Democrats self-serving reasons to support illegals/caption
Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in U.S. history. In the 2016 election she garnered 2.9 million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her popular vote tally was 65844954 (48.2) to his 62979879 (46.1.) or a 2.1 differential. Back on November 27 2016 Trump tweeted In addition to winning the Electoral College 304 to 227 needing 270 in a landslide I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." On balance thats likely true.
How many of Hillarys ballots were cast illegitimately? Outrageously thats still unknown. Yet today the jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end Just Facts a New Jersey research organization and conservative/libertarian think tank suggests that millions of illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically their analysis of 2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to voteand 594000 to 5.7 million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8 million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problema fundamental threat diluting the peoples voice in electionsnonexistent" for Democrats?
Theres a mutually beneficial relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote. Via shared governmental largesseas examples direct welfare and/or indirect free public school educationthe latter achieve a better standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile statistically Democrats have a built-in voting bloc despite their odious out of step policies. Why else constantly encourage and defend this shadowy influx of 11 million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise given the common occurrence of terrorism around the globe why similarly promote unchecked migration lax law enforcement and borderlessness?
The only logical reason is personal payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically enough warm bodies voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all their ilk doesnt experience the general chaos of street violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover they dont care about exploding deficit spending; and they dont cover the cost of catnip benefits drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.
Why does any of that matter to uber-rich progressives epitomized by biggest loser" Hillary? Besides votes dont they also need low-wage workers to do the menial jobs in their gated safe palatial estates?
David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at Capitol Hill Outsider. Hes on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post The Washington Times FrontPage Mag and extensively in Patriot Post Canada Free Press and American Thinker.