Thursday, September 21, 2017

How the foreign-born vote in the United States

Here's one to file neatly under the blog's tagline.

The following graph shows the electoral behavior of foreign-born voters--mostly voting legally--in US presidential elections since 1992*:


Bringing in ringers. Electing a new people. Choose whatever metaphor you'd like to describe the disenfranchisement of Heritage America.

We have to go back to 1988 to find an election where the Republican candidate won the foreign-born vote.

That was a different era.

Those foreigners are not today's foreigners. The ink on the amnesty legislation Reagan eagerly signed was still drying and the massive chain migration it set in motion only just beginning.

The Cold War, when many of those the US took in were Soviet dissidents, was ongoing.

Hyper-partisanship hadn't reached the point it has today. Now landslide victories are nearly impossible. In 1988, Bush senior beat Dukakis 426-111 in the electoral college. There has not been a margin of victory so wide since, and until the political dissolution of the US begins, there won't be again.

Begrudgingly, it must be admitted that the Bushes have done less poorly among the foreign-born than other Republicans have. I suppose if the well-being of the Republican party matters more to you than the well-being of the country your grandchildren will inherit, that's something to celebrate.

On the other hand, losing by a narrower margin is still losing. To celebrate as much is to be like Lisa and Marge as they're shoveling down Grandma Plopwell's government-sponsored pudding:
Lisa: This pudding's pretty good.

Marge: I can feel the pounds just melting off!
GSS variables used: PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), BORN(2)

* Data come from the GSS for elections from 1988 through 2012. The 2016 results come from the officially commissioned media national exit polling.

24 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Considering Trump won more electoral votes than Bush in 1992 or Bush Jr. in 2000 and 2004, I'll take that over narrower margins and more foreign born voters.

Also with the DNC being so nonwhite/antiwhite, I think it will be tough for Republicans to get those kind of foreign born margins again. Doing so would require them to embrace being a nonwhite/antiwhite party, which would be devastating for them. Still, I'm sure there are no shortage of people in the RNC who feel this is the way to go.

Feryl said...

The Sun Belt was never going to be a white paradise; it's important to remember that it was a combination of:

- G.I. transplants
- Low Silent Gen birth rates
- Low immigration rates
- High white Boomer birth rates
- Stingy welfare policies

That made California/Texas/Florida as white as they were in the 50's and 60's. The Sun Belt thrives on cheap non-white labor; outside the friendly confines of the Middle Class paradise of the late 40's-60's, these regions could never be trusted to favor pro-native born labor. Whites don't like the sun, remember?

Florida's black population is appropriately large, and will continue to be that way as long as affirmative action and generous welfare policies exist, and as long as whites aren't permitted to legally segregate large areas. The Southwest's per-capita black population is declining, partly because blacks feel most at home in the Southeastern sweat belt, but also because white yuppies and Asians have jacked up the property values in some areas, while Mestizos, who are more organized and more law abiding than blacks, yet not as PC as whites, have seized quite a bit of territory from blacks. Also, due to the sheer number of Mexicans coming into America, by default they were going to take a lot of turf from somebody, and that somebody includes blacks.

Texas is another story altogether, as the state has a long history of affinity between "Anglo" elites and Mexicans. Texas will always be distinct from the Southeast, in that Texas's demographic and cultural history is quite Mexican, whereas the true South, like the rest of the Eastern US, was almost entirely black and white prior to the 70's. Texas Republicans seem to be changing their tune a bit, as they realize that high immigration levels have drastically reduced the number of whites in their state, while they are probably getting concerned that future generations of Texas Mexican-Americans might become as insane as the ones in California. And obviously, high immigration levels increase the possibility that ethnic groups will become more balkanized. Bush's voter legacy comes from Texas culture, in terms of his family's "success" at integrating itself with Latin culture.

Since Trump, like any Republican, was going to do abysmal among blacks, that left Hispanics as the wild card. And sure enough, brash New Yorker Trump has no roots in, or affinity towards, Latin culture so he didn't do as well as Bush did with Mexicans. That being said, Trump isn't a wimp like previous GOP'ers, so at least he did better than McCain or Romney did among Mexicans. It's fair to say that a decent number of NAM big men , or at least hard working middle class blacks and Mexicans, can at least appreciate a white Republican with some balls. They don't give a fuck about supply-side economics, they want a leader who could back them up in a street fight. I remember a Politico(?) article in 2016 about a Boomer Mexican-American, still working the fields of California, telling a reporter that he was voting for Trump. Older generations of Mexican-Americans grew up in a different America where their co-ethnics had more respect for America and mostly spoke English. Sailer has talked about how safe Los Angeles was well into the 60's, in contrast to the ghetto horrors all over the Eastern US that had totally degenerated by the late 60's. I think a decent amount of white Boomers who grew up in the Southwest find it a bit hard to be that negative about Mexicans, at least if they're given time to assimilate. After all, it coulda been worse; they coulda had their big cities be 30-60% black. And jeez, look at what happened to Detroit, Baltimore, and St. Louis......

