Immigration Status, Immigrant Family Ties, and Support for the Democratic Party

That is a newly published piece by George Hawley, Social Science Quarterly, not yet available on-line as far as I can find:

I test the hypothesis that immigration status itself is a predictor of Democratic Party affiliation and vote choice, even controlling for other attributes. I further test whether having immigrant parents and grandparents has a similar effect. Method.To examine these questions, I created single- and multilevel models of party affiliation and vote choice using the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Results. Even after controlling for a myriad of individual and contextual attributes, immigration status was a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of Democratic affiliation. This was also true of the children and grandchildren of immigrants, but this effect weakened over multiple generations. Conclusion. Immigration status itself appears to be an important determinant of voting patterns, which is highly consequential, given the large and growing foreign-born population in the United States.

Perhaps this explains some small part of American politics in recent times.

For the pointer I thank D.

Comments

If Republicans want to tip the scales they should match the Democrats stance on immigration if/when immigration is a less hotly contested issue. It makes perfect sense that people with first or second hand experience navigating the waters of the US immigration process would favor the "pro-immigrant" party (even though it really isn't).

It makes me wonder though, what would be the conditions for immigrants to take a "Now that I got here let's pull up the ladder" mentality?

Most immigrants are social democrats if not outright socialist from low-trust cultures. If Republicans support Open Borders and gibmedats, they should just merge with the Democratic party.

Who more believes in a high-trust society, Republicans or Democrats?

That's not the issue I raised. It's the issue you wished I'd raised.

No, it's the question I'm raising.

Thanks for the Straussian response, though.

What percent of Democratic politicians support open borders or something that is remotely close to that?

95 percent. When was the last time a democratic politician supported actual measures to reduce illegal infiltration?

more liberal immigration policies =/= open borders

My understanding is that most Democratic politicians do not want to open the floodgates. I think they would be too committed to protectionism for low income American wages.

How old are you? The Democrats stopped being the Party of the Working Man after the Boston busing riots and NYC Hardhat riots.

The official Democrat position is to be anti-anti-open borders. That is while open borders isn't the official party platform, they are in effect against any practical policy that would substantially stem immigrant flow. This is by default not all that different from open borders.

The far left wing of the party is open borders officially.

Are you saying Republicans should abandon American citizens in the rush to import replacement voters so that they can pursue an anti-American agenda??? That is what the Democrats are doing.

Please provide an example of this that is widespread

California. And soon Georgia, Texas, and Florida. Democracy is down to a territorial fight at this point.

What about California is un-American?

Its appallingly high taxes and Chicano culture. The California of Ronald Reagan is hunkered down behind state parks and environmental regulations.

"What about California is un-American?"

Sanctuary cities/state. Anti-civil rights (2nd amendment). Spending taxpayer's money on non-citizens.

Democratic states are un-American. Brilliant insight.

If America is a Proposition Nation, then the dividing lines are based on which Proposition you hold.

When people claim capitalism justifies the impoverishing of a class of citizens, is it any surprise that this impoverished class turns to socialism? Of course not, that's just self-protection.

Demonstrating how capitalism prevents that impoverishing, that's what needs to be done.

There is no such entity as capitalism, which is a distorting reification invented by Marxists. There are markets and capital. But you cannot illuminate those via Marxian economics.

Yeah, if it wasn't for capitalism, there wouldn't be any impoverishment at all. We should just go back to the good old un-impoverished days before capitalism.

Odd, then, that so many people would leave their workers' paradise for the U.S. so that they can be immiserated, exploited, and alienated by capitalism.

Immigrants admitted based on skills or who have founded their own companies. Immigrants who did not depend and do not plan to depend in the future on chain migration.

'Immigration status itself appears to be an important determinant of voting patterns, which is highly consequential, given the large and growing foreign-born population in the United States.'

Intriguingly, there is a group whose 'immigrant' status goes back a couple of centuries and whose voting patterns have been Democratic for two generations.

Yet three generations ago they were reliable Republican voters. Of course, before the founding of the Republican Party, essentially all of those 'immigrants' could not vote.

Almost as if a party's positions can change, and no longer reflect what those who voted for it in the past want. There is another immigrant group (notable to a degree for having dual citizenship, and often being politically active in both countries of citizenship) who also used to be reliable Democratic Party voters, but there has been a Republican effort for a generation to attract them, with varying degrees of success. Obviously, the measuring of 'immigrant status' of dual citizens is likely a bit problematic, regardless of where their grandparents came from.

And honestly, 'immigrant' says little more than identifying any other broad group - such as white American citizens without college degrees, and having parents and grandparents without college degrees, favor one party. So what? Two generations ago, that group were huge fans of Roosevelt and his party.

This result is not surprising given that the Democrats are now clearly more pro-immigrant than the Republicans. It would be more interesting to see whether this result was true in the 1990s and 2000s when the parties were not as far apart on the immigration issue.

