[esseph]

> Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?

Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.

In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.

That "theory" has never held water, and was always a racist dogwhistle.

[gottorf]

> Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.

The idea that Hispanics and other ethnic minorities would vote Democratic was so popular that people wrote a whole book about it[0], until the idea was finally put to bed with Trump's electoral gain among every nonwhite group between 2016 and 2024.

Until then, the broad demographic makeup of the illegal crossings during Biden's years would absolutely have been assumed to lean Democratic.

> In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.

Noncitizens count for Congressional apportionment, and as GP said, there is the implicit understanding that at least some of those noncitizens will become citizens in the future and vote for the party that facilitated their arrival into this country.

[0]: The Emerging Democratic Majority, 2002.

[esseph]

> In 2015, in an essay The Emerging Republican Advantage,[4] Judis recanted his views in the book and argued that the long term Democratic majority had given way to an "unstable equilibrium" between the parties. He wrote that the long term Democratic Majority was gone as Hispanics and Asians were considerably less Democratic than he assumed and that white working class voters were abandoning the Democratic party.[5]

It was a stupid premise, of course they were wrong.

It did more to help US conservatives through counter-propaganda than anything else.