I have struggled with this for some time. I remember when many well known Democrats verbally excoriated the fact that illegals were entering the U.S. through our southern border:
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
But even with leading Democrats on record blasting what seems to have evolved into an “open border” policy during Barack Obama’s Administration, Democrats (and some Republicans) still refuse to demand adherence to American immigration laws. Who can forget the embarrassing surprise video from the Oval Office in which Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) were shocked President Trump invited the media to look-in live at the meeting that was to somehow resolve the differences and get resolution on funding for the border wall? Pelosi and Schumer were ill-prepared for what happened: they were exposed for their hypocrisy regarding the funding of the border wall. Both Pelosi and Schumer had previously supported such a measure to stem the flow of illegals.
But even in the wake of such an embarrassing exposure of their hypocrisy, still, there is NO consensus from Democrats to support what almost all of them previously supported: funding as necessary for a wall, fencing, and other security measures to stop mass illegal migration into the United States. Why is that?
Today we are going to dispel any questions you may have had for the hesitance of any and all from the Left to support a southern border wall.
The Rest of the Story
What could really be going on? What was it that happened to not only alter the opinions of those Dems shown and heard above but to alter their opinions by 180 degrees! Something or some-things dramatically turned them around. What could it be?
Could it be that Democrats in leadership in Congress found they really had hearts — that they cared so deeply for the plights of Central American and Mexican people that they threw their previous political and personal opinions on illegalities of criminals entering the U.S. at the southern border?
Could it be that the Democrat base that cared not for the criminality of those entering the U.S. illegally primarily for work decided it was smart to not only allow but to encourage illegal migrants to sneak into the country to take blue collar jobs away from those Americans who worked in the agriculture, food and beverage, and construction sectors?
Or could there be some other reason or reasons?
I choose the latter.
What could their reasoning be?
Every educated American voter realizes that political might means control. And that control comes from party support: primarily Republican and Democrat. What does that look like?
Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party registration states are some of the nation’s most populous: California, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.
The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.
Still, Republican Donald Trump found a route to victory in 2016 that went through the party registration states. He scored a near sweep of those where there were more Republicans than Democrats, winning 11 of the 12, while also taking six of the 19 states where there were more Democrats than Republicans — a group that included the pivotal battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
At this point, it might be wise to pause and ask the question: Why do these numbers matter, either individually or in the aggregate?
Certainly, there are facts that argue that they should be taken with a grain or two of salt. Most party registration states are found in more Democratic terrain: the Northeast (11 states plus the District of Columbia) and the West (10 states), followed by the South (six states) and the Midwest (four states), all of the latter rural states west of the Mississippi River.
To be sure, there are a number of major states that do not register voters by parties, such as Texas, Georgia, Washington, and the keystones of the industrial Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If they did register by party, Texas, Georgia, and Indiana would almost certainly add to the Republican total; the industrial states probably less so.
And there is some sentiment that a voter’s party identification may mean less than it once did, as the number of individuals who register as “Independent” (or “No Party Preference,” “Unaffiliated,” or whatever other voter label the individual states prefer) steadily grows. At the beginning of this century, barely 20% of all voters in party registration states were independents. Nowadays, that total is approaching 30%.
Altogether, there are 10 states with more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. These states are mainly in the Northeast, with a cluster also in the West. By comparison, there are Democratic pluralities of registered voters in 13 states plus the District of Columbia and eight other states with Republicans ahead of both Democrats and independents. In addition, there are six states where there is an independent plurality but Democrats outnumber Republicans, and four states where independents are on top of the registration totals but Republicans outnumber Democrats. That produces the 19 to 12 state registration advantage for the Democrats mentioned earlier.
With the growth in independents, many voters seem to be saying to the two major parties: “a pox on both your houses.”
Yet it also can be argued that registering Democratic or Republican is far more of a statement than it once was. In the current age of sharp-edged partisanship, there is far more than a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties, so registering as a Democrat or Republican is a very intentional act of differentiation.
And that makes the party registration figures worth looking at. A comparison of party registration totals on the eve of the 2016 presidential election with the actual voting in November shows a noticeable correlation between party registration and the state by state election outcomes. Twenty-four of the 31 party registration states were won by the nominee whose party had more registered voters (discounting independents for this particular comparison). That is a 77% correlation rate between party registration advantage and a winning electoral outcome. The percentage goes up to 88% if one removes the South, the one area of the country where party registration is a lagging indicator of the fortunes of the two major parties.