It's almost as if the Democrats want the government to elect a new people.

By the way, here's an interesting L.A. Times article on The Flight from White:

"Are Arabs and Iranians white? Census says yes, but many disagree"

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-north-africa-race/#nt=oft-Double%20Chain~Flex%20Feature~~sf-246p~~1~yes-art~curated~curatedpage

Of course, race is not a social construct, as the true Aryans can attest.

The true Aryans being Persians, of course, as 'Iran' derives from the Old Persian arya or ariya.

Which leads one to wonder how that other group of aspiring self-described Aryans decided that Aryans were actually blond and blue eyed. Clearly, they were not following honest social science best practices when defining their racial terms so inaccurately.

(Whether Semitic peoples are white or not is left to the reader's imagination - though we all know what those faux Aryans thought about one group of Semites.)

The true Aryans being Persians, of course, as 'Iran' derives from the Old Persian arya or ariya.

This is made-up, in modern times.

The only people who have ever called themselves "Arya" ("Aryan" is just a modern German twist on that word) were old Indians who composed the early part of the Vedas.

After various linguistic and archaeological discoveries made in the 19th century, and with racial lineage being tied to evolutionary notions of success and fitness, the Iranians thought it prudent to adopt the Aryan label and rename their country.

The Germans and miscellaneous white supremacists in Europe adopted the name too, though there is no evidence that anyone in any European branch of Indo-European language speakers has ever used that term for themselves in history.

Not just old Indians. In Sanskrit Arya is the honorific term (like Mr. or Shri) for men of the Vaishya varna. It is used that way in Buddhism too e.g. the deity Arya Manjushri. The South Indian Brahmana castes Iyer and Iyengar both derive from Arya. As (more speculatively) do the surnames Rai, Raya, or Rao used by various castes in various parts of India.

But yeah it has little to do with the people from Pars or Fars.

These people seem to disagree, but who cares about DNA studies anyways? 'The make-up of Indus Valley periphery individuals is straightforward: a mixture of Iranian agriculturists and the South Asian hunter-gatherers, or Ancient Ancestral South Indians.' Along with 'And second, importantly, Ancestral North Indians have one more ancestry mixed in that is not to be found in Ancestral South Indians: the Steppe pastoralists or, to use the old term, Aryans.'

https://qz.com/india/1243436/aryan-migration-scientists-use-dna-to-explain-origins-of-ancient-indians/

You seem rather dim. I know about and appreciate all the genetic studies, but what they are saying is that the progenitors of people who brought a branch of the Indo-European language to India came from the steppes and mixed with Indus Valley people. The genetics says nothing about the clan names or honorifics, unless you've found some mechanism to infer clan name from one's DNA.

We know that ancient Indians who spoke a branch of the Indo-European language called themselves "Arya" as WE HAVE TEXTS passed down from antiquity to prove it. NONE OF THE OTHER BRANCHES (Iranian, Greek, Italian, Germanic, etc.) called themselves "Arya" or "Aryan" ever. They all discovered that name in the 19th century, decided that it would be good to claim lineage from prehistoric "world-conquerers", and the only old name that was available for them to adopt was Arya/Aryan.

Get it?

the Steppe pastoralists or, to use the old term, Aryans

This is stupid. The person who wrote this article is as clueless as you are.

And perhaps recent American politics explains some small part of this.

That doesn’t seem likely seeing as the two presidents most associated with mass amnesty are Republicans.

Wasn't the plan that all these natural conservatives would come in and join The Federalist Society?

When politicians say they are going to deport your family & friends, you tend not to vote for them!

(That said, for all the Democratic complaining about "children in cages", I don't here any systemic immigration reform proposals coming from them either...)

"foreign-born population in the United States."

I know the concept is defined by the US census bureau. Anyway, I'm confused by it's implications: you can become an US citizen and still be one of the "others".

After the oath of allegiance: "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen".......you're still called foreign by low level US bureaucrats and researchers.

Perhaps, I'm too politically correct. I think the article abstract should say at least "foreign-born citizens". Citizenship is above place of birth, citizenship must be respected, not derided by omission.

'you can become an US citizen and still be one of the "others"

Well, just ask an African-American how that works.

'I think the article abstract should say at least "foreign-born citizens"'

Well, if they start talking about foreign born American citizens as citizens, it becomes much harder to argue that one group of citizens should be distinguished from another group in a way that makes them not part of 'real America' or 'real Americans.' Just ask an African-American how that works.

One should add that the American concept of citizenship being defined by sharing the same values and principles remains quite radical, and something that all those people who like to talk about 'das Volk' as a concept reject utterly.

'The German noun Volk translates to people, both uncountable in the sense of people as in a crowd, and countable (plural Völker) in the sense of a people as in an ethnic group or nation (compare the English term folk).

