Of course they do. They know which party will benefit, handsomely, if that’s permitted.

Why, if it weren’t for non-citizens voting illegally in federal elections, we probably wouldn’t have ObamaCare.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.

Women are more supportive than men of letting tax-paying illegal immigrants vote, but the two are in general agreement that the size of voting districts should be determined by counting only the number of eligible voters.

Voters under 40 are twice as likely as their elders are to favor allowing illegal immigrants to vote, but they, too, draw the line at counting illegal immigrants when setting up legislative districts.

Between this and the latest hate-speech polling, Democrats (especially younger ones) are brimming with good ideas these days. If you want to be charitable, you can tell yourself that maybe some Dems would insist on a lengthy residency requirement in lieu of citizenship before letting them vote — say, 10 years minimum in the U.S. to prove they’re committed to having a stake in the country’s future. But Rasmussen’s question didn’t ask about that; the only conditions were residence of some unspecified duration and paying taxes. Presumably, in the Democratic utopia, an illegal who came across the border a year ago and is having FICA taken out of his pay before remitting a chunk of it to family in Mexico would/should have just as much influence over who controls the U.S. government as you do.

Nor is this an idle hypothetical. Because Obama’s DACA and DAPA amnesties provide Social Security numbers to eligible illegals (which in turn will help them obtain driver’s licenses), and because local election boards rarely demand proof of citizenship before handing out ballots, it’s a cinch that some DACA/DAPA enrollees will end up voting in federal elections even though it’s illegal to do so. If you thought Bush v. Gore was a legal and political clusterfark, imagine if Hillary wins the presidency thanks to a razor-thin margin in Ohio or Florida and there’s statistical evidence to support the belief that illegal votes were the difference. And don’t forget that Hillary’s already vowed, if elected, to go farther than Obama did in amnestying illegals through executive action. DACA and DAPA each require five years of continuous residency for eligibility and, in the case of DAPA enrollees, either U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status held by their child. Will President Hillary try to out-pander O by reducing that residency requirement? Will she lift the “child citizen” requirement for DAPA applicants and open it up to all adult illegals, compounding the risk of illegal votes being cast by many millions?

Exit question: If, as Jorge Ramos (disingenuously) argues, illegal immigration is simply an “economic situation” in which a supply of labor comes forward to meet a demand, why should Democrats support granting an irrevocable right to those laborers to determine the composition of the federal government? And if the answer to that is “because federal policies affect the labor market,” then why shouldn’t laborers abroad who want to come here but are unwilling to do so illegally also have voting rights to influence those policies? There are a lot of workers in Mexico, I’d bet, who’d like to see America’s legal immigration process streamlined. Why should one’s willingness to defy American law by crossing the border illegally earn him the right to vote in the U.S. but not the law-abiding laborer in Mexico City who’d also like a say in shaping U.S. law?