The U.S. Immigration Policy Center found that 97% of naturalized citizens planned to vote in the 2024 presidential election, based on polling between Aug. 16 and Aug. 28. This marks an uptick from 2020 levels, where 86.8% of naturalized citizens voted, the highest level since 1900. According to the Pew Research Center, naturalized citizens make up 10% of eligible voters, so their voting power can be consequential and decisive in determining a winning candidate. President-elect Donald Trump earned landslide victories in Florida and Texas, states where the number of naturalized citizens far outstrips the rest of the nation—with the exception of California, which has the most naturalized citizens out of any state. It’s reasonable to ask what makes Trump so appealing to immigrant voters from these states, especially when so much of his rhetoric has focused on demonizing immigrants from “shithole countries,” as he reportedly said in 2018 during a meeting with a bipartisan group of senators.

To start off, for a party that claims to champion diversity, equity and inclusion, Democrats have a hard time figuring out that immigrants are not a united voting bloc. A Gen-Z, naturalized Mexican-American woman who lives in Austin will likely be immeasurably more liberal on issues like the economy, religious freedom and abortion than a 60-year-old Cuban-American man living in Jacksonville who survived Castro’s regime. You cannot underestimate the loathing and distrust immigrants who have endured communist dictatorships have for socialism, but that is exactly what Democrats have done, time and time again. Those who lived under the constant shortages and economic blockades of a planned economy may not fully understand the benefits of something like the Child Tax Credit on an ideological level, even if they felt it on a personal level. The refusal to empathize with those valid fears or counter them with effective campaigning is exactly why Democrats have been failing immigrant voters. 

Furthermore, you can’t compare the perspectives of people who come from cultures steeped in Catholicism to any other religion. El Papa Francisco looms larger over the ballot box than Democrats will ever begin to comprehend. If they continue to ignore the anti-abortion sentiment that exists in most Latino communities across this country, they will lose the Latino vote. Also, most immigrants tend to be highly family-oriented. Historically, that has been the best route for assimilation. Yet, a video released a few weeks before Election Day by the political nonprofit Vote Common Good advocated that it was acceptable and normal for wives to vote differently than their (presumably conservative) husbands. I agree with this sentiment in spirit. Of course, women should be able to vote independently of anyone’s influence. But if you want to appeal to a group of people who have historically relied on presenting a united front, that messaging is not the way to go. This wasn’t directly an issue of Kamala Harris’ campaign, but rather an issue with Democratic rhetoric. But don’t worry, she didn’t need any help with losing the immigrant vote.

Harris’ bizarrely mismanaged campaign did not make any attempt to appeal to naturalized voters. The entire “brat” aesthetic and overly worshipful posts from Kamala HQ only served to delegitimize her in the eyes of people who come from places where politics are deeply steeped in male chauvinism and dictatorial regimes. I’m the target demographic for Harris’ campaign—I’m Gen-Z, a proud leftist and female—but even I was left dissatisfied with “brat summer.” If that doesn’t indicate what a profoundly bad idea this was, I don’t know what will. 

It’s not as if Trump presents an especially compelling alternative on the front of immigration policy. Over the course of his first term, the Trump administration passed 472 initiatives to constrict legal immigration pathways. While he didn’t build the wall of his oratorical dreams or deport millions of undocumented immigrants, his administration lengthened the amount of time it takes for asylum seekers to receive work permits, increased the number of immigrants placed into removal proceedings by 52% from 2016 to 2019 and, in 2019, required immigrants to provide proof that they could obtain health insurance within 30 days of arrival on threat of deportation. He’s even tried to prevent immigrants from sponsoring family members, though his wife Melania Trump successfully sponsored her parents after becoming a citizen in 2006. Indeed, Melania’s immigration history is questionable in its own right. She secured citizenship on the Einstein visa, or EB-1, which is granted to people who are internationally renowned for their intellectual, political or otherwise professional accomplishments… not to one-time Sports Illustrated models.

The funny thing is, many naturalized citizens don’t seem to care. They are more than willing to shut the door on those who follow in their footsteps for what they perceive as their economic best interest. Yet when U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics reveal that 42% of farmworkers in the U.S. lack work visas and when the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that undocumented immigrants contributed $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, it’s hard to imagine the American economy functioning without undocumented people. Perhaps those are the talking points the Democrats should’ve adopted this election cycle, rather than rhapsodizing about the merits of Bidenism.