Nearly two-thirds of Democrats believe defending distant Ukraine from Russian invasion is more important than defending America’s border, communities and workplaces from illegal migrants, according to a survey by Rasmussen Reports.
Fifty-seven percent of Democrats say “defending Ukraine from Russian invasion” is “more important to the US national interest” than the alternative of “defending the US border from illegal immigration.” The February 23-24 survey included 1,000 likely voters.
In contrast, only 31% of Democrats favored defending the US border, which their fellow citizens need to earn good wages from employers and to buy decent housing near good schools.
Ideological liberals were even more likely to favor defending Ukraine over the US border, 67% to 17%, or four to one.
But GOP supporters favored defending the US border over Ukraine by four to one, or 74% to 18%. Ideological conservatives reported a similar split of 75% to 17%.
Swing-voters strongly supported the defense of US borders by 56% to 33%.
Latino and Asian voters chose US border defense against Ukraine by 63% to 28%.
The poll also showed an economic divide.
Only 31% of people earning between $50,000 and $100,000 favored defending Ukraine, while 59% favored defending their own border.
However, the richest Americans are evenly split: 46% for Ukraine and 50% for the American border.
The survey result matches other polls showing how ideological liberals are less willing to ally with ordinary Americans than with faraway foreigners. This ideological preference for “telescopic charity” is very different from conservatives, who simultaneously sympathize with distant victims but also prioritize circles of people closer to home – first family, then relatives, neighbors, residents of the same county, then compatriots. But this reluctance to defend their national border is tied to progressives’ eagerness to use immigrants to help them gain political supremacy over ordinary Americans.
Since at least 1990, the federal government has tried to extract people from poor countries so that they can serve American investors as cheap workers, government-assisted consumers, and high-density tenants in the American economy. This economic strategy has no stopping point and it is detrimental to ordinary Americans as it reduces their career opportunities and wages while increasing their housing costs.
The federal government’s wealth transfer extraction migration policy is highly unpopular, according to a wide variety of polls ignored by the media. Polls show deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the influx of temporary workers into jobs sought by young American college graduates.
The opposition is growing, protesting, multiracial, heterosexual, non-racist, class, bipartisan, rationalpersevering, and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to each other: