We may be seeing only the beginning of the “unintended consequences” a Trump victory will bring out from our progressive friends’ plans for America.
This morning, LU reported on the unintended consequence of Obama’s DACA and DAPA databases of registered illegal migrants. The database, if left in place for the Trump administration, will allow Trump to identify illegals for deportation.
Blake Neff of the Daily Caller News Foundation quoted this immigration analyst:
“I was surprised anyone would be stupid enough to sign up for DACA and DAPA, yet apparently hundreds of thousands of people did so anyway,” John Miano of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies said in a Thursday blog post. “Now that the election is over and it is clear that DACA and DAPA will soon be kaput, people are beginning to realize that DACA and DAPA have created a list of prime candidates for deportation with names, addresses, and an admission of illegal alien status.”
As we also noted, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio is trying to get ahead of the same possibility, created by the database for his city’s municipal ID card, which has been issued to some 850,000 illegal migrants. His plan: to delete the entire database behind the ID cards, if necessary.
Which would defeat the purpose of the ID card and make it worthless.
Now it turns out that another plan of the progressives, accelerated by the Obama administration, was exactly what helped hand Hillary Clinton a defeat on Tuesday. That plan was the forced “diversity” imposed on pockets of the country by immigration and enforcement policies over the last few decades.
The most rapid “diversification” of local demographics correlated strongly with a tendency to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, according to analysis reported by the Wall Street Journal on 9 November.
The more rapidly a county has diversified since the start of this century, the more likely voters there were to cast ballots for the Republican nominee, a Wall Street Journal analysis of voting results and census data shows. It appears to be one reason Mr. Trump turned some traditional blue states into red states, including Wisconsin.
Analysts looked at “diversification” in American counties between 2000 and 2015, using the diversity index employed by social scientists and economists. The diversity index “measures the chance that any two people in a county will have a different race or ethnicity.”
They looked at the amount of change in the index for each county over that 15-year-period, and discovered an interesting correlation. The more the diversity index increased, the more likely the county was to go for Trump.
The GOP nominee won about 67% of voters in counties where the diversity index rose by 150% or more, the Journal’s analysis of the vote tally as of late Wednesday found. Mrs. Clinton won about 29% of votes in those counties.
Of course, the idea of encouraging “diversification” by illegal means was intended to make sure the original residents would be outvoted by the new arrivals. But, as WSJ notes, most of the new arrivals as of 2016 couldn’t vote yet (not legally, anyway).
It remains an open question whether the newer arrivals in these counties will vote straight-ticket for Democrats, if some of them do become eligible to vote legally.
But in theory, the election of Trump has unexpectedly interrupted the plan to overwhelm America with unassimilated “diversity.” Trump represents a chance we truly would not otherwise have had to return to the rule of law, and enforce the assimilation and commitment, and observance of the law, that we have the right as a nation to require of immigrants.
Learn what you think best from this. But don’t fail to pick up on the irony. Electing Trump was not what the activists of the radical progressive left had in mind with their insistence on unfettered illegal migration. But Trump is what they got.