You are probably answering Nickyjo who suggested I said there was a “liberal conspiracy” to import people.
A conspiracy is something that is kept secret. This is no secret. Obama, Clinton, Merkel, other EU leaders, Rudd and Gillard would have sat around their own tables to discuss the huge loss of baby boomer votes coming up soon (through death, senility, retirement, bad health, etc). They would be crazy not to have met to talk about this crisis... . So we see that around the world immigration became a huge issue – much bigger than in the past – as millions of 3rd world immigrants poured into the U.S., Europe and many tens of thousands into Australia....as long as conservatives get into power. Australia has stopped the problem, and Trump is working on it.
It’s clear in the U.S. that Democrats openly support and encourage illegal immigrants, protect them and encourage them with ‘asylum cities’. It’s clear those same illegal immigrants vote and that no Democrats will lift a hand to stop them. The agenda is clear, and it’s pure vote rigging.
You and I seem to agree on the undesirability of contemporary immigration, but I'm going to suggest a slightly different scenario (at least in the US). I don't believe that anyone on the left or the right have noticed or cared about baby boomer voters - most of those voters "mellowed" long ago (a surprising number voting for Reagan). However, I do believe that Democratic politicians are fully aware that more non-European immigrants means more votes (unless those immigrants are refugees from a communist regime), and have changed their beliefs to fish for those current and anticipated new voters.
The demographic and ideological dynamics since the mid-sixties has been as follows:
In 1968 Kevin Philips wrote the book "The Emerging Republican Majority". His analysis of demography showed that as the working class (mostly whites and white ethnics) became middle class their values changed. Given continued growth in lower class prosperity, Democrats were inevitably going to lose shrinking blue collar votes and be reduced to a smaller party of the poor, government workers, and the like. Moreover, the solid democratic south was starting to crack, along with traditional white "ethnics" (e.g. Catholics) in the NE, also to the advantage of Republicans.
Those dynamics played out until the GOP won the House for the first time in decades, in 1994. However, Phillips later noted that immigration and social changes would alter that balance. While whites were a constantly decreasing proportion of those below the poverty line, immigrants from the 3rd world were replacing them. Hence, the poverty rate was not declining and (of course), the poor is one of the major Democratic voting blocks.
In the mid-1990s Kevin Phillips wrote a new book on "The Emerging Democratic Majority". The growth in immigration, minorities, and single women would invariably mean the US would evolve into a one-Party system - an overwhelming Democratic majority for the next several generations.
The dynamics have been obvious:
1) Without massive immigration the poverty rate for Americans would have kept declining, eroding the Democratic "dependency" votes. Without massive immigration, the grievance minority groups would be smaller. And with GOP dominance, the ideological legitimization of unmarried women (especially those with children) dependent on the "daddy" state would have been challenged. In other words, the quality of life for the average US citizen would have been far better.
2) With massive immigration the underclass can be kept full (and expanded), the minority ranks (and racial resentment) can become the "majority", the government dependency class expanded.
In other words, Democrats depend on class, gender, and race political warfare to prosper. The last thing they desired was a prosperous, happy, white middle class dominating national politics. I would say the Dems won that battle.