Within an English-language context, the German word is of interest primarily for its use in German philosophy, as in Volksseele "national soul" and in German nationalism (notably the derived adjective völkisch "national, ethnic"). ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volk">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volk

The link to völkisch is also userful - 'The völkisch movement (German: völkische Bewegung, "folkish movement") was the German interpretation of a populist movement, with a romantic focus on folklore and the "organic", i.e.: a "naturally grown community in unity", characterised by the one-body-metaphor (Volkskörper) for the entire population during a period from the late 19th century up until the Nazi era. ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement

Citizenship is membership in good standing on the tax farm, I mean, the State. Nationality, by contrast, you take with you wherever you go. The government can't revoke your ancestry.

Nobody chooses it's own ancestry. But you can choose to what group you'r loyal to. That's the very purpose of the "oath of allegiance" when people naturalize as US citizens. A promise to be loyal to the USofA, defend the constitution, the country.

If after declaring loyalty to the US you're still considered "foreign".......what's the point of becoming naturalized?

If at the point of naturalization you still speak halting English and boo the national anthem at sporting events why exactly are we nationalizing you.

Will the Republican Party suffer permanent political damage as the result of Trump's demonization of immigrants? How many generations will it take for the damage to be undone? I'm not surprised by the results in this study, but I don't think of either party as the immigrant party. In Florida, Cubans are reliably Republican. And so are their descendants and the descendants of Spanish, Italian, and Greek immigrants. The Democrats answer to many interest groups not just immigrants, and many of those groups have competing interests. One can see the conflict reflected in the large number of presidential candidates, as each tries to shore up his favored interest group. Houdini didn't possess the magic that will be required.

"Answers to many interest groups:" free entry/open borders, free clothes, free college, free food, free health, free houses, etc.

That which is unsustainable will eventually collapse.

No one, democrat or republican, has an issue with immigrants. Many of us have concerns over 11 to 25 million and expanding masses of criminal invaders voting, who are exerting downward pressure on low-end wages and likely will bankrupt the welfare state: some of us think, "The sooner the better."

Thank God for President Donald J. Trump, warts and all.

You tell 'em, hun.

"Trump's demonization of immigrants" Illegal immigrants you mean? What's wrong with being against criminals? I would think that would be most people's default position.

He means what he said, correctly, as Trump's demonization of immigrants. 'Brown ones aren't real Americans' being, after all, exactly how Trump and most of the Republicans think.

If you make immigration rules and processes really onerous, and people have to jump through lots of hoops to have a prayer of immigrating (difficult to get visa interviews, lots of bureaucracy, applications rejected on trivial technicalities, status in limbo for years waiting for a green card, etc.), they tend to remember that, regardless of how wealthy and successful they get in the States.

And then they will naturally vote for the party that claims to welcome immigrants and make the process much more easier and human, as opposed to the party that seems to dislike immigrants, treat them as burdens (but who are still supposed to feel grateful that the US deigned to let them in the country), and wants to make the process much more onerous for people who come from similar backgrounds as them.

It's not rocket science.

This is a game theoretic problem. It's fine for Republicans, especially Trumpists, to hold on to their public attitudes about immigration, but it won't win them electoral success unless the fraction of current and former immigrants gets much lower than it is today in the US. The opposite incentive holds for the Democrats. There are other kinds of equilibria where both parties can become pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant, but it's impossible to see that happening with current levels of partisanship.

Let us elect a new people or else.

I don’t know about most people but my reaction to this kind of threat isn’t to try and beat you at the ballot box. It’s to identify you as the threat to constitutional order that you are. Whirlybird.

What threat?

I was just pointing out how people feel and why. Anti-immigrant people are welcome to try and restrict immigration to small enough numbers that their harshness won't matter (I explicitly pointed this out above.) That's pretty much what happened between 1924 and 1965. The ordinary American didn't care that America was unwelcoming to immigrants because they couldn't relate to the immigrant experience. Passing the 1965 Act was a purely ideology-driven action, not the result of a grassroots movement (like Civil/Voting Rights Acts.)

What won't serve the anti-immigrant people well at the ballot box is if immigration continues at its current level AND they are perceived as making life hard for those immigrants. Do you disagree with that assessment? If so, show me the math.

Many commenters here praise Canada's (in some ways) more stringent immigration laws. But at least in Canada, you get your rejection quickly, in a matter of months, so you can go on with your life. In America, they make you wait in line for years and jump through hoops and the fuck you on a technicality. Or threaten to rescind your green card, even naturalization, after the fact over trivial misstatements on some ancient visa record.
if America reformed it's immigration laws to just say "no" to more people in the first place, instead of having long waiting lists, that would make it more humane.

Agreed. This situation also messes up incentives for people in other countries, most of whom would do better to invest time and effort in building their lives in their home countries rather than perennially trying to get away.

