, in fact, redistricting in California is handled by a non-partisan commission that significantly reduces gerrymandering, so since then we've seen higher turnover and more competitive elections (primaries are also open in the first place).

The majority of the children of these illegal immigrants will vote blue. C'mon now.

To illustrate how childish your reasoning here is: Texas has almost as many illegal immigrants as California, and Florida is number 3. Both have used gerrymandering to heavily tilt their districts and legislators toward the GOP. The GOP has gained significantly more there than the Democrats have in California in recent re-apportionment and redistricting.

Gerrymandering is used by both sides. Constantly.

How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander

Republicans tilted the House map. Democrats are clawing their way back.

www.vox.com

 

[oldshadow]

They are unofficially. Texas and Florida have as large or slightly larger an illegal immigrant population as California. Illegal immigrants tend to go where there are jobs.

Isn't it strange how we're seeing ICE raids targeted at random immigrants, as opposed to say, the Central Valley, or Las Vegas, or farms in Texas and Florida? It's almost as if this push is about optics more than results.

They said they are going after theses areas after the criminals ones they are after now.

By the way you do understand there are some very blue areas in red states that protect illegals.

 

[Hog-train]

There is nothing logical about this post or your reasoning, this is all just plainly internet brained bullshit. Assumptions based on assumptions based on ignorance.

You also ignored this part of my post for some reason, probably because I explain how I think no one in particular benefits from illegals being counted in the census.

"In reality if I really looked into it, I'm sure low population red states benefit slightly more from illegals being counted in census data than high population density blue states, but based on how the population is dispersed it is probably closer to a wash."

The other thing you're omitting is the census already took place in 2020 after Trump politicized the issue. The next census is in 2030. But in reality, you probably just don't know that the census is only once every ten years.

That's irrelevant if they're playing the long game. Not only does the Census figures affect Congressional seats, but the majority of their citizen kids and their kid's kids are going to vote blue.

Otherwise why did Biden do these executive orders that created the crisis at the border?

1. He got rid of the "Remain in Mexico" while applying for asylum program.
2. He instituted the CBP One app to allow applying for asylum remotely letting in hundreds of thousands.
3. He instituted the "catch and release" policy where anyone caught at the border to just be given a future court date and just released into the country.
4. He gave humanitarian parole to hundreds of thousands of new people.
5. He extended the temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people.

And you're also ignoring the reality of how the populations are dispersed across the states, even if in your fantasy scenario you have all the illegals in a state living in exactly one area, most states wouldn't even gain a single seat. You could do the reverse and remove all the illegals from a state, and it also wouldn't alter the number of seats assigned.

Long game 10-20-30 years into the future.

On top of that, some cities in the US, particularly in California, Maryland, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, permit non-citizens to vote in local elections.

They passed a similar law in New York City but it was struck down by a judge.

So allowing illegal immigrants to vote in local elections is not doing anything to help theories that the Democrats are letting in illegals to change voting demographics.

 

[Rational Poster]

That's irrelevant if they're playing the long game. Not only does the Census figures affect Congressional seats, but the majority of their citizen kids and their kid's kids are going to vote blue.

Otherwise why did Biden do these executive orders that created the crisis at the border.?

1. He got rid of the "Remain in Mexico" while applying for asylum program.
2. He instituted the CBP One app to allow applying for asylum remotely letting in hundreds of thousands.
3. He instituted the "catch and release" policy where anyone caught at the border to just be given a future court date and just released into the country.
4. He gave humanitarian parole to hundreds of thousands of new people.
5. He extended the temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people.



Long game 10-20-30 years into the future.

You are making racist assumptions that are antithetical to the very topic of the thread.

The number of seats doesn't change, people just lose representation as populations shift.

Here is all the census data going back to 1910.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-data-table.pdf

 

[avenue94]

No not disputing that. Trump's original executive order was a political move and so was Bidens.

I'm pointing out all this jockeying for power is part and parcel of both sides fighting for power.

What other explanation is there for specific Biden executive orders that allowed millions through.

Political in the sense that Biden's supporters wanted it, yes. Political in the sense that it was to increase Democratic votes? That's laughable.

Again, you're arguing that undoing illegal conduct and restoring constitutional conduct that has been observed for nearly all of the country's history is "political"

You plainly have to no moral compass or consistency in your views here.

The majority of the children of these illegal immigrants will vote blue. C'mon now.

What guarantees that? Did your 99 cent crystal ball tell you that not only will these unborn children be pinko commies but also only move to competitive districts where their votes are enough to flip them?

Gerrymandering is used by both sides. Constantly.

It is used by both sides to vastly different degrees. You didn't read your source even, here's the chart. The GOP still maintains an advantage. That's how fucking ignorant and/or out of your depth you are on this subject.

More importantly, because the Republicans capped the House about a one hundred years ago (to avoid losing seats), any new congressional seats heavily favors Republican areas as far as voter representation. It's impossible to look at the current landscape and its history and argue that Democrats nationally benefit from the current structure and redistricting.

 

[Hog-train]

You are making racist assumptions that are antithetical to the very topic of the thread.

The number of seats doesn't change, people just lose representation as populations shift.

Here is all the census data going back to 1910.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-data-table.pdf

It's not a racist assumption at all. It's known fact.

According to all polls and Pew Research, among all Latino immigrants who are eligible to vote, many more identify as Democrats than as Republicans by a wide margin.

Democratic candidates have garnered a greater share of the Hispanic vote than Republican candidates in every election over the past three decades. That's just a simple fact.

What guarantees that? Did your 99 cent crystal ball tell you that not only will these unborn children be pinko commies but also only move to competitive districts where their votes are enough to flip them?

