America Has Rejected Liberalism

Late last year, I published a blog titled “Myth Busted: Republicans as the Party of the Rich.” The blog featured two tables showing the midterm election results for the 100 wealthiest Congressional districts in the United States and the 100 least affluent Congressional districts in the United States. The tables demonstrated that following the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats represented the overwhelming majority of the 100 wealthiest Congressional districts while the 100 least affluent Congressional districts had about an even mix of Democratic and Republican representatives in Congress. Just last month, I published a blog featuring a chart demonstrating how the explosion in the immigrant population has turned virtually all of America’s 25 largest counties blue. Today, I attempt to merge the two blogs together by presenting the lists of the 100 Congressional districts with the highest share of foreign-born residents and the 100 Congressional districts with the highest share of native-born residents. I color coded the districts as follows: red means that President Trump won the district in 2016 and a Republican currently represents the district in Congress, blue means that Hillary Clinton won the district in 2016 and a Democrat currently represents the district in Congress, purple means that President Trump won the district in 2016 but a Democrat currently represents it in Congress. I bolded the districts that flipped from red to blue in 2018. I got all of the data from the American Community Survey, which basically serves as an interim, unofficial census. I calculated the foreign-born population by dividing the foreign-born population by the total population. Unfortunately, the data does not include information about Pennsylvania’s new Congressional districts; drawn after the release of the 2017 American Community Survey. When making the list, I had to rely on the old districts in Pennsylvania.  

Keep in mind that the foreign-born population includes legal immigrants and illegal immigrants but does not include those born to illegal immigrant parents; who get birthright citizenship. Without further ado, take a look at the list:

Table 1: The 100 Districts With the Highest Share of Foreign Born Residents

District	% Foreign Born	Rank
FL-25	56.30	1
FL-27	53.79	2
NY-6	51.55	3
FL-26	50.00	4
CA-17	48.90	5
NY-14	47.02	6
CA-34	46.08	7
NJ-8	44.32	8
FL-24	43.94	9
CA-29	42.59	10
NY-5	42.21	11
CA-27	40.10	12
NY-9	39.31	13
CA-28	39.29	14
CA-40	39.25	15
CA-46	38.92	16
NJ-9	38.57	17
CA-14	38.29	18
CA-32	37.67	19
NY-15	37.42	20
CA-19	36.23	21
FL-23	36.02	22
NY-7	35.54	23
CA-15	35.25	24
NY-13	35.06	25
TX-9	34.80	26
IL-4	34.18	27
CA-12	34.12	28
CA-44	33.60	29
CA-30	33.45	30
TX-33	33.28	31
FL-20	33.08	32
CA-39	32.70	33
CA-51	32.63	34
MA-7	32.51	35
TX-29	32.13	36
NV-1	32.11	37
NY-8	31.91	38
VA-11	31.90	39
CA-43	31.27	40
NY-11	31.22	41
CA-18	31.03	42
CA-37	30.90	43
WA-9	30.89	44
NY-16	30.85	45
NY-10	30.66	46
CA-47	30.44	47
VA-8	30.05	48
CA-38	29.96	49
TX-7	29.91	50
NJ-10	29.91	51
NJ-6	29.57	52
FL-22	29.50	53
IL-8	29.27	54
CA-21	29.18	55
CA-45	29.17	56
FL-21	28.40	57
CA-35	28.35	58
NJ-12	28.14	59
CA-13	28.08	60
IL-9	27.10	61
CA-20	27.04	62
CA-11	26.29	63
NY-12	25.89	64
GA-7	25.81	65
FL-10	25.58	66
TX-22	25.56	67
AZ-7	25.11	68
CA-41	24.87	69
MA-5	24.82	70
IL-10	24.66	71
TX-24	24.59	72
TX-16	24.29	73
CA-6	23.99	74
CA-16	23.89	75
CT-4	23.83	76
HI-1	23.70	77
NY-17	23.58	78
CA-48	23.56	79
CA-52	23.47	80
MD-8	23.15	81
TX-18	23.02	82
NY-4	22.92	83
NY-3	22.92	84
CA-33	22.80	85
VA-10	22.60	86
CA-53	22.33	87
CA-9	22.25	88
TX-32	22.24	89
GA-6	22.16	90
CA-26	22.16	91
TX-28	22.14	92
TX-15	22.04	93
TX-3	22.03	94
TX-2	21.85	95
IL-5	21.48	96
CA-10	21.27	97
CA-5	21.16	98
IL-11	21.11	99
IL-3	20.83	100