Canada's immigration system is not 'more stringent' than America's. That's another nativist lie. Canada lets in over 400,000 people a year now. The US with 10X the population only does 2.5X as many.

It explains a small part, if you cannot see what been sitting in front of your face.

The Democrats haven't been aggressive seekers of immigrant friendly votes. Rather, that cohort of voter has been driven to the Democratic Party by a Republican base that simply will not abide their presence. As they've done with African American voters, Latinos, any non European, and even women in general, ever since the Democrats took up the flag of civil rights. Leaving the increasingly racist and reactionary white European-descended to fall back to a Republican Party eager to stoke their anxieties. As of yet, even the business class is up in the air as the Republican party solidifies its race/religion/culture grassroots support, something they'd done in previous years with a wink toward the elites and business interests.

This. Exactly. And it will doom the Republican party in the long run, which is sort of happening now, as the R's are compelled to abandon libertarian principles to suck up the votes of former labor-leaning working class whites. If you can't appeal to Blacks, Latinos, any non-whites or most women, then you have to get the last few white male voters. And that means trade protectionism and immigration restrictions, which ultimately locks the R's into a "whites only" political dynamic. Vicious cycle.

LOL. The only way you are appealing to blacks and Latinos is to give them a big, brimming basket of gibmedats.

I want a government so small it doesn't matter who's in charge of it. If I can't have that, then I want my socialism nationalist, like everybody else.

OK, OK, racial stereotyping of black people as incorrigible welfare cases, combined with a far too overt pairing of "national" and "socialist". That has to be a give, right?

Is Anti-Gnostic MR's most subtle spoof troll ever????

It's like this with Hazel all the time; whatever compromises ("gibmedats" as you crudely put it) to libertarian or conservative ideology which are demanded to bring ethnic minorities or young women into the Republicans, they're always OK, no matter what they are. They're always rationalized away with "Oh, but life is unfair for females and ethnic minorities". Even silencing free speech on elements that might be unflattering to these groups is proposed, and open support of redistribution via reparations (what Libertarian values are on show!).

But all compromises that bring in the same for the White working class males are no bueno, even if they are much smaller compromises in changes to the economic system, and are often more or justifiable in terms of protecting strategically vulnerable sectors from anti-capitalist international powers anyway.

It's fairly obvious that it's simply the case one of these groups is simply regarded as the enemy and not to be won over, and the other is not. Working class white males with a high school education who do manual jobs and trades are simply "the enemy".

in terms of protecting strategically vulnerable sectors from anti-capitalist international powers

Brilliant rationalization for trade protectionism. We're not violating our free market principles, we're actually protecting capitalism from the Chinese communist party! Letting people freely buy things from communists is supporting communism. Freedom is slavery!

You might want to look at Cold War trade policy. if you think Free Market thinkers back then thought it was a good idea to give up the "Commanding Heights" to the Soviet Union however much it would've meant more "open" trade policy (with an economy that, much as China is decidedly not a market economy, if to a greater extent than China today).

Much less free reign giving them free reign to subsidize placing potential surveillance devices in every Western home.

(Now, the smart argument against what I'd said, of course, would've been to dismiss that many of the Trumpian protectionist plans ever had any national security implication. But you had to take the bait and go immediately for the dopey argument of dismissing that international security implications could ever have a role in international trade, because of course you did.)

LOL like the Soviet union was ever capable of taking any commanding heights of the US economy. Even if they did place a spy device in every home that voluntarily took one in, what difference would that have made in the end?

The USSR couldn't even take over the "Commanding Heights" of it's OWN economy. They were a an economic basket case, remember?

And the reason we didn't trade with the USSR wasn't more because THEY didn't want to trade with evil capitalists, than the reverse!

The only reason China is an economic power is because of the presence of evil capitalist firms there, making money by manufacturing products designed in the US. if they actually tried to behave like communists their economy would collapse.

So in your mind, the USA, which places sanctions against the likes of Venezuela and tariffs for strategic reasons against the EU and Japan, would have welcomed wholesale Soviet capture of industry and unilateral total openness of trade?

These Chinese economy is not a market economy and has heavy state control and coordination, ideologically they are Marxist-Leninist and they certainly have an authoritarian government with little regard for liberal freedoms. You seem to think that they must be a market economy because they are a successful exporter, but this really isn't the case.

The Soviet could well have been capable of taking over strategically vital if the US had been open to it. And Russian surveillance across America would have mattered for the Cold War, obviously.

Working class white men are not "the enemy". People who think that they are entitled to government protection for their jobs and incomes, at the expense of the rest of America, are the enemy.

Sadly, far too many working class white guys vote for policies that demand the rest of us subsidies their livelihoods.