You can obviously see the decline in both Democrat (blue) and Republican (red) registrations with the corresponding increase (green) of Independents.
These facts prove something that has become more and more important: policies, over experience with parties, and adherence to campaign promises.
And each of the above — election by election, state by state, and party by party — show voters are now more than ever abandoning their voting habits proven again and again through generations of American voters and are now more than ever voting based on principles.
Of the 31 party registration states, 24 were carried in the 2016 presidential election by the party with the most registered voters in it. Donald Trump swept 11 of the 12 states with a Republican registration advantage, while Hillary Clinton won 13 of the 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) which had more registered Democrats than Republicans. Four of the Democratic registration states that Trump took were in the South, led by Florida and North Carolina. He also overcame Democratic registration advantages in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to win both. The only state with more registered Republicans than Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 was New Hampshire, where the outcome was very close.
Putting it bluntly: more Democrats abandoned their candidate in the 2016 Presidential race than did Republicans their candidate. Why would voters do that? “Facts and Believability.” Obviously, more voters (based on state by state totals — therefore electoral votes) believed Donald Trump than did Hillary Clinton — enough to tilt the electoral college to the G.O.P.
Tie it Up
We still need to answer the question: Why did Democrats in leadership change their policies on illegal migration?
The answer is simple: political posturing.
Whether justified or not, Democrat Party leadership have weighed all the data listed above, the temperament of their party members, and their tremendous losses over the past decade in Congressional seats, governorships, and state house seats. Adding those to the mass migration AWAY from the Democrat Party by way of movements like “#Walkaway” as documented on Facebook, Democrats have seen the handwriting on the wall. Their conclusion: “The Democrat Party is doomed without a tremendous and immediate influx of new party-line voters.” Their answer: Illegal migrant voter registration.
But if they are not citizens, they cannot vote, right? For federal elections, that is a fact. But who reading this story or listening to this podcast does not believe there were illegals that voted in the 2018 midterms? States like California who have registered illegals to vote in local and state elections operated their 2018 elections just as they have for decades: one voting poll, one set of voting machines, one onsite registration process, and voting for local, state, and federal offices happening simultaneously.
Call me a doubter, but a process structured like that certainly was the perfect spot to “bend the rules.” And we all know most Californians want ALL inhabitants of the state to vote in every election.
No, illegals cannot “legally” vote in federal elections today. But getting them here in some legal fashion is a start — for Democrats. No, it is not certain that illegal migrants would vote Democrat in every instance. But Democrat Party leaders have shown for decades that by “teaching” minorities that they owe the Democrat Party their allegiance AND their votes is a virtual certainty. How do we know that? Take a look at the African American vote.
Democrats have convinced millions of black voters through decades that the Democrat Party is THE party in total support of all things important to the African American community. More importantly, Dems has convinced blacks that Republicans are — on the most part — racists that look at African Americans as unworthy of equal treatment in the U.S. Obviously, facts, in this case, do not matter. Facts show that:
- Democrats did not fight the Civil War to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party took that action;
- Democrats did not pass the Amendment to give Blacks the right to vote, Republicans did;
- Democrats did not pass legislation to allow Blacks to serve in American Armed Forces, Republican Dwight Eisenhower did;
- Democrats did not take action to integrate public schools, Republicans did.
Here’s the “Skinny:” The Democrat Party has NO party platform, has NO fundamental principles on which to stand, and NO policies that belong to them exclusively that were used in the 2018 midterm elections, and NONE for the 2020 election. They have NO way to attract new party members.
Their only plan: get a disenfranchised group of migrants into the U.S. that Dems will certainly be able to convince they are obligated to the Democrat Party, which means those migrants will certainly vote for Democrats.
Do I know that for a fact? Facts listed above and the 180-degree departure from their age-old insistence on the perpetuation of the Rule of Law regarding immigration pretty much make that assumption a factual one.
But if you don’t agree, please tell me why they have abandoned the only government fundamental that separates the United States from every other country on Earth.