Sid said...

In the 21st century, Republicans have been able to win the presidency through two strategies:

The Rove Strategy, which is to try to appeal to Hispanics.

The Sailer Strategy, which is to appeal to working class whites.

To be fair to Rove, it may have seemed after 2004 that the Republicans were slowly winning over Hispanics. Granted, Bush still lost the Hispanic vote narrowly, but he won New Mexico and that archcuck from Arizona McCain should close the deal, right?

Wrong. McCain and Romney did terribly with Hispanics. In retrospect, it's clear Hispanics were less opposed to Bush than other vanilla Republicans, but that likely has to do with how profitable the Housing Bubble was for Hispanics at the time.

Conservativism Inc. could win the presidency when Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia were red states. They're not, and immigration is a major reason why.

Trump shook up the paradigm by implicitly appealing to white as a faction, and explicitly appealing to the economic and cultural interests of the white working class in the Great Lakes.

What remains to be seen is how replicable Trump's 2016 win will be. I think he's on his way to winning 2020, but will the Great Lakes WWC go with Republicans in 2024, 2028, 2032? Will they flip back? Will America's demographics continue to deteriorate, such as if Trump does DACAmnesty? There are no answers just yet. There is no singular future, but numerous potentialities, and human beings are complex enough creatures to generate zeitgeists, establish policies, and make individual choices which cumulatively add up to something greater, all of which mean that the human race has some say over what kind of future will prevail over the others.

Jim Bowery said...

Sorry for the OT post but I'm looking for a bit of advice: I inherited some founders stock in a corporation. It was doing so well that the board should have been buying back voting stock but, instead, it issued a huge number of new voting shares. The claim was that these new voting shares were needed in order to raise capital and reward sweat equity. However, what appears to have happened is growth slowed at almost the same time the new voting stockholders shows up. Moreover, lo and behold, they are voting for the board members that voted them the new shares and voting out the other board members. The new board members are, in turn, putting executives in place that are mismanaging the assets and bringing more and more of these employees in claiming that they're vital to the company's growth. The dividend stream has slowed and the assets of the company are being liquidated to pay these new employees to basically sit around and complain. The prior employees are getting pretty despondent and many of them are being fired for their "attitude" -- claiming they are unwilling to be "retrained" to be more "accepting" of the new management style. What they're really fearful of is that their retirement is going to be worthless as the company is driven into the ground.

Isn't it rather unfair for a few stockholders to gain control of a company and run it into the ground by issuing new voting stock to their friends?

chris said...

@ Jim Bowery

Look at the the specific corporations law/company law for the jurisdiction that the company is incorporated in. There is usually provisions for that kind of behaviour. (I recall something related to it in my jurisdiction, but it is not a US jurisdiction.)

This website (http://www.worldlii.org/catalog/2177.html) holds a database of US cases. You can search for cases related to specific corporations legislation/company law. WestLaw and LexisNexis are better databases but require money to sign up. Most law libraries usually have free hardcopy versions of whats available on WestLaw and LexisNexis so you could check that out.

Even if you find law covering this behaviour the harder part is usually coming up with the evidence that proves the illegal conduct to begin with.

IHTG said...

You mean Dukakis.

dc.sunsets said...

@ Random Dude,
It is my opinion that the support for Open Borders from the RNC/GOP has nothing to do with electoral strategy and everything to do with campaign donations.

Congressmen reportedly spend essentially their entire workday begging for campaign donations. The Multinational Chamber of Commerce supports open borders because it stuffs the high price retail channel with consumers so the C-of-C members bank the arbitrage between high price retail (in USA) and low cost manufacturing (China, et.al.) The arbitragers are simply buying the best Congress available.

It's a naked case of concentrated benefit, diffuse costs. Just one more drop of ooze in the Perverse Incentive Swamp.

dc.sunsets said...

If you think of pollution as largely just something that in once place is benign but in other places, noxious, the flood of refugees, H1-B's, and illegals into the USA is just that, pollution being dumped on Heritage America by those who are profiting mightily from it.

