Central to Amy's thesis is whether Asian immigrants (and in other contexts she's claimed non-white immigrants) disproportionally vote for Democrats. I pulled the 2020 Cooperative Election Study data (https://cces.gov.harvard.edu) and looked countries that had more than 30 dual-citizen respondents. (This isn't a perfect proxy for "country of origin" and some countries are not listed, but it's the best option for the available data). Here are the results by ratio of Republicans to Democrats:
Cuba: 1.22
Philipines: 1
Columbia: 0.6
Canada: 0.56
Venezuela: 0.5
Ireland: 0.48
UK: 0.46
India: 0.44
Mexico: 0.35
France: 0.35
Nigeria: 0.27
Germany: 0.24
Dominican Republic: 0.23
Jamacia: 0.05
It shows a few things:
-Asian/Non-Asian or White/Non-white are not good predictors of party support. One of the only two immigrant groups that aren't disproportionally Democrats is Asian, while the 5th and 3rd least Republican immigrants are from "white" countries.
-The clearest trend is that Black immigrants are more likely to be Democrats.
-Immigrants in general are predisposed to the Democratic party.
It shouldn't be terribly surprising that West European immigrants support Democrats, just look at the social policies and tax rates. White *people* in the US vote Republican, but white *immigrants* do not appear to do so. This kicks the question back to immigration in general, or at least whether you should allow non-Cuban/Filipinos in, not Asians or non-whites.
This is the clear pitfall of group identitarianism, it mushes together disparate factors (Asian vs Filipino vs Indian, immigrant vs. non-immigrant white) to create a narrative, but falls apart after even the most basic fact checking (you can check my work within ~20 minutes).
Central to Amy's thesis is whether Asian immigrants (and in other contexts she's claimed non-white immigrants) disproportionally vote for Democrats. I pulled the 2020 Cooperative Election Study data (https://cces.gov.harvard.edu) and looked countries that had more than 30 dual-citizen respondents. (This isn't a perfect proxy for "country of origin" and some countries are not listed, but it's the best option for the available data). Here are the results by ratio of Republicans to Democrats:
Cuba: 1.22
Philipines: 1
Columbia: 0.6
Canada: 0.56
Venezuela: 0.5
Ireland: 0.48
UK: 0.46
India: 0.44
Mexico: 0.35
France: 0.35
Nigeria: 0.27
Germany: 0.24
Dominican Republic: 0.23
Jamacia: 0.05
It shows a few things:
-Asian/Non-Asian or White/Non-white are not good predictors of party support. One of the only two immigrant groups that aren't disproportionally Democrats is Asian, while the 5th and 3rd least Republican immigrants are from "white" countries.
-The clearest trend is that Black immigrants are more likely to be Democrats.
-Immigrants in general are predisposed to the Democratic party.
It shouldn't be terribly surprising that West European immigrants support Democrats, just look at the social policies and tax rates. White *people* in the US vote Republican, but white *immigrants* do not appear to do so. This kicks the question back to immigration in general, or at least whether you should allow non-Cuban/Filipinos in, not Asians or non-whites.
This is the clear pitfall of group identitarianism, it mushes together disparate factors (Asian vs Filipino vs Indian, immigrant vs. non-immigrant white) to create a narrative, but falls apart after even the most basic fact checking (you can check my work within ~20 minutes).