Brookings released a well-documented study of how naturalized immigrants have been voting and specifically how they voted in November. Bottom line: Harris won their vote, but not by much overall. Here are some excerpts:

The proclivity to vote:

Foreign-born Asian and Latino groups vote at higher rates than their U.S.-born ethnic counterparts. Black immigrants vote at similar levels while white immigrants participate at lesser rates compared to U.S.-born whites. Yet, in recent years, the foreign-born population appears to be a much more politically engaged cohort, demonstrating above-average levels of voter enthusiasm with turnout exceeding the general electorate. National-level polling conducted between August 16 and August 28, 2024, prior to the election, showed that roughly 97% of naturalized citizens were “definitely or probably going to vote” in the 2024 election. This is above 2020 election levels, where 86.8% of respondents cast their vote, exceeding the nearly 66% of the total electorate—the highest rate since 1900.

How they voted:

Among those who would certainly vote, the polling found they favored Kamala Harris over Trump (by approximately 55% to 41%), both nationally and with some slight variation across key swing states. Similar to the general electorate, high cost of living/inflation ranked as the top issue with immigration following closely behind. Interestingly, on social values issues, foreign-born migrants are almost twice as likely to hold conservative/very conservative views and still identify as a Democrat compared to the overall population. This is further underscored with religious views—overall, immigrant evangelicals identify less with the Republican Party compared to U.S.-born evangelicals and young individuals (ages 18 to 29) are found to be more religious and conservative on social issues than their U.S.-born counterparts.

The Latino vote:

Within the Latino base, Harris secured a majority of all Latino voters (52% to 46%), However, Trump made significant gains—largely driven by the economic anxieties of Latino men. Notching a 10-point advantage with Latino men (54% to 44%), he overcame a roughly 23-point deficit to Biden just four years prior (59% to 36%). Still, while migrants favored Harris (by a seven-point margin) and also favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (by an eight-point margin), compared to the overall Latino electorate, they still appear to hold somewhat similar views to U.S.-born Latinos. Despite having been subjects of anti-immigrant language by Trump, polling finds that a majority of both U.S.-born (67%) and foreign-born Latino voters (51%) do not feel that the president-elect is referring to them.(Note: I have addressed the low turnout of Hispanics, which belies their growth in numbers, here).

 

 

Allan Lichtman had a run of predicting correctly (with some fudging) presidential elections since 1980 with his 13 keys to the White House. In media interviews and profiles, in September he confidently predicted that Harris would win. Why did he get it wrong?

Since January 2024 I analyzed his 13 keys, scoring them to predict the winner. In mid October I decided that Trump would win. Lichtman mis-scored his own test.

As of mid October, 10 of the 13 keys had been resolved, resulting in an incomplete score of 6 for Harris and 4 four Trump. In order for Trump to win, he had to win each of the remaining three tests. Here are these tests. Trump won all three tests, resulting in a final score of Trump 7, Harris 6.

Key #10. Foreign or military failure: There is no major failure during the term comparable to Pearl Harbor or the Iran hostage crisis that appears to significantly undermine America’s national interests or threaten its standing in the world.  Biden’s management of the border crisis constituted a foreign policy failure in that the surge of migrants into the country (amnesty applicants, humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status) was viewed as a non-military invasion, made visible by shelter crises, over-stressed public schools, and by the illusion of higher crime rates. The White House never tried to explain to the public what its policy was. In reality, it had no coherent policy.

Key #6. Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds the mean growth during the previous two terms. Even with technically higher GDP per capita growth, most people felt worse off during the Biden administration, primarily due to inflation.

Key #7. Policy change: The administration achieves a major policy change during the term comparable to the New Deal or the first-term Reagan Revolution. Lichtman in interviews firmly said yes. But Biden’s three major economic development bills, The Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, and an infrastructure act were poorly promoted and explained by the White House. Most voters likely could not recall them if asked.

Since January, I have followed the Allan Lichtman tests (“keys”) for the 2024 presidential election.  Immigration figures in this year!

The test is basically a vote of confidence or no confidence in the incumbent party. The candidate who gets at least 7 out of 13 tests wins the election (it is ambiguous whether popular vote or electoral college vote). The test was developed by statistical analysis of many presidential elections; the 13 questions when taken together have had a very tight fit with election results. They have proven right since the 1980 election (with some fudging in 2000 and 2016).

Lichtman himself said in September that Harris is sure to win.  In my view, her victory per the Lichtman test is not at all assured, and immigration comes in as a factor.

At this time (November 1), seven tests are resolved, 4 for Harris (#2,4,5 and 9) and 3 for Trump (#1,3 and 12). Three tests are probably resolved, 2 for Harris (8 and 13) and 1 for Trump (11). This sums to 6 for Harris and 4 for Trump. There remain 3 more tests. If Harris wins just one, she will have a total of 7 tests going her way. Trump has to win all three.

10.Foreign or military failure: “There is no major failure during the term comparable to Pearl Harbor or the Iran hostage crisis that appears to significantly undermine America’s national interests or threaten its standing in the world.”  Biden’s track record on the border, which metastasized into crowding of shelters and public schools across the U.S., might will be consider a “major failure.”

The two remaining unresolved tests are:

6.Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds the mean growth during the previous two terms.  The Gallup Poll reports that 61% of Americans believe they are worse off than in the past.