The US Chamber of Commerce might as well be made up of firms dumping mercury into Lake Michigan, and BUYING congressmen (and News Media and University/Academic) support and cover for getting away with it.

Anonymous said...

The problem with large scale migration is that there are too many people in my local area. I bought a foreclosure in an area similar to Detroit or Baltimore, to move out. But so many kids like me, post 90s generation, feel they will never move out, and the irony is that they are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

I'm concerned because on one hand, its not good for me as a non white person to oppose immigration. But it's affecting the economy in a negative way. Actually, my family was amnestied by Reagan. It's also ironic that my fiance doesn't want to vote for Trump because they feel Republicans are against them as a black person. I voted for Trump due to taxes.

Moreover, if you're white, you shouldn't worry about the white population level because Hasidic Jews have tons of kids. The only races that have a lot of kids in my area are Orthodox Jews, Mexicans, and Central Americans. The only way Asians, Caribbean Latinos, and Blacks increase in America is through migration, regardless of religion.

Black people will be down to 5% in 100 years if they closed migration from the Caribbean. My cousins moved back after being able to be admitted to a 1st tier city. Work experience in a 1st world country is the best way to get into a 1st tier city in China.

Anonymous said...

OT, but FYI to Jim Bowery: Vox Day dissed you in the comment section on his blog:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/09/althero-incoming.html?showComment=1505954281622#c243171187485203852

Dan said...

Trump did respectable among the foreign born, considering.

He could have a better result in 2020, because the foreign-born seem to favor incumbency. Clinton did much better among the foreign in 1996 than in 1992. Similarly Bush did considerably better among that group in 2004 than in 2000.

Dan said...

It is very interesting that Trump did 8x better (32%) among the foreign born than he did among DC residents (4%). The latter figure just astounds me still.

SWPLs are just shocked, shocked that Trump's stance towards foreigners is so unspeakably, well, there just no words.

Meanwhile, foreigner born themselves are 8x warmer toward Trump.

They need to move the capital out of here. It is not right that the permanent government should be tilted that much. There is no possibility of fairness.

I feel like a big reason Trump went all over the world meeting heads of state in his first few months was to remind the fecal elite of this country that he actually is the President, their cognitive dissonance was that great.

Issac said...

>The problem with large scale migration is that there are too many people in my local area. I bought a foreclosure in an area similar to Detroit or Baltimore, to move out. But so many kids like me, post 90s generation, feel they will never move out, and the irony is that they are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

As you might gather, if you read a few more posts from AE, it's less a function of the generation and more a function of their genetic makeup. Mestizos and Indios who aren't marrying into the host population are going to maintain the proclivities that make them what they are and make their home countries what they are. And at this point, virtually no population can biologically assimilate into America because she does not have sufficient white Americans to go around.

>I'm concerned because on one hand, its not good for me as a non white person to oppose immigration. But it's affecting the economy in a negative way. Actually, my family was amnestied by Reagan. It's also ironic that my fiance doesn't want to vote for Trump because they feel Republicans are against them as a black person. I voted for Trump due to taxes.

It's not the least bit ironic, it's completely predictable. Blacks are the most tribal voters and have always been. 90% of them cannot do issue-based voting. They simply vote for the candidate endorsed by the majority of black leaders out of solidarity and justify it to themselves by pretending the other one is harboring racial animus. You voting for Trump on an economic issue is an aberration from the norm, as you can see from the chart. That suggest to me you're probably more Spaniard than Amerindian, but perhaps you're just an outlier.

>Moreover, if you're white, you shouldn't worry about the white population level because Hasidic Jews have tons of kids. The only races that have a lot of kids in my area are Orthodox Jews, Mexicans, and Central Americans. The only way Asians, Caribbean Latinos, and Blacks increase in America is through migration, regardless of religion.

I assume this is a joke. Hasids aren't white, they're Jews. They belong in my country, Israel, not America. Furthermore, none of the groups you listed is an assimilant population cohort. As above, America has insufficient Americanized peoples to assimilate any of them.

>Black people will be down to 5% in 100 years if they closed migration from the Caribbean. My cousins moved back after being able to be admitted to a 1st tier city. Work experience in a 1st world country is the best way to get into a 1st tier city in China.

Nobody really cares what happens to Blacks, but in a century whites will more or less not exist in any meaningful way save as a tiny castizo upper-class ala South America and all the attendant problems that come with being Brazil. It's also delusional to suggest immigrants are tending to leave. For every one first generation immigrant that has left America, dozens have arrived. China is comparatively impossible to immigrate into.

Dan said...

