After the 2020 election, many establishment media voices claimed Donald Trump’s 2016 victory was a fluke, suggesting Americans “came to their senses” in the next election. But the outcome of the 2024 election validated what many on the right have argued for years: Trump and his positions reflect the desires of a majority of voters rather than fringe views.

Yet Trump’s win did not affirm every right-wing talking point. Immigration restrictionists, who rallied around Trump early in his 2016 campaign, have argued that mass immigration, both legal and illegal, would push the country to the left. Their reasoning is based on the fact that most nonwhite immigrant groups in the United States tend to favor the Democratic Party over Republicans.

America doesn’t need to become more like the Third World.

The 2024 election results throw a monkey wrench in the works. While whites still make up most (84%) of GOP voters and support the GOP at a higher rate (56%) than any other group, Trump made significant inroads with some minority groups. He won 42% of the Latino vote, and among Latino men, his support climbed to 47%.

This election isn’t the first in which Trump increased his share of the Latino vote. In 2016, 28% of Latinos voted Republican; by 2020, that figure rose to 38%. Now, with Trump receiving 42% of the Hispanic vote, some have begun reconsidering the argument that mass immigration primarily benefits the Democratic Party.

Two key factors shape this shift.

First, this argument remains valid until large immigrant groups consistently vote Republican. Trump gained ground with Asians in this election, another significant immigrant group, increasing his share from 28% in 2020 to 38% this year. Although exit polls do not detail Indian-American voting patterns, the 2024 Indian American Attitudes Survey shows Indian-American support for Trump increased from 22% in 2020 to 31%.

The rightward shift among America’s largest immigrant groups signals an encouraging trend. Regardless of one’s stance on demographic change — personally, I believe our demographics were just fine around the time Hart-Cellar passed in 1965 — legal immigrants have become an integral part of the electorate. Encouraging them to support economic freedom, meritocracy, non-interventionism, and immigration restriction benefits everyone.

Rather than refuting immigration restrictionism, this shift proves that restricting immigration provides a solid foundation for building a broad right-wing coalition. Staving off future demographic changes doesn’t require hard-line white nationalism; in fact, a more inclusive approach appears more effective in countering the Great Replacement narrative. Ironic, isn’t it?

As mentioned, America’s largest immigrant groups continue voting primarily Democrat, supporting the argument that voting trends still favor immigration restriction. But let’s imagine a scenario where these trends shift — where, one day in the not-too-distant future, Hispanics, Indians, and East Asians start voting majority Republican.

That outcome may be unlikely any time soon. But for argument’s sake, let’s consider it.

Even under such circumstances, strong reasons for supporting immigration restriction remain. Mass immigration suppresses Americans’ wages, replaces skilled American workers with foreign labor, reduces social trust, erodes social capital, and, depending on the origin, lowers the nation’s average IQ — not exactly a desirable outcome.

Mass immigration threatens to permanently erase the America we know and love. While immigrants arriving in smaller numbers often assimilate, those coming in the millions are more likely to retain the attitudes and beliefs of their home countries, causing America to increasingly resemble those places.

Personally, I don’t think America needs to become more like the Third World.

Fortunately, the 2024 election results have dispelled another argument used against immigration restrictionists: that running on an immigration restriction platform will alienate minority voters, specifically Latinos.

This argument influenced the GOP’s shift away from the Southern strategy, which appealed to disaffected white working-class voters, toward a more pro-diversity approach.

George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign exemplified this shift. In a speech to La Raza, he pledged $100 million to expedite permanent residency applications, saying, “I like to fight that stereotype that sometimes we don't have the corazon necessary to hear the voices of people from all political parties and all walks of life.” His campaign even ran ads on Spanish-speaking media.

Bush’s pro-immigration, pro-diversity campaign only earned him 35% of the Latino vote — considerably less than Trump received this year running on mass deportations. The fact that Trump managed to win record Latino support while pursuing something resembling the Southern strategy should show how nonsensical it was for Republicans to tack left on immigration in the attempt to appeal to those voters.

Whether the GOP hits a ceiling among these minority voters remains to be seen. But even if immigrant groups continue moving rightward, we should remember that the case against mass immigration ultimately transcends the voting trends argument.

After decades of reckless immigration policy, it is time for a moratorium.