> Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed")

Wait, hold on. That’s a purely factual statement. Immigrants are 10% of the electorate. If they support one party 2:1, that’s enough to swing many presidential elections. In fact, half of Trump’s win in 2024 is attributable to immigrants going from Biden +27 to Trump +1. Without immigrants (and their kids), it would be very hard for Democrats, in their current form, to win a national election. That’s just a factual statement.

I don’t think being a party that can only win with immigrant support is a “deliberate pillar” of the party. It’s just a consequence of traditional American culture being very different from the cultures in other countries when it comes to views about government.

> then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants?

Because most people are non-immigrants.

I'm not taking issue with the factual background, but rather your motivated reasoning around it (including taking current statistics, imagining changing one thing in isolation, and considering that causal).

We could just as easily say that newer immigrants are more likely to vote Democrat because they are fresh with the reasons they came to this country in the first place plus they just got done studying for the citizenship test, whereas families who have been here for a while take our country for granted which is why they so easily buy into narratives aimed at destroying it.