DACA Will Be a Wall around the White House
Walls have a variety of purposes. In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out. Few chose to go "Back to the USSR," as The Beatles sang, other than newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned there.
Walls also keep people out. Examples include the wall around Vatican City, the one in Israel's West Bank, and the ones around the homes of open borders advocates like Mark Zuckerberg. Many of the "walls for me but not for thee" virtue-signaling Hollywood elites have walls, fences, and all manner of security measures keeping uninvited guests from invading their domiciles.
How can DACA be a wall? Not in the way you might think. If Lindsey Grahamnesty and his fellow congressional amnesty fanboys and fangirls get their way, giving the "DREAMers" citizenship and the right to vote, this will create a wall around the White House.
This wall is not to be confused with the fence around the White House that mischievous sorts like to jump over, embarrassing the Secret Service. Instead, this wall will keep any Republican from ever living in the White House again.
Where are the 700,000 "DREAMers" in the U.S. living? And twice the number of illegal immigrants eligible for DACA? And if they vote, how will they vote? What does that mean for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election?
A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born naturalized immigrants found that 62 percent identified as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans. That's a 2.5-fold difference favoring Democrats.
A Pew Research Center study from the same year found that undocumented latino immigrants identified 31 percent Democrat and 4 percent Republican, an eightfold difference.
Suffice it to say that the majority of "DREAMers" would pull the lever for the presidential candidate with the letter D after his name.
Where are DACA recipients living in the U.S.? Let's also distinguish between actual DACA recipients and those meeting all the criteria to apply. If DACA recipients are given a pathway to citizenship, it's likely that most or all those eligible will take advantage of American largess and become voting citizens.
The Migration Policy Institute identifies about 690,000 recipients and 1,326,000 eligible. For this analysis, I will use the numbers for the DACA-eligible, about twice the number of current recipients.
The Washington Post provides a rough approximation of where they live.
Forget large states like California, Illinois, and New York, as these are already solidly blue. Trump won Texas by around 800,000 votes, while only 182,000 DACA-eligible live in Texas, so that state won't likely flip.
Trump won Arizona by 85,000 votes, with 36,000 DACA-eligible – not an insurmountable margin. Michigan went for Trump by only 12,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible. Easy state to flip. Wisconsin voters picked Trump by 27,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible. Again, easy to flip.
Trump won Florida by 119,000 votes, with 72,000 DACA-eligible. The small remaining difference is easily surpassed by a good portion of the 73,000 hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico, now living in Florida, voting Democrat.
You get my point. It won't be difficult to flip a few states from red to blue, painting the Electoral College map mostly blue and keeping a Republican out of the White House for the foreseeable future – all accomplished by legalizing the "DREAMers" and those eligible for DACA.
Going farther is blanket amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. – not a million, but perhaps ten or twenty million. Enough to turn a solidly red state like Texas blue. Lights out for a Republican ever winning the presidency after that.
Lastly, if Trump caves on immigration, his core issue, many of his supporters will stay home, amplifying the votes of the "DREAMers" and painting the electoral map a deeper shade of blue.
No wonder Democrats are so eager for DACA amnesty. Don't listen just to Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, read what the Center for American Progress (better named the Center for Liberal Progress) circulated in a memo written by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri. She admitted that the DACA "DREAMers" are "[a] critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."
No kidding. That's exactly why Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, opening American doors to anyone able to get here as well as his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, plus any other supposed relatives, filling the voter rolls with loyal Democrats for generations.
Legalizing the "DREAMers" will have a similar effect, especially if Congress doesn't end chain migration.
Immigration is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is president. His supporters are understandably nervous about his recent promise that whatever immigration Congress send him, "I will be signing it."
Trump's a smart guy, despite assertions to the contrary in Michael Wolff's book, and knows the importance of dancing with the base who brought him. I'm sure the Republican leadership in Congress knows this as well and won't allow a lousy bill to reach Trump's desk – meaning one without funding for the wall as well as continuation of chain migration and the green card lottery.
If Trump get what he wants but legalizes the "DREAMers," his road to 270 electoral votes in 2020 may be far more difficult, if not impossible. If I can see this, I am sure he can, too. Despite my trepidation over his recent comments, I am content to wait for the final bill to emerge. "Let's see what happens," as the president likes to say.
Trump has kept his campaign promises thus far, and I suspect that despite Lindsey Grahamnesty's giddiness over a "pathway to citizenship," the president will have the last laugh. His political future depends on it.