Vice President Kamala Harris’ failed 2020 presidential campaign once shared a study touting the electoral benefits of illegal migration.
A stored archive of her campaign website from 2019 features a page detailing “A New Roadmap To Citizenship For Dreamers.”
The page contains a paragraph claiming that a plan to protect so-called Dreamers from deportation would boost the economy.
“We estimate the plan will protect over 6 million immigrants from deportation, add up to $445 billion to U.S. GDP over ten years, and provide America’s 2.1 million Dreamers a path to citizenship,” it reads.
The paragraph links to two studies from the far-left Center for American Progress as proof that protecting Dreamers would benefit the economy.
But one of the studies goes way beyond just highlighting the supposed economic benefits of protecting Dreamers — it also highlights the electoral benefits (for Democrats) of protecting them.
“Implementing DAPA [the name of the program to protect Dreamers] is not only the right thing to do for families and the economy—it also has key electoral implications,” the study reads.
“There are 3.7 million individuals who would benefit from DAPA. Combined, these individuals have 5.5 million U.S. citizen children—all of whom already are or will eventually become eligible to vote,” it adds.
See where this is going?
“More than half a million of these children—nearly 600,000—are currently of voting age, and 1.7 million will be of voting age by the 2020 presidential election,” the study continues. “These numbers could provide sizable contributions to the margin of victory in swing states.”
“In Florida during the 2012 presidential election, for example, these new voters would have comprised 70 percent of the margin of victory; in North Carolina, they would have represented one-third of the margin of victory,” the study concludes.
In other words, protecting Dreamers and other criminal aliens would make it easier for Democrats to win elections.
The idea that Democrats seek to import a foreign population to more easily win elections is known as the Great Replacement Theory, and according to Democrats and their media allies, it’s racist to talk about.
Yet an abundance of evidence exists clearly proving that Democrats are all in for the Great Replacement Theory, according to Wade Miller of the Center for Renewing America.
“In their famous 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, Ruy Texeira and John Judis suggested that demographic change, specifically the ascendance of a non-white minority population as a larger share of the electorate, could lead to a sustainable majority for the Democrat Party,” he writes.
“The assumption in this [was that] non-white voters, especially Hispanics, would remain loyal to Democrats [for letting them into the country illegally] and therefore elevate Democrats to electoral majorities that otherwise might not emerge or take decades longer to construct,” Miller continues.
Pro-tip: the socially acceptable lefty way to ~say “Great Replacement Theory” is “New Emerging Democratic Majority.”
— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) November 19, 2022
But it’s not just an old talking point from the early 2000s. Even modern commentators and pundits have broached it.
“As progressive writer and activist Jamelle Bouie observed, the argument that non-white voters will overtake—or dare one say, replace—white voters to ‘set the stage for a new Democratic majority’ has ‘become an article of faith among many progressives,'” Miller explains. “Bouie has contended that ‘If Democrats agree on anything, it’s that they will eventually be on the winning side. The white Americans who tend to vote Republican are shrinking as a percentage of the population.'”
“Longtime progressive pundit Jonathan Chait echoed this sentiment leading up to the 2012 presidential election. ‘The modern GOP–the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-founded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests,'” he adds.
“Harris’ 2019 presidential campaign website linked to a study touting what it called the “electoral implications” of not deporting some illegal immigrants, saying that the policy “could provide sizable contributions to the margin of victory in swing states.””…
— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) August 2, 2024
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Men believed to be Tren de Aragua members released on $1,000 bond in Aurora - September 7, 2024
- ‘Walz did nothing’: GOP subpoenas Tim Walz over MASSIVE fraud operation that happened on his watch - September 6, 2024
- Stanley Black and Decker reportedly steeped in DEI, ESG and more, provides ‘training’ for employees - September 6, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.