7.Policy change: The administration achieves a major policy change during the term comparable to the New Deal or the first-term Reagan Revolution.  Lichtman believes that the three legislative packages of Biden constitute such a major policy change. The problem is that most people cannot identify them or see how they have been directly impacted by them in a positive way.

 

 

 

PRRI did a poll covering a number of issues but featured immigration. It wrote in summary, “American attitudes about immigration policies have grown more conservative; nationally, those trends are driven primarily by Republicans and independents adopting more conservative views in recent years.”

the poll results showed that 34%  of Americans  say that immigrants entering the country illegally today are “poisoning the blood of our country,” including 61% of Republicans, 30% of independents, and 13% of Democrats. White evangelical Protestants (60%) are the only religious group among whom a majority agree that immigrants entering the country illegally are poisoning the blood of the country.

Donald Trump said that immigrants are  “poisoning the blood of our country” on October 4, 2023, during a rally in New Hampshire.

Other instances of using the phrase “poisoning the blood” of a selected and protected native population are:

Nazi Germany: Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, frequently spoke of “Jewish blood” as a “poison” to German society, aiming to stoke antisemitic fervor.

United States: During the early 20^th Century decades, Madison Grant, an influential American eugenicist, advocated for racial purity, saying that immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe would “contaminate” or “poison” the American stock. His 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race, became a significant influence on immigration restrictions in the U.S., especially the Immigration Act of 1924.

South Africa: Politicians like Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, a leading architect of apartheid, said such racial mixing was dangerous to the “racial health” of South Africans.

Hungary: Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s Prime Minister, has used rhetoric about preserving “Hungarian blood” and protecting the country from the “infiltration” of migrants, framing immigration as a threat to Hungary’s ethnic and cultural fabric.

Ronald Brownstein’s new article in the Atlantic highlights the escalating intensity of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric during his current campaign. “Even by his standards, the volume and venom of Trump’s attacks on immigrants have amped up sharply during this campaign.” Trump’s immigrant rhetoric is increasingly extreme and detached from factual reality.

Trump and J.D. Vance have made numerous claims about immigrants, including accusations of job theft, crime increases, housing cost inflation, disease spread, voter fraud, and resource depletion. Brownstein systematically debunks these claims, citing data and local records that contradict the candidates’ assertions. For instance, violent crime rates have been declining, and research suggests undocumented immigrants commit fewer offenses than native-born Americans. Employment data also refutes claims about job theft, showing significant job growth among native-born Americans.

He expresses particular concern over Trump’s dehumanizing language towards immigrants, noting his use of terms like “poisoning the blood” and referring to them as “animals” or not even “people.” The article draws parallels between this rhetoric and historical instances of dangerous xenophobia. A 1917 anti-immigration screed by James Murphy Ward even referred to immigrants (in this instance Chinese) making soup out of rats

Brownstein notes that Trump’s recent on genetics and murder suggest a turn towards eugenics in his campaign messaging.

What happened the last time (2019):

In February 2019, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley, using the standard method of matching state databases, assigned 95,000 voters for citizenship checks and set them up for possible criminal investigation.(Go here and here.) That campaign was terminated and resulted in a settlement of three federal lawsuits. Whitley resigned his job due to the fallout.

Texas had at the time about 17 million registered voters. Following the settlement, some counties undertook a more careful protocol to identify non-citizens on voting lists. They found several hundred. One person was a staff member of the El Paso County election staff and had had a naturalization party at the office years before.

On August 21 this month, Attorney General Ken Paxton, according to the office’s press release, “has opened an investigation into reports [sic] that organizations operating in Texas may be unlawfully registering noncitizens to vote in violation of state and federal law.” Paxton said that his investigation involved undercover agents and raids on homes of individuals.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Paxton’s raids (go here.) One of the individuals whose home was raided at 6 AM on August 20 was the 87 year old LULAC member Lydia Martinez, who stood outside her home in her nightgown while a half dozen law enforcement personnel went through her house and seized her electronic devices.

What are the “reports”?  On August 18, Fox News columnist Maria Bartiromo (who was involved in the conspiracy thinking re: Dominion in 2021), posted this on X: “ Friend of mine’s wife had to take her 16 yr old son to the DMV this week for a new license. Couldn’t get an online appointment(all full) so went in person and had to go to 3 DMV’s to get something done. First DMV was in Weatherford. Had a massive line of immigrants getting licenses and had a tent and table outside the front door of the DMV registering them to vote! Second one was in Fort Worth with same lines and same Dems out front. Third one was in North Fort Worth had no lines but had same voter registration drive. (Go here.)

Within 24 hours, Brady Gray, chair of the Republican Party of Parker County (in which Weatherford is located) posted on X the results of his own investigation, which included conversations with pertinent local officials, and completely refuted the allegation, point by point. (Go here.)

A defamatory assault on the integrity of local elections departments, such as Paxton has done, involves attacking one of the nerdiest, most self-disciplined and most exacting cohorts of government employees.

On August 28, Governor Greg Abbott announced that since 2021 the state has found on voter rolls 6,500 non-citizens, of whom 1,930 non-citizens had a voting history.  6.500 is of the current total of 18 million registered voters, three one hundredths of one percent, or one per 2800 registered voters. It is very unlikely that most of these 6,500 are in fact non-citizens, if the state’s earlier misadventure and that of other states are a guide.