"Hasids aren't white, they're Jews. They belong in my country, Israel, not America. "

Dear "we Jewish people are totally not white" Issac, may I refer you to a mirror?


Feryl said...

"Meanwhile, foreigner born themselves are 8x warmer toward Trump.

They need to move the capital out of here. It is not right that the permanent government should be tilted that much. There is no possibility of fairness. "

The biggest problems aren't generally with immigrants per se, who tend to be highly motivated, reasonably sophisticated, etc. in comparison to 3rd world dwelling co-ethnics who stay put. The problems come later with descendants who revive everything bad about their ancestral cultures and/or assimilate to disgruntled minority victimhood culture. Of course, the more ethnic neighborhoods are replenished with boat people, the less incentive there is for 2nd/3rd/4th/whatever generation descendants to move closer to the host country's culture. Something that often comes up on Steve's blog is that literal Africans tend to be much harder working and happier than 6th/7th/8th generation American blacks who refuse to fully respect traditional Western (white) culture.

SWPLs and cucks can tell themselves that the warm smiles of brown/black immigrants indicate a future in which everyone gets along, where racialism doesn't exist.

BTW, one trick pulled by the MSM and liberals is to proudly boast that 2nd generation non-white bad guys are "American" and "home-grown". Nah ah. Often times, the parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles are reasonably decent people who live pretty quietly, who end up raising an American born son who gravitates toward rage porn. Victimhood rage is going to be more common with descendants who didn't grow up in a 3rd world hell hole. They don't have the same gratitude that their parents did.

Feryl said...

"Black people will be down to 5% in 100 years if they closed migration from the Caribbean. My cousins moved back after being able to be admitted to a 1st tier city. Work experience in a 1st world country is the best way to get into a 1st tier city in China"

Native black birth rates in America have fallen a lot since the mid 90's. I think a huge reason behind the push for massive immigration into the West has been the doom and gloom regarding birth rates. If even black Americans are showing much greater restraint recently, then we just can't have reductionist immigration policies. That would lead to Japan, and as we all know, Japan has been aging and crying out for immigrants for like, 40 years or somethin'. Or so The Economist says.

Feryl said...

One thing I've thought about lately is how "unbearably" white much of mainstream culture was as recently as the late 90's. Go check out movie and TV casts from the 90's; Home Improvement, Friends, Dawson's Creek, Seinfeld etc. not only had primary casts that are 90-100% white, but even most of the side characters are white. Irony here is that in the 90's, most TV shows were set and sometimes filmed in NY and LA, both of which had become much less white by then. Recently Hollywood has finally been called on the carpet for unrealistically white casts. Their response? Set more movies in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, so casts can be mostly white, with plausible deniability, along with black oriented agitprop still being possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that in Europe and in the English speaking countries, the Jews and gays who dominate the entertainment industry overwhelmingly prefer white actors because:
-They're easy to photograph
-They're easily distinguishable from each other (it's visually dull to have a totally black or Asian cast)
-They're the most aesthetically pleasing ethnicity to look at, esp. when taking into account both genders (too many people find Asian men and black women off-putting).
-Lastly, the heavily Jewish entertainment industry simply gets along with, has more ease of interaction with, whites. Many blacks are quite anti-Semitic, in addition to whatever misgivings they have about whites in general. Conservative Jews have admitted that they get tired of the racial hypocrisy and glibness of liberal Jews, who consistently betray their real feelings about race with where they live and where their kids go to school.

The Storm Front/Nazi larper crowd often singles out Jews, but really, it's blacks who will always be the biggest obstacle. A typical reader of this blog could have a decent conversation with a Hollywood Jew, yet on the other hand, interacting with some random black could become a chore, an ordeal. The IQ and culture of Jews can make for some decided awkwardness with child-like blacks and taciturn Asians and Mexicans..

Anonymous said...

tl;dr or maybe a better title for this blog post and comments section

a comment that Publius over at CH's blog leaves from time to time

WCVOWOOT "We Can't Vote Our Way Out Of This"

