-1

In this episode of Rubin Report Larry Elder claims:

The country has changed in part, in my opinion, because of immigration, including illegal immigration. People who are coming to the country illegally from third-world countries like Mexico, they don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about limited government. They believe health care is a right, they're taught that in Mexico, they're taught that other places and they come here in America and they pull that lever for the Democratic Party which is why in my opinion the left wants the border to be porous because it changes the country, changes the electorate.

Is there any merit to this claim?

  • Does illegal immigration really change the electorate? Particularly, what is the time between an illegal immigrant enters the country and their gaining the right to vote in the U.S.?

  • Besides the problem of border control, is there any difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in political attitude towards the immigration laws which would prove the democrats are benefiting from illegal immigration as claimed?

  • 1
    Because the only way I've heard about socialized medicine is from illegal Mexican immigrants. Is he implying that illegal immigrants are voting, or that they are changing the opinions of legal voters? He seems to be claiming about 4 or 5 different things here. – DenisS Oct 9 at 18:10
  • 1
    Residents, whether legal or not, are counted for representation in Congress. It's obvious that changes the electorate. Whether that changes voting in any district is a different question. I don't think your question is focused enough on the claim. Presumably, people vote for their values, and Elder seems to be claiming that immigrants in general don't understand or even reject his values of "lesser government". That's an interesting question and the main point of the claim. Do you want to ask that question? – fredsbend Oct 9 at 19:30
  • @fredsbend Neither English is my native language, nor am I familiar with U.S. legal system, but if I combined the definition of the "electorate" as *1. A body of qualified voters.*(thefreedictionary.com/electorate) with your first two sentences, I would have to conclude that "not legal residents are qualified for vote." Is this true? And is it even correct to use the phrase "not legal resident?" in case of U.S.? In my country "resident" is used for a person legally entitled to remain within the country). – Antibono Oct 9 at 20:07
  • 3
    Don't have enough time to write up an answer, but 1. Illegal immigrants never gain the right to vote. They have to become legal, and how long that takes would get into the weeds of US immigration laws. 2. Elder seems to be conflating Dem resistance to Trump's border wall with them asking for open borders, which is not the case. While the Dem party is certainly not as hardline as the Rep party on immigration, they are by no means asking for open borders. – DenisS Oct 9 at 21:38
  • 1
    @Antibono Yes. The census counts all residents, legal or otherwise, and that is used for determining the number of representatives allotted to a jurisdiction. This has always been true. Women and children were counted even before women could vote. Slaves were counted, but as a compromise between Free and Slave States at the time the Constitution was written, only as 3/5 of a free person. – Andrew Lazarus Oct 10 at 19:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .