Dems Push for Immigrant Naturalization to Boost Voter Numbers

(LibertySociety.com) – Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center Director Lora Ries said on August 19 that the reason why the Democratic Party wants to address the naturalization applications’ backlog is to get more voters before the presidential election. During an interview with Fox News, Ries said that she knows Democrats would never “admit that” and will describe the process as a regular naturalization instead of a political strategy. She added the Democratic Party believes that strategy could work as they assume that these migrants will inevitably vote for them.

Ries’ remarks came after the New York Times reported that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services was processing hundreds of thousands of naturalization applications at a speed that hasn’t been seen over the last few years. Some reporters revealed on social media that 3.3 million immigrants have officially become US citizens during the Biden administration. They added that President Joe Biden played a significant role in the situation as he officially shortened the application from 20 pages to 14 and made the process cheaper.

The report even admitted that some political analysts believe that those migrants who became naturalized citizens can play a crucial role in November’s election, as there will be thousands of new voters who will probably vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. Boundless’ Chief Executive Xiao Wang told the newspaper that she and many experts in the field think that the naturalization efficiency that has been taking place during the Biden administration will “reshape the electorate.”

During the interview with the conservative network, Ries said that while the current administration has shown a willingness to accelerate the naturalization process and “cut corners,” similar situations have taken place in the past. She cited the case of the Clinton administration in 1996, pointing to its initiative to speed up naturalizations. However, she said that the main difference back then was that most media outlets questioned the administration and made some “tough questions” about the motivations behind the move.