As Table 1 demonstrates, President Trump only carried eight of the 100 districts with the greatest share of foreign-born residents. Many of these districts used to vote Republican, especially the 12 in bold that just flipped to the Democrats last year.  These districts account for more than one-fourth of the Democrats’ gains in the House of Representatives last year. In most of the districts in table 1, the Republican Presidential candidate’s share of the vote decreased from 2012 to 2016. I underlined the exceptions. For the exact details as to how every Congressional district voted in 2008, 2012, and 2016, consult this chart from The Daily Kos.  

As for the eight districts with high foreign-born populations that President Trump carried in 2016, he performed much worse in most of those districts than previous Republicans. Georgia’s 6^th Congressional District, which gave Mitt Romney nearly 61 percent of the vote in 2012, only gave 48 percent of the vote to President Trump in 2016. Florida’s 25^th Congressional District saw the Republican share of the vote shrink from nearly 59 percent in 2008 to just under 50 percent in 2016. The share of the Republican presidential vote in Texas’s 22^nd Congressional District dropped from 62.1 percent in 2012 to 52.1 percent in 2016.  Similar drop-offs in the Republican share of the vote took place in the other Texas districts highlighted in red in Table 1. President Trump only improved upon Mitt Romney’s performance in New York’s 11^th Congressional District, based on Staten Island, winning the district after Romney had lost it four years earlier.

This data should not come as a surprise. After all, exit polling showed that the foreign-born voted for Hillary Clinton by a 2-1 margin in 2016, in contrast to Americans born in the United States; who supported President Trump by a margin of four points.  Long before the Eagle Forum came out with its study explaining why immigrants vote Democratic, Pat Buchanan put his finger on it in Death of the West:  

Except for refugees from Communist countries like Hungary and Cuba, immigrants gravitate to the party of government. The obvious reason: Immigrants get more out of government—in free schooling for their kids, housing subsidies, health care—than they pay in. Arriving poor, most do not soon amass capital gains, estates, or incomes that can be federally taxed. Why should immigrants support a Republican party that cuts taxes they don’t pay over a Democratic party that will expand the programs on which they do depend? After Ellis Island, the Democratic party has always been the first stop for immigrants. Only after they have begun to move into the middle class to the foreign-born start converting to Republicanism. This can take two generations.

The way our immigration system works right now, that “converting to Republicanism” will take a lot longer than two generations. As demonstrated by Beto O’Rourke’s recent visit to Nashville, today’s immigrants have liberal politicians selling them a narrative about America as an awful place. While the CNN exit poll estimated the foreign-born share of the electorate at nine percent in 2016, the Democrats would like that share to continue to increase, precisely because of the data in Table 2.

Table 2 uses the exact same color code as Table 1.  Unlike in Table 1, underlined districts saw the Republican Presidential candidate’s share of the vote decrease from 2012 to 2016. I did not highlight two Pennsylvania Congressional districts because redistricting dramatically changed Pennsylvania’s 12^th Congressional District and Pennsylvania’s 18^th Congressional District. President Trump carried both the new and old versions of the districts but the districts’ representatives might have different parties if not for redistricting. The bolded red district flipped from blue to red following the 2018 election.