And I'm not asking for Republicans to appeal to blacks and Latinos by handing out goodies. I'm asking them to live up to their creed of treating people as equal autonomous individuals, with the same moral worth regardless of race or national origin. Working class white guys don't deserve special protections of government favors anymore than any other group.

Narrator:

This person supports reparations.

You aren’t high IQ enough to keep track of your own lies.

"reparations" aren't "free goodies", they're compensation for past wrongs.

And why isn’t protectionism the compensation for past wrongs?

And that’s exaxtly why I support an 30 year immigration freeze and reciprocal tariffs on China. Working class types were abused by open borders and outsourcing. We are giving them the chance to rebuild their lives. And as a bonus those who will be helped by these policies aren’t a century removed from the actual harm done to them. They were actually victims- this isn’t some burden kept alive by grievance and envy.

But honestly forget the good faith response to your bad faith spewing- repartitions are absolutley free goodies being paid to people many of whom never even experienced segregation much less salary. Like was said above dark skin types excite you.

Seconded. The GOP and NuRight is every proggies wet dream come true. The perfect opposition: retarded, incapable, self-perpetuating. We're probably never seeing another replublican president. It's Democrats and whiny upper-middle aged insecure closet-racists all the way down now.

What is interesting about the comments above is that

Illegal immigrants can't vote,

Yet, some of the comments make it sound as if they do.

What is the size of the illegal immigrant population in the US as a percent of the total US population:

"According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the estimated population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. rose rapidly in the 1990s, "from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007," then dropped sharply during the Great Recession before stabilizing in 2009.[4] Pew estimated the total population to be 11.1 million in 2014, or approximately 3 percent of the U.S. population.[5][4][6] This "is in the same ballpark" as figures from the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which estimated that 11.4 million illegal immigrants lived in the United States in January 2012.[3][7] The estimate and trends are also consistent with figures reported by the Center for Migration Studies, which reported that the U.S. illegal immigrant population fell to 10.9 million by January 2016, the lowest number since 2003.[8]" From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States

California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois account for 59% of the illegal immigrant population.

It's a good point to note that the study appears to implicitly limit itself to legal immigration. Does that suggest that the policies (walls, greater scrutiny of those from specific regions and backgrounds...) is really a distraction from the real driver? Is the currently battle really about legal immigration rather than the claimed target of illegal immigrants?

You’re the only person to have used the term illegal immigration on the thread thus far.

Untrue. Anyone can read the comments above. Listen up folks: You gotta use the word illegal when you make those comments about immigrants or Hmmm will not be able to understand the context of your statements. The comments above speak for themselves.

By the way, Hmmm, if you put the word "legal" in front of the word "immigrant" as that word appears in the comments above that were referenced, you would find that we would have some really nasty commenters. Folks who are spitting on the grave of their own legal immigrant parents or grandparents.

I support open borders, so you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

But at least at the time of your posting, there were 7 hits for “illegal” and every instance was your comment.

I don't support open borders andI also believe in the rule of law, which also prohibits illegal entry, and permits entry under defined rules of refugee status, which I doubt many of the economic refugees meet.

My solution is a national ID card for work, with biometrics. Tag the employer for hiring a person without a national ID card. Enforcement easy. No economic refugees.

So institute a police state against American citizens to prevent Hispanics from crossing an invisible line, brilliant solution. I’m sure giving DNA and iris scans to the government won’t be abused in any way ever!

The great thing about the wall is that it’s ineffective, doesn’t impact citizens, and is a rounding error on the federal budget.

I’d much prefer a wall than giving blood samples to the IRS.

Oh, please.

Your face is a biometric.

Hide it.

So you went from biometrics to photo id.

That was a quick walk back.

I guess you don't know about the use of facial recognition software, encrypted facial data on it, but, actually, I think you do, but are just trolling.

With a picture ID card with facial recognition encrypted data and a picture what you have is a secure link to a database, which, after all, is what an encrypted card is.

I should assume next time that you do not know about facial recognition software and your face as a biometric.

Hmm, as for facial recognition and security--your face as a biometric--perhaps you should look into a new Apple iPhone and look at how you open in.

Hmmm, I feel sorry for you. You must not do any foreign travel.

You see, if you go through US passport control, you put your passport on this device and look into a screen and that verifies who you are.

Guess what. This is National ID with facial recognition and encryption.

Whadya know.

It would be nice to know what other factors were controlled for.

The attitude seems to be, "Yes, immigrants will steamroll over your minarchist/common law political culture. Now lie back and enjoy it!"

WTF are you talking about? There is no minarchist culture in America outside of PorcFest maybe and Common Law is an institution not a culture. You idiots have been predicting death by immigration for literally a century and you've been wrong at every turn.