I've been saying that to close friends and family much longer than I've been seeing Publius write that at the Chateau and as much as it saddens me to keep repeating it I really don't see things playing out much differently in the next decade or so. All you have to do is look at history, it's really not that difficult to put the pieces together and see the commiefa(antifa/socialist/communist) social justice wh0re$ playbook. Just look what the bolsheviks, leninist, stalinist(today's antifa) did to the kulaks(extinct) and cossacks(almost extinct), some of the techniques are literally being used today; once the kulaks were no more anyone that disagreed with the soviets were slurred by being called a kulak(sound familiar neo-notsee/whyte $uprem@ci$+ anyone).
I may be going off on a little tangent here but if you read about these ethnic groups, yes distinct ethnic groups, you may see the similarity. First they'll out vote you(legitimately or not does not matter they don't play by rules only winning By Any Means Necessary(another antifa group), then dehumanize you (slurring anyone that disagrees with them/kulak/notsee) and once dehumanized you really don't matter(punch a notsee/hospitalise your local f@$ci$+). I know this might seem unrelated and at first genociding a bunch of notsees might seem like a good thing until you realize how this will play out. Once enough non whytes out number the whytes well let's just say balkanization and genocide are just a matter of degrees. But.... But... it's only those evil notsees ......... but what do notsees look like well they have whyte skin .........
So again I say with a heavy heart ..........

WCVOWOOT "We Can't Vote Our Way Out Of This"

no matter how much we wish it weren't true

traitors first

Issac said...

"Dear "we Jewish people are totally not white" Issac, may I refer you to a mirror?"

Dan: We're Semites, fellow Jew, not Europeans. And diaspora Jews behave exactly as such. They desperately defend their status as minorities. Why wouldn't they? They've made it absolutely hellish to be "white," in America. Come home and stop pushing the gentiles to another reprisal. We've got a place of our own now.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Indeed. Wider margins and fewer foreign-born voters.

Feryl,

There seems to be this unexamined--because it's ridiculous if consciously examined--assumption, especially among Boomer men, that smiling, obsequious, pleasant Juan, fresh from Mexico, replaces surly, aggressive, prickly Jamal. But Jamal isn't exported when Juan is imported, he just no longer has even marginally productive menial work to do. We end up paying--not just in terms of associated services, but in terms of cultural cohesiveness, etc--for both Juan and Jamal instead of just Jamal. Sure, Juan doesn't cost as much as Jamal, but he's still a net cost--and he ends up making Jamal cost more, too.

Re: fertility, a generation or two ago the problem was overpopulation. We needed to have smaller families for Gaia. Now families are too small so we have no choice but to import fertile foreigners. Neat trick, that.

Sid,

In hindsight, the Rove strategy turns out to be bullshit. If Hispanics were "natural conservatives" who'd like to vote Republican if only the GOP would get over its anti-immigration fetish, who better for Hispanics to vote for than McCain? His victory would've meant no more talk of immigration restrictionism, just the good old cuckservatism that Hispanics allegedly love. Yet they rejected him spectacularly.

Jim,

Do I ruin the parable by pointing out that it is most certainly NOT off topic? Heh, well done.

IHTG,

Fixed it, thanks.

dc.sunsets,

Agree. There is nothing that illustrates it better than legislative attempts at amnesty. The congress critters know it plays terribly with voters but is demanded by donors. It's up to the voters to put enough pressure on the critters to keep them honest. If the pressure applied is insufficient, they'll take the donors' marching orders.

Anon,

Huge admirer of Vox's writings, intellect and accomplishments, but his hyper-sensitivity to perceived slights is obnoxious and tiresome.

Dan,

Great point re: the foreign-born vs DC, or even SWPLs in general, who went for Trump at probably roughly the same rate as first generation voters did.

Issac,

90% of them cannot do issue-based voting. They simply vote for the candidate endorsed by the majority of black leaders out of solidarity and justify it to themselves by pretending the other one is harboring racial animus.

It may be higher than that. Ask 50 blacks why they supported Hillary over Bernie (or in rare cases, vice versa) during the primaries, and you're unlikely to get a single answer that has to do with stated differences in policy. If that's hyperbolic on my part, it's only just.

Anon,

You may well be right.

The white pill take: It's still conceivable that an immigration moratorium is imposed and that large numbers of non-citizens are repatriated, some involuntarily, most voluntarily. Get native fertility back up to around replenishment, and conditions are sustainable.

Easier said that done, of course, but not wholly implausible today. If you'd asked me five years ago, I'm sure I would've thought the above didn't have a chance in hell of happening.

Audacious Epigone said...

Stay on your A-game here, gentlemen. We have additional exposure for this one!

Anonymous said...

i wonder how much ross perot's 18% share in 1992 skewed the numbers?

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Perot got 14% of foreign-born vote according to the GSS, which is modestly worse than his overall 19%, so it probably did make Bush look better by comparison than he would have without Perot in, though it's hard to know for sure.

King said...

Re 9/22/17, 9:39 AM

Why is it "not good for me as a non white person to oppose immigration"? How do you benefit from the country being flooded with millions of people? You even notice that its not in your benefit. You are just about there. Just accept it.