The blue wave
This:
In states like Virginia — where Democrats now control all of state government — the foreign-born population has grown more than 250 percent since 1990. In 1990, Virginia was home to less than 312,000 foreign-born residents. Today, there are close to 1.1 million, almost four times what the population was three decades before.
Like Virginia, similar regions that were once solidly Republican have been handed over to Democrats due the annual importation of more than a million legal immigrants. Orange County, California, for instance, is now dominated by Democrats, following what the New York Times has described as a “40-year” flood of immigration to the area.
Republicans’ electoral prospects, though, are only expected to get worse because of historically high legal immigration levels, research by Axios, The Atlantic, and the New York Times has found.
Ronald Brownstein, senior editor for The Atlantic, noted this year that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.
If you import enough people from other more leftist cultures who are not dissatisfied with leftism, and if the left controls the education of nearly everyone’s children, this is the predictable result. As the left knows full well.
Trends run until they end. This one is old.
Anyone on the right who mentions the political implications of the demographic trends brought about by mass immigration is likely to be demonized by leftists as a racist or a bigot or a xenophobe, while leftists themselves publish article after article on the danger to the GOP and the advantages to the Dems of changes in the electorate.
As the Balkanization of the USA continues unabated, get ready for increased levels of self-segregation and maybe even violence.
The lessons of Yugoslavia and sub-Saharan Africa and the Mid East should be heeded, especially now that assimilation is no longer acceptable and literally rejecting traditional “white” culture is considered necessary.
The reason that Democrats are “big immigration” advocates.
It is odd that people who emigrate, often want to bring their old culture along. Which begs the question, why did they emigrate?
It is not just international. We hear folks in other states complaining about Californians who have left the wonderful climate and scenic beauty for less attractive locales, but try to impose the culture they were presumably escaping. I lived in a small town about 40 miles west of DC, and listened to a couple of women, who were obviously recent arrivals, complain about the backward, small town attitudes. (Felt like suggesting that they return to Fairfax County, but refrained.)
Demographics is destiny. I heard a stat some years ago that the fraction of all people that are living the USA that are foreign born (excluding natural US born abroad) tripled from 1990 to 2015. Remember that when someone tries to tell you that any reductions in legal immigration would be an atrocity.
The success of the left relies upon the arrival of a continual stream of voting people into the United States who know nothing about America, Americans, or American culture- and the more anti-American, the better. That’s why they’ve been importing Somalis like Ilhan Omar.
But if any of that falters, they’re in deep feces. Obviously. That’s why they’ve now gone all in for open borders, among other things.
Along comes Trump. Importation of refugees has declined yugely, and the wall is getting built, although slowly. Meanwhile, all the people who know nothing about American culture are learning about it- including the carefully indoctrinated children of actual Americans.
This is why the left and its Republican sycophants have declared that Trump is an existential threat. The absolute worst thing ever for them is a successful non-leftist president, in this case Donald Trump, because not only would that make America great again but it would also convince some of those carefully imported foreigners that they’d like to be Americans, too.
That is, assimilate into the not-so-leftist American culture, even if our traitorous left doesn’t like it.
Time will tell if Trump succeeds, or the left does. If Trump succeeds, we may avoid the Yugoslavia precedent.
If not…
Oldflyer,
They want to keep their ‘culture’. And they want to earn American wages, the highest in the world, at the same time.
The disconnect, of course, is that it is their ‘culture’ which keeps the economies of their Motherlands in such poor shape.
Of course they are leftists as they have no understanding of the real world.
What’s the problem?
If it ends the patriarch and replaces it with a termite heap ruled over by fat mentally ill lesbians, what will there be not to like?
Ok … editing is not working I see …
This was the Dem plan from the beginning.
Many, and probably most, hard working legal immigrants DO want to become “Americans”.
But most live in Dem dominated, TrumpHating areas, where it’s not easy for an immigrant to be against the local Dem political culture.
Demographics is destiny, but slowly.
Many, and probably most, hard working legal immigrants DO want to become “Americans”.
Tom Grey: I have no idea and that may have changed over time.
My father was half-Mexican but he wouldn’t teach me Spanish because he wanted me to be fully American.
I wish he had. That would have been a free language.
My paternal ancestors can be traced to the 1740s and my maternal ancestors to the 1660s. They obviously left the old world for the new world for economic reasons and for liberty. One side settled in Appalachia, the other side Canada before coming south to the upper Mississippi Valley. Thus, I am a native American.
Now people who come here legally or illegally do so for economic reasons, including free stuff,and care not if America is “A Republic if you can keep it.” In fact like too many born here, they have not a clue how a republic differs from a pure democracy. Democracy does not die in darkness, liberty does.
The fly in the ointment is the assumption all these legal immigrants will be perfectly content with keeping the existing WHITE Democratic power structure in place. Nancy Pelosi has already felt how unlikely that is. We could relatively soon start seeing a breed of rich white Democrat who makes Donald Trump look like Martin Luther King Jr.
Mike
I do not share Kai Akker’s optimism.
MBunge: I keep wondering what keeps Asians in the Democratic Party. They get a raw deal when it comes to education and they are more Republican than Republicans in how they manage their lives.
However, that seems to be loosening a bit.
There is nothing stopping white Christian Americans from:
Going to church
Having more babies in wedlock
Joining the PTA
Shutting off the TV
… And from an expat perspective, in a good number of American homes the mother can still stay home when the kids are little. Daycare is a Marxist double-whammy of indoctrination and undercutting/ennervation of core relationships.
Americans now have to become as politically aware as most other people on the planet. That’s not all bad.
We are watching developments in Virginia closely, as moving to central Virginia to be nearer a daughter has been a partially-formed plan. If the taxes go up and my husband’s Ruger is ruled illegal to possess, it’s a no-go.