For many immigrants, I imagine, the D's seem familiar, most closely resembling the "state party" wherever they hail from. Among those who identify one way or another, Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans in all levels of government; in my immigrant-heavy city, and surely many others, the local government employees with whom they will most frequently interact, as well as their kids' teachers, will be almost entirely Democrats, reinforcing this identification of party and government. Plus, for some time now Democrats have tended to a sense of eschatology (I can't think of the right secular word) - leading them toward their destiny as the final party, what with all the talk of, just wait a little longer, till the so-and-sos die off, these deaths bringing them ever closer to the time when they believe they will not be able to lose an election.

I am currently reading a book on political psychology and what activates certain groups (word choice, images, memes) etc. What is interesting is that your comment about interaction an immigrant has with government is one that is different than a non-immigrant. Receiving job assistance, having the kid learn English as a second language, reading programs, etc. and the memory of having participated in those programs may predispose an attitude toward government or a party. (It doesn't help either if one party goes out of its way to be anti-immigrant, in appearance, to activate the base.)

What the study above may also be missing is that the new immigrant is likely placed in a social environment of second generation immigrants where those around them are also Democrats (except Florida).

For sure. It now seems perfectly natural to me that the USA should have had a much shorter history than, say, Hungary or some such place - however prolonged the various interruptions in the latter's sovereignty.

It may seem strange given our many and lovingly well-documented shortcomings, but I think the USA will be remembered, as a whole, almost as an isolated utopian experiment: much the way we now remember the many odd communal or utopian schemes within American history.

First slowly, and then all at once.

Republicans first resisted latin immigration, leading Democrats to support it (and scoop up some votes)?

Republicans then fully demonized non-white immigration, driving even more away.

I don't know that it "explains" in the way you mean. Don't get the causality reversed. It's the result of a long, but accelerated pattern.

The odd thing is that Republicans tend to overshoot national consensus on such things, and in their zeal, give Democrats even more votes to scoop up.

Which simply proves the restrictionist's point: immigration is political suicide for libertarians and conservatives, because importing immigrants is simply importing statists and liberals. Thus, democracy is just a territorial/demographic at this point. Like Lebanon, where the government won't even take the census to keep from blowing up the National Pact.

You say this even as the Republican party abandons conservative and libertarian principles so they can steal working class whites (i.e. unions) from the Democrats. Besides, given your comment history, I somehow think you're not really that interested in America's libertarian heritage. Concern troll much?

As they should. Like I said, if every other tribe is going to come here and agitate for Title VII remedies and cultural space, then whites would be foolish not to fight on those terms. Ideologues are bringing a toy knife to a gun fight.

Someone just called Trump "Our President of Perpetual Grievance."

I find that unattractive, and quite unnecessary. I'm ready for a 2021 president of sunny optimism. And someone who doesn't go out to be a dick, every single day.

Is there a single Democratic candidate other than Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang who isn't slobbering all over ethnic grievance or sexual politics?

Seriously, y'all nominate either Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang and I'll vote for them.

According to this, Biden is leading.

I'm sure true partisans will find their freakout with him too, but it strikes me that he might coast to a win on "nice guy."

Biden is currently making political hay condemning "English jurisprudential culture" which is probably the English's greatest contribution to the global order. I'll pass on Biden.

Oops, forgot the link.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1111207858425810945?s=19

Remember the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 and the road not taken.

If Republicans could have united and supported pretty much any immigration plan, they would have had something to sell to naturalized citizens, children of immigrants.

Ah well, they'll have to do it someday. Maybe by 2024 if things work out.

What are Republicans going to sell--lower taxes? People who don't pay taxes don't care about lower taxes.

Cool theory, it doesn’t quite match reality though.

Reagan signed the immigration reform act in 1986, which legalized > 3 million undocumented immigrants.

Hispanic vote for Rs as %, starting with 2 years prior to signing:

1984 : R - 37%
1988: R - 30%
1992: R - 25%
1996: R - 21%

Trump polls about 30% support as your baseline comparison.

We might need something with finer detail, especially because in that span Republicans went from "path to good citizens" to "too many Mexicans."

He literally signed an amnesty bill and his support dropped from 37% to 7%.

And yet Republicans have remained viable.

Prediction for America in 2050 - Democrats reaping votes from an East Asian upper crust and migrating West Africans, while a good sized middle of Latinos+Whites vote for Republicans (despite earlier Latin migration opposition)? The same patterns will repeat themselves, while the US base declines.

Perhaps it explains part of American politics, or perhaps it is explained by part of American politics.

(I think I've read that 70% of Muslim Americans voted for Bush in 2000, and substantially fewer in 2004? If true, perhaps something happened in the intervening years to make Muslim Americans believe that Republicans could not represent them well. In that case, politics would explain the demographic voting patterns, rather than the other way around.)