Every poll. Pew Research. You name it.

Latinos support Democrats.

It is used by both sides to vastly different degrees. You didn't read your source even, here's the chart. The GOP still maintains an advantage. That's how fucking ignorant and/or out of your depth you are on this subject.

More importantly, because the Republicans capped the House about a one hundred years ago (to avoid losing seats), any new congressional seats heavily favors Republican areas as far as voter representation. It's impossible to look at the current landscape and its history and argue that Democrats nationally benefit from the current structure and redistricting.

Never said Republicans weren't benefitting from gerrymandering.

I said both sides do it constantly and jockey for power. But keep arguing against things I never said.

Since Rational Poster doesn't want to answer me, maybe you can.

Why did Biden do these executive orders that created the crisis at the border?

1. He got rid of the "Remain in Mexico" while applying for asylum program.
2. He instituted the CBP One app to allow applying for asylum remotely letting in hundreds of thousands.
3. He instituted the "catch and release" policy where anyone caught at the border to just be given a future court date and just released into the country.
4. He gave humanitarian parole to hundreds of thousands of new people.
5. He extended the temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[avenue94]

They said they are going after theses areas after the criminals ones they are after now.

By the way you do understand there are some very blue areas in red states that protect illegals.

Can you explain to me how they determined these areas were where to find the most criminals? Your first sentence isn't even understandable, what the fuck are you trying to write even.

And while you're at it, you're the one arguing that illegal immigration gained Democrats seats. So name em, which census and which gains went to Democrats? Otherwise, you're "unsurprisingly" just talking out of your ass again.

 

[Rational Poster]

It's not a racist assumption at all. It's known fact.

According to all polls and Pew Research, among all Latino immigrants who are eligible to vote, many more identify as Democrats than as Republicans by a wide margin.

Democratic candidates have garnered a greater share of the Hispanic vote than Republican candidates in every election over the past three decades. That's just a simple fact.



Every poll. Pew Research. You name it.

Latinos support Democrats.



Never said Republicans weren't benefitting from gerrymandering.

I said both sides do it constantly and jockey for power. But keep arguing against things I never said.

Lmao the fact that you're saying this while posting in a thread showing a shift in support amount Latino voters antithetical to this position is so bizarre to me. It is literally a racist assumption, especially in light of the evidence put forth by this thread. You are trying to say Latino voters and their children will vote the same forever despite this thread pretty clearly demonstrating that's not true.

Do you think it's possible people and political parties change over time, especially over 30 years?

 

[Hog-train]

Lmao the fact that you're saying this while posting in a thread showing a shift in support amount Latino voters antithetical to this position is so bizarre to me.

Legal immigrant voters shifted to the right on immigration. That's just their opinion on the recent illegal migrants.

But that doesn't change the fact that the majority still votes blue. It's votes that count.

Do you think it's possible people and political parties change over time, especially over 30 years?

At what point in US history has the majority of Hispanics in the US voted red. I don't think that has ever happened.

 

[Rational Poster]

Legal immigrant voters shifted to the right on immigration. That's just their opinion on the recent illegal migrants.

But that doesn't change the fact that the majority still votes blue. It's votes that count.



At what point in US history has the majority if Hispanics in the US voted red. I don't think that has ever happened.

The only opinion that matters are current legal voters because non-citizens cannot vote. And again, that just fully demonstrates how your assumptions are bullshit. The current legal voters are the likely descendants of illegal migrants.

The current red v blue dynamic hasn't existed for the entirety of US history, which is also part of the point you're ignoring.

I will accept your concession to my question, you do not believe that politics and demographics will be the same in 30 years.

 

[TheGreatA]

Not that surprising since the Democrats are trying to re-define the term "immigrant" to also include people who came in illegally instead of doing it the legal way, the right way, like those people have.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Lmao the fact that you're saying this while posting in a thread showing a shift in support amount Latino voters antithetical to this position is so bizarre to me. It is literally a racist assumption, especially in light of the evidence put forth by this thread. You are trying to say Latino voters and their children will vote the same forever despite this thread pretty clearly demonstrating that's not true.

Do you think it's possible people and political parties change over time, especially over 30 years?

Doesn't the gamesmanship feel a bit silly at this point? Why pretend we can only view the matter in absolutes when the reality is awkwardly sitting in plain sight? Democrats had a strategy that worked for 30 years and now it stopped working.

 

[Rational Poster]

Doesn't the gamesmanship feel a bit silly at this point? Why pretend we can only view the matter in absolutes when the reality is awkwardly sitting in plain sight? Democrats had a strategy that worked for 30 years and now it stopped working.

I mean I just made that point early and it's one I try to point a lot.

A lot of people are kind of dumb, and we're bombarded with info now, it's just easier to reason in absolutes. Good or bad is easier to handle for most.

I think in reality another major factor in the shift is the fact that Kamala is a woman. Trump pulled huge numbers with minority men because of this. As you point out, it's not absolute.

 

[avenue94]

Not that surprising since the Democrats are trying to re-define the term "immigrant" to also include people who came in illegally instead of doing it the legal way, the right way, like those people have.

That's literally always what immigrant has meant. Someone who moved from one country or area to another lol.

You're the one trying to change the definition.

 

[avenue94]

Doesn't the gamesmanship feel a bit silly at this point? Why pretend we can only view the matter in absolutes when the reality is awkwardly sitting in plain sight? Democrats had a strategy that worked for 30 years and now it stopped working.

What strategy was this and how did it work? I swear, all you people talking about redistricting have never looked at the numbers.