As many people have noticed, the great majority of immigrants vote Democrat, and continued mass immigration means a permanent Democrat majority and an end to traditional America. It’s odd how foreigners left their sh!thole countries for the United States for the opportunities provided by the free market, but when naturalized, they vote Democrat for the big government socialism.
Just a few decades ago, California was a dependable Republican bastion and the home of Ronald Reagan. Then mass immigration happened — the state is 27 percent foreign-born today — and every state official is Democrat. And the future looks even more crowded, diverse and Democrat.
Daniel Horowitz has written a detailed warning of the demographic apocalypse: “How chain migration will create a permanent Democrat majority” linked below.
Chain migration in particular must end because during the 10 years from 2005 to 2015, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 9.3 million new immigrants on the basis of family ties — 70 percent of the total immigration. In short, immigrants are choosing the new residents of the US, not the American people. The chain migrants tend to have few skills and little to offer the United States.
And the future shows more of same if reduction cannot be achieved. CIS analysis found that of 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next 20 years, more than half would enter via family connections: Chain Migration Expected to Add 8M Potential Foreign-Born Voters to U.S. Electorate over Next Two Decades, Breitbart.com, Jan 14, 2018.
Mark Levin devoted 15 minutes of his radio show to reading the article with commentary on February 13:
Spare audio:
Immigration at the current level is invasion for a political result, period. The Democrats refuse any limits on terrible programs like diversity visas and chain migration because they serve the Democrats’ plan for a one-party liberal America.
How chain migration will create a permanent Democrat majority, By Daniel Horowitz, Conservative ReviewReckless policies have consequences.
Our Founders were very clear that they intended naturalization to be controlled by the federal government instead of by the states, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation, because they wanted stricter standards, not looser standards. While there were several motivations for this principle, the overarching reason was that they wanted to ensure the voting populace would consist of those who shared our democratic-republican values.
Even though immigrants back then were all from the same European stock as the current Americans, Theodore Sedgewick said during the debate on the 1790 naturalization bill that “their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with that gratitude which we feel on the occasion.” Madison spoke of admitting only those “who are attached to our Country by its natural and political advantages.”
Jefferson feared they would “bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth…These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”
The solution to this problem is having a gradual and balanced immigration system based on merit and shared values. Instead, the endless cycles of illegal immigration, amnesties, and back-door amnesty-style programs (asylum, temporary protected status, refugees), in conjunction with chain migration, has made our immigration system work for foreigners, not for citizens, realizing the worst nightmares of our founders.
Look no further than California to understand how immigration done wrong can lead to a permanent majority of anti-life, pro-big-government Democrats. The problem is that many other states are headed down the same path, in a slower but inexorable trajectory. If the same policies continue, if chain migration is not immediately halted, conservatives will find themselves in the minority nationwide, and no other issue will matter. Even though the Republican Party is not conservative, it is perceived as such and should take heed of the obvious warning signs.
No, this is not like the great immigration wave of the last century
There has been a lot of focus in recent years on the number of green cards issued each year, but not on the number of people becoming citizens. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has admitted roughly 700,000-800,000 citizens into our voting population every year, with a few years reaching one million. Most of them have come from countries with dramatically different worldviews on issues such as guns, health care, and the size of government. Many deniers within the GOP of the political problems of mass migration point to past history and saying our previous large wave of immigration didn’t create a permanent liberal majority. But that is because we are now dwarfing the previous great wave in numbers.
Even during the highest naturalization years of the great wave, we admitted anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 new citizens to our electorate. In other words, even during the great wave, when there were some years we admitted roughly as many annual immigrants as we do today, that era of immigration didn’t result in as many people becoming citizens. Some of this had to do with life expectancy, but either way, the wave didn’t result in nearly as many naturalizations. And even the peak period of naturalization was not only much smaller but only lasted for a short period of time.
From 1996 to 2013, 12,609,174 new immigrants became citizens. During the actual great wave, the number of naturalizations was still very low because it took time for them to go through the system and become citizens. But even if you take an equivalent 18-year period with the highest level of naturalizations, which was from 1928 to1945, just 3,835,758 immigrants were naturalized. In other words, while the immigration wave of the modern era was 66 percent larger than the great wave, the “naturalization wave” was 329 percent greater.