I think this is relevant. Political issues drive play a major role in driving immigrant votes, simply believing these voters say, "I am an immigrant, I will vote for the immigrant party" is a crude and simplistic analysis. The large majority of the Asian-American vote, especially South Asians, became an "immigrant vote" starting around 1990, and they tracked rather strongly with Republicans due to a family-first, tough-on-crime, anti-communist, help-small-businesses policy that was amenable to immigrant Chinese, Korean, and Indian small business owners. Their millennial children, though, don't share these values and trend more strongly towards the Democrats, especially among female Asian-Americans.

Headline: Xenophobic party and its racist base drive immigrants into the hands of chief opposition

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

Short version of Cytotoxic: just surrender now, and open the borders

Yup. Pretty much. You're not allowed to resist freedom, and if you do so you get crushed. You don't have to consent you just have to comply.

Freedom doesn't mean open borders. "Freedom" means property lines, and the category of "immigrant" disappears, replaced by owners, tenants and trespassers.

Only the State can maintain open borders which is why most libertarians, when it comes down to it, aren't actually libertarian.

LOL even by nativist standards that is some impressive conflation. And assumption.

In a free country, people are allowed to immigrate. Pretty sure the private highway owners will be happy to allow private buses to transport in all those private immigrants. Oops there goes your silly fantasy.

Except there would be no civil rights laws, no due process, no administrative law judges, no mandatory public infrastructure, no welfare state, and no birthright citizenship by which the immigrants and their patrons could socialize their costs.

ITT, morons that can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

At any given point, how many natives and "deep Americans" (for want of a better term) do Republicans lose for every migrant background person they gain by capitulating on migration?

Seems like it's always been a bad trade. Bush era was pretty capitulatey but they didn't really pick up many votes from migrant backgrounds at all.

I could imagine capitulation being electorally useful, if it picks up enough migrant backgrounders to push Republicans over the margins in urban seats.

But generally it seems like capitulation gets them pretty much nothing, electorally.

Just say "real Americans" like you want to.

lol, I think we've wasted a lot of time talking for you still really not to get why I wouldn't ever want to say that - it doesn't really mean anything, while "deep Americans" captures the OP premise that the Democrat advantage falls off with time. Not that any White American residence in the USA is really that "deep" in the grand scheme of things (the really "deep Americans" are Native Americans, of course).

We get it: you want your tribal cake and to not get called racist too.

The degree of 'triggering' that seems to come about in you pair just from noting that some Americans have deeper roots in the USA than others is pretty hilarious. Dog-whistles that don't exist that only morons can hear.

Bush won re-election and increased the GOP seat count in 2004. He won a historically high percentage of the Hispanic vote. There is no reason to believe that you can even make a lasting constituency of 'deep Americans' who are a dying minority anyways (thank God).

The funny thing is that white European-ancestry Americans aren't a dying minority. What is a dying minority is that minority of whites which believes that only white people are "real Americans". That sad bunch of racist dotards than can't cope with a multi-cultural diverse conception of America and Americanness.

Multicultural empires are time-limited. America is not the End of History.

All empires and all nation-states are time-limited.

This is true, and yet... you can be China or you can be the Empire of Alexander or Genghis. Having some integrity over time seems worthwhile.

All the more reason for mass immigration: nothing builds integrity like tons of immigrants.

It kind of doesn't seem like that tbh.

It seems more not like that, if anything (on a local and global scale today, across history, etc.).

Maybe in the long term, you can't. But when have parties ever responded to long term incentives in democratic electoral systems? You want power now, and it's much easier to re-brand the Republicans in 20 years or whatever when it becomes a problem than to say "Hey, let's sit out of government now, and somehow this will make our long term prospects much stronger".

People will want *something* to vote for in two-party system, and should the Republicans ever become moribund, they'll be ample opportunity for transmogrification, if you were cared about keeping the party name alive for some reason.

Take a gander at California. There's your 'in 20 years' in real time, now. The Cali GOP is stuck in the cycle: too few members to keep the nutbars from grabbing nominations in county and other positions, which drives away non-crazies. Then people don't vote for them. That's your future and it's all your fault. All of it.

Regional political one-party scenes don't really scale up.

Seriously, the US as a country will not abide one party rule for long. It's maybe sort of maintainable in one state for a while, but on a large basis it won't happen; if the Repubs ever become un-viable, they'll become transformed, get a new membership and "detoxified" remarkably quickly, or else another party will arise in their stead. No incentive to change, right now. There's no need to do what will be a disadvantage today (capitulation) to solve some problem that'll emerge in a couple of generations, perhaps.

Immigrants have been overwhelmingly Democrats since the Civil War.

I would bet that a majority of descendants of 19th century immigrants are now Republicans.

Provided the pace of immigration is moderate (current pace ~1 million per year), this pattern will continue to produce rough parity.

Note- 30% of Latinos voted for Trump.

Canada has a much greater rate of immigration and is more conservative for it. Canada is a more conservatively governed nation than America.

