by Jose Nino, Big League Politics:
Trump was able to win competitive states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — all states that are projected to lose one seat, according to the CIS study. Shockingly, Ohio will lose three more seats thanks to these redistricting changes.
On the other hand, Florida would gain three additional seats while New Jersey would add two and Illinois and Massachusetts would add another seat. “Apportionment is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington,” the study argues. Illegal immigrants and their American-born children will cause pivotal swing states to lose seats.
“Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born minor children will redistribute five seats in 2020, with Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, and West Virginia each losing one seat in 2020 that they otherwise would have had,” the authors wrote. “California and Texas will each have two additional seats, and New York will have one additional seat.”
Certain reports show that continued mass migration is a policy that will put Democrats in a favorable position in future elections.
“The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases,” a National Bureau of Economic Research study determined.
It continued by observing that these numbers were “consistent with naturalized migrants being less likely to vote for the Republican Party than native voters and with native voters’ political preferences moving towards the Republican Party because of high immigration of non-citizens.”
For the GOP, its survival is contingent upon immigration restriction.
All nations have featured some form of immigration or settlement, but these patterns have occurred in intermittent fashion with pauses — be they legislative or natural — every now and then.
The U.S. implemented a moratorium on mass migration through the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act, which was crucial in assimilating the massive wave of European migrants that came during the 1880s to 1920s. This policy of immigration restraint was lifted with the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, which has attracted a large amount of unskilled, non-European immigration.
The GOP must recognize these macrotrends and the impact they’ve had in recent elections and what they could have in store for the future. Its leadership must be receptive to policies such as ending birthright citizenship, chain migration, and implementing a pause in migration — a few of the many restrictionist options that must be on the table to tackle the immigration question head-on.