Table 2: The 100 Districts With the Lowest Share of Foreign-Born Residents

District	% Foreign Born	Rank
KY-5	0.66	435
WV-3	0.67	434
OH-6	0.73	433
MS-2	1.27	432
IL-15	1.56	431
KY-1	1.63	430
MO-8	1.71	429
OH-7	1.71	428
AR-1	1.76	427
PA-9 (old)	1.77	426
LA-5	1.79	425
MN-8	1.91	424
MI-1	1.92	423
OH-4	1.97	422
WV-1	2.00	421
MO-3	2.15	420
MS-1	2.18	419
MT-AL	2.20	418
WV-2	2.22	417
OK-2	2.26	416
WI-7	2.26	415
MS-3	2.27	414
MI-4	2.28	413
LA-4	2.31	412
IN-8	2.33	411
IN-6	2.36	410
VA-9	2.41	409
MI-7	2.45	408
ME-2	2.52	407
PA-3 (old)	2.54	406
AL-2	2.6	405
IL-12	2.62	404
WI-3	2.63	403
MO-4	2.66	402
AL-7	2.67	401
PA-12 (old)	2.72	400
MI-5	2.75	399
NY-21	2.92	398
AL-3	2.93	397
AR-4	2.93	396
LA-3	2.95	395
MS-4	3.01	394
OH-5	3.02	393
NY-27	3.09	392
MO-6	3.13	391
OH-2	3.13	390
TN-1	3.13	389
SC-3	3.22	388
MO-7	3.24	387
GA-2	3.28	386
KY-4	3.30	385
KS-2	3.32	384
MN-7	3.33	383
PA-5 (old)	3.36	382
TN-8	3.37	381
SD-AL	3.38	380
PA-10 (old)	3.43	379
AL-1	3.47	378
WI-8	3.52	377
KY-2	3.54	376
WY-AL	3.54	375
PA-18 (old)	3.56	374
OH-13	3.58	373
TN-7	3.59	372
OH-15	3.63	371
WI-6	3.63	370
SC-5	3.68	369
TN-3	3.77	368
AL-4	3.85	367
IA-1	3.99	366
NC-3	4.02	365
TN-6	4.04	364
IN-9	4.05	363
SC-7	4.06	362
OH-8	4.10	361
ND-AL	4.11	360
IL-18	4.12	359
SC-6	4.15	358
ME-1	4.25	357
AR-2	4.27	356
AL-5	4.31	355
NC-11	4.35	354
AL-6	4.37	353
GA-8	4.41	352
TN-2	4.42	351
NY-23	4.44	350
MI-6	4.47	349
OK-4	4.47	348
LA-6	4.50	347
VT-AL	4.50	346
IN-3	4.56	345
GA-12	4.58	344
OK-3	4.59	343
ID-1	4.73	342
OH-9	4.79	341
VA-5	4.82	340
OH-10	4.84	339
FL-2	4.90	338
GA-1	4.94	337
IA-2	4.98	336

As Table 2 demonstrates, President Trump carried 91 of the 100 Congressional Districts with the lowest share of foreign-born residents. Besides Vermont and Maine’s 1^st Congressional District, populated by affluent white liberals, the only exceptions came in the form of majority African-American Congressional districts and Midwest districts with union members that have remained hesitant to start supporting Republicans in spite of the fact that the Democrats have officially gone off the deep end. Even though he did not win the districts, President Trump improved substantially on Mitt Romney’s performance in Michigan’s 5^th Congressional District, Ohio’s 9^th Congressional District, and Ohio’s 13^th Congressional District.

Table 2 proves that native-born Americans have rejected the liberalism offered by the Democratic Party. The fact that President Trump successfully won a handful of these districts that President Obama carried twice also indicates that native-born Americans have grown weary of the globalism offered by both parties. Fortunately, the liberals concocted an insurance policy in the form of a new electorate. Looking at all this data, it becomes difficult to conclude anything other than “as the foreign-born share of the population goes up, the Republican share of the vote goes down,” or, as Ann Coulter put it, “the American electorate isn’t moving to the left--it’s shrinking.” The Democrats know this, that explains why they do not want a wall on the southern border and do not want to fix the asylum system. They see all illegal immigrants and the foreign-born population as a whole as future voters.  Republicans have let them get away with importing new voters for too long. Bottom line: failure to secure the border and fix the immigration system will deliver a permanent electoral majority for the Democrats. Mark my words.