Folks this is why relatives shouldn’t fuck. Their offspring are retarded.

Cry some more. Won't stop you getting crushed over the next 10 years. Prepare to be a minority.

Lol this is how people who know they are beaten talk. You are cranky that trump is still hanging on the rim with his dick in your face and you are lashing out. Retard bitch.

Sure thing Black Knight. It's the people who couldn't reduce legal immigration despite 'their party' being in control of the apparatus controlling it for two years who are pwning. Oh and that's before getting absolutely DESTROYED in the 2018 midterms on unprecedented turnout.

Canada cherry picks. Good for Canada, good for the immigrants, not obviously good for those left behind.

USA gets lots of immigrants from the plucky dregs, at least based on my own lineage. Good for everyone.

America cherry-picks plenty. Net illegal immigration has dropped to nil.

Educate yourself:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944/

No u

New U.S. Immigrants Are as Educated as New Canadian Immigrants

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-us-immigrants-are-educated-new-canadian-immigrants

The US "system" probably does slightly cherrypick less than the Canadian system *but* the US also disproportionately attracts migrants with higher degrees of marketable skills due to its lower income compression. So it's a wash.

This is the classic and validated Borjas 1987 model. See Parey et al 2016 - https://www.wipol.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/sopo/pdf/Ruhose/Pareyetal_Selection_of_High_Skilled_Migrants.pdf - "We measure selection among high-skilled emigrants from Germany using predicted earnings. Migrants to less equal countries are positively selected relative to non-migrants, while migrants to more equal countries are negatively selected, consistent with the prediction in Borjas (1987). Positive selection to less equal countries reflects university quality and grades, and negative selection to more equal countries reflects university subject and gender." (e.g. male, STEM Germans go to the USA, female; humanities Germans move to Sweden).

(For silly modern day persons, to be clear, no, simply being an immigrant doesn't inherently mean that an individual or their cohort has a higher marketable skillset or level of intelligence than natives - it's about incentives).

So, if the US were to have the same system with a Canadian income distribution, legal migration probably would be somewhat lower skilled than it is today, and then you might want to ratchet up a bit towards Canada.

However, all the Anglosphere countries have pretty good systems for selecting skilled migrants and students (contra Continental Europeans, who mostly select for factory labour and refugees), and they've improved since the '90s (a pretty bad time with lot more "open for business", "welcoming" muddle headed nonsense about).

The concerns are mainly about whether the total numbers are too high to overwhelm the sense of nationhood and the institutions, and tackling illegal immigration, and keeping the wolves of open borders and more "compassionate migration" (e.g. economic and climate refugees) away from the door.

The actual existing skill profile of legal immigrants is largely no problem.

I found this comment interesting.

Yes, you integrate, then start paying the bills. You end up conservative.

So what's the problem then?

Well, you probably end up "low tax", and that probably constrains your options.

But whether you favor conservative preferences on national security, national sovereignty, preserving pillar institutions, the constitutional basis for law, the proper areas of state authority and model for the state, the regulation of business, etc. are all other questions.

Tax is not the be all and end all. Conservatives are pretty different from the ideologically left wing socialists who just don't want to pay any tax that one encounters frequently among the Millennial generation, people who never met a pro-state, left wing, anti-nation policy they didn't like, but just don't actually want to pay for any of it (and so endlessly propose higher Corporate Tax and MMT as a way to resolve their dueling inclinations).

Who knows how much we should believe our mad king, but he just threatened that he'll be "CLOSING the Border, or large sections of the Border, next week" in retaliation for illegal immigration.

Or maybe it's just to bury that "Party of Healthcare" fiasco.

"____ isn't nuts. 2020"

It's a winning platform.

Eh, smooth technocratic governance probably is a better bet than "Not crazy" when your line up is Bernie Sanders, Beretta Biden and "Abolish ICE", the Green New Deal and "democratic socialism".

I would be pretty saddened by a Bernie nomination, and from my perspective, two flavors of crazy.

By the way, it's probably a good self-check on authoritarian partisanship if you are down with closing a major trade corridor because "the big man said so."

It would be a shame if anything interrupted NAFTA 2.0. We definitely need more pavement down here, a whole new interstate, more sprawl lining that interstate, and more trucks on the road. Too, it's an important route for smugglers, of people and other ... cool stuff. Just an unmitigated good, from a progressive standpoint.

Did you just give global capitalism to the progressives?

Oh! I mistook you for a progressive, and supposed your thoughts were representative, and understood you to say you were NOT down with "closing a major trade corridor" and all the related stuff it entails, and connected the dots. Apologies.

I don't identify as a progressive, no.

But I am on board for international capitalism.

Depends a lot ob local politics. Big city, yes democrat, only game in town; small town, not so much. And closeness to border should be a factor.

Comments for this post are closed