Ira, they were two statements of fact. All they can imply is that the “blue wave” phenomenon is closer to its end than its beginning.
Immigration is highly cyclical. And politically speaking, we see inroads into once-monolithic minority party identification in recent Hispanic polling and African-American. So maybe I am optimistic!
Mbunge’s comment strikes me as spot on: Ted Kennedy might have thought he could open the visa program to third world countries to buttress Democrat voter roles without changing the demographics at the top of the party, but that will not continue forever. Second and third generations of those immigrants will likely want to get on the politicians’ gravy train, eventually changing the face of the Democratic Party irreversibly. Regrettably, while the face will change, the drift left will likely not. Alas, Babylon!
considering that many of the new immigrants come from places where the average IQ is in the low 80’s, maybe that’s the cause of our unrising test scores?
But at the same time as this “blue wave,” the blue-est cities have become hellholes. Chicago in its ways, SF in its. Seattle. I have seen the first sidewalk tents go up on Race Street in Philadelphia, where the Dems elected a District Attorney who proudly refuses to prosecute “quality of life” crimes. Financially, too, “blue” government is on the doorstep of bankruptcy (Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii). So blue is in a death-spiral in the real world. At some point, real lives and real policy consequences do connect and most folks, not all, take notice.
And how will this end? Probably with something like Venezuela or revolution.
The massive influx of immigrants do not have the values and norms of Americans, and they are not being taught those values and norms. The result is a large, permanent underclass that will become a new majority that tries to vote itself rich. Like Venezuela, they’ll start electing radical populists that make the current DNC presidential candidates look like moderates. Everything will be taxed to death or nationalized. The economy will collapse, and a strong man will emerge as the last hope to restore order. (See The Road to Serfdom.)
Real Americans will try to fight this, but they will be disenfranchised, isolated, and removed from public discourse — “bitter clingers” and “deplorables”. Without a way to peacefully affect change, they will resort to “other means”.
It’s a game-theory exercise, fundamentally. If a high-trust society imports lots of people from low-trust societies, those people will play by their old rules and score lots of benefits, before the rules change to catch them. The downside of not following the rules is applied to society at large, but the benefits accrue to the individual rule-breaker.
If you live in a high-trust society, and you play by high-trust society rules, you get a lot of benefits from the high-trust society but there’s a moderate cost to you for following those rules.
If you live in a low-trust society and you play by high-trust society rules, you will get screwed by everyone. Rules are for suckers, and you’re choosing to be a sucker.
If you live in a high-trust society and you play by low-trust society rules, you will get a lot of advantages by doing so, because the rules assume that everyone is following the rules and they are not really designed to catch most people who don’t follow them. It’s better for you personally to play by low-trust rules, for years or decades anyway.
If you live in a low-trust society and you play by low-trust society rules, that’s not a happy way to live but you can mostly get along, with moderate bribes and influence, as long as you don’t antagonize someone powerful. It’s better for you than the high-trust rules.
It’s in each individual’s self interest to play by the low-trust rules. Only those who have lived long under high-trust rules can be expected to understand that there’s a higher payoff if everyone follows the rules.
This is what is known as “voter efficiency”…that any votes above 50%+1 are wasted, and should be diverted to districts which might need a ‘bump’ to help the chosen candidate. “Voter efficiency” is the latest weapon to be thrown at the drawing of Congressional Districts; that crowding too many partisans into a single district, or a small handful of districts, is discriminatory.
This is why local elections are so critical. The national elections suck all the air out of the political drama, but the local elections are hugely influential as to the topics for that drama. Beware the incursion.
It’s a one-way street, of course: only Republicans do this, but Democrats never do.
To riff on rcat and his quote from candidate Obama …
“Urban Democrats are bitter people who cling to an undeserved feeling of elitism and socialism and antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
Frederick, Very nice.
I had connected what you call high-trust society, with the notion of governmental systems created by serious Protestants, with a generous helping of religious Catholics and Jews thrown in. People can quibble endlessly about the significance of religion in that context, but Frederick crystalizes the essence of the bigger picture perfectly. High-trust vs. low-trust and game theory.
This is what is known as “voter efficiency”…that any votes above 50%+1 are wasted, and should be diverted to districts which might need a ‘bump’ to help the chosen candidate.
Steve S: Thanks!
Back in the nineties a friend and I were discussing why there were so many close elections and came up with that explanation but without a keen label like “voter efficiency.”
Ben David,
“Americans now have to become as politically aware as most other people on the planet.”
What evidence do you have to offer in support of the assertion that other nation’s peoples are more politically aware than Americans?
TommyJay on December 4, 2019 at 1:05 pm said:
Frederick, Very nice.
I had connected what you call high-trust society, with the notion of governmental systems created by serious Protestants, with a generous helping of religious Catholics and Jews thrown in. People can quibble endlessly about the significance of religion in that context, but Frederick crystalizes the essence of the bigger picture perfectly. High-trust vs. low-trust and game theory.
* * *
Applicable to Frederick’s excellent description of the games people play in society is the finding that the most successful strategy for the classic game of low-trust vs high-trust — Prisoner’s Dilemma — is “tit-for-tat.”
Both players should start by being cooperative (as in a high trust society); then copy whatever their opponent does for each succeeding move.
That is, if the other party responds with cooperation, so do you, and both continue to make gains; if the other party responds with defection/betrayal (low trust), then you should do the same. The game, however, then stabilizes at a lower value for both participants.
The very best scenario was “retaliation with forgiveness” — adding the possibility that one or the other player would, occasionally, move from defection to cooperation and then be copied, thus re-booting the game back up to higher gains for both.
In real life, that may be analogous to re-forming political parties, or having a revolution and shuffling the players.
Not an easy thing to do in either case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_iterated_prisoner's_dilemma