WSJ: Illegal Aliens to be included in CENSUS in 2010

[Cowlesy]

Sounds innocuous right? Except that the CENSUS determines the number of House Seats a State receives!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332950796281832.html


By JOHN S. BAKER AND ELLIOTT STONECIPHER

Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what’s going on.

This makes a real difference. Here’s why:

According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.


There is more at the link.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::

[Epic]

Fuck this

How can an illegal immigrant get political representation at the expense of a citizen?

I don't want California getting all the electoral votes for the 2012 presidential election (and 2016, 2020, etc.) cause they are hardcore communist and will vote for the socialist Obama.

[foofighter20x]

I don't think it's fair either, but the Const. to count persons. It makes no distinction between the legal status of their residency.

[Kotin]

I don't think it's fair either, but the Const. to count all persons. It makes no distinction between the legal status of their residency.

....

[torchbearer]

I don't like it either, but the Const. to count all persons. It makes no distinction between the legal status of their residency.

this.
It is better to know, than to not know.
It would be nice to have the data on how many illegals we have here.
Doing a census of them does no harm. They are here anyway, and they aren't going anywhere.
People get cheap flowers and bushes from Forrest Hill because of their labor.

[bobbyw24]

If this happens, the GOP will never win another national election

[Deborah K]

Fuck this

How can an illegal immigrant get political representation at the expense of a citizen?

I don't want California getting all the electoral votes for the 2012 presidential election (and 2016, 2020, etc.) cause they are hardcore communist and will vote for the socialist Obama.

And we're supposed to believe that they won't be covered in the new healthcare plan. uh-huh.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

As if there weren't already enough to tip people on the verge of revolt. The only merit in counting them for the powers that be is to reassure Obama a huge electoral majority since the most liberal states are probably the ones most loaded down with illegals. :mad:

[torchbearer]

As if there weren't already enough to tip people on the verge of revolt. The only merit in counting them for the powers that be is to reassure Obama a huge electoral majority since the most liberal states are probably the ones most loaded down with illegals. :mad:

texas, louisiana, nevada, utah = liberal states?

[Matt Collins]

Well remember though that prior to the 14th Amendment, there were no United States citizens. Everyone was only a citizen of the state of which they reside. The 14th Amendment created dual-citizenship for all Americans.

Counting illegals is tricky. Many won't answer, and I don't even think the government is allowed to ask (papers please?)? But if they count them, they have to be able to distinguish those who are able to vote and those that arn't for reasons of redistricting... or at least they should

[Zippyjuan]

I have no problems with including them in the census, but for aportionment, I think only citizens should count.

In the original Constitution, basically only people who owned property counted. Slaves were worth 3/5ths of a person.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The Fourteenth Amendment updated this:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

"counting the whole number of persons in each state". No distinction between citizen or not- except for Indians not taxed. Now if you wanted to try to challenge this in court, you could use the next part, which says that a state will lose the count of persons deined the right to vote so if illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in a state, they should be subtracted from the total of people counted for aportionment.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Now if you wanted to try to challenge this in court, you could use the next part, which says that a state will lose the count of persons deined the right to vote so if illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in a state, they should be subtracted from the total of people counted for aportionment.

This.

Illegals cannot vote so they will (or should) not be counted for apportionment.

One could also argue that an illegal is basically the same (in the founders mind) as an Indian, non-taxed. Basically they only wanted tax payers to be able to be represented and illegals do not pay taxes so they should not be represented.

[Dr.3D]

This.

Illegals cannot vote so they will (or should) not be counted for apportionment.

One could also argue that an illegal is basically the same (in the founders mind) as an Indian, non-taxed. Basically they only wanted tax payers to be able to be represented and illegals do not pay taxes so they should not be represented.
So when they take the census, how are they going to distinguish between illegals and legals? It isn't like the illegals are going to fess up.

[Dr.3D]

They don't.
Exactly, so there will be disproportionate representation in those states with a lot of illegals.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Illegals have been included in the census since the beginning of the country, its not new.

That is not the issue at hand.

The issue is that now the number of illegals will be included in the numbers for apportionment.

[Reason]

hmmm

[jsu718]

The fewer questions that I have to refuse to answer on the census, the better.

[Zippyjuan]

This.

Illegals cannot vote so they will (or should) not be counted for apportionment.

One could also argue that an illegal is basically the same (in the founders mind) as an Indian, non-taxed. Basically they only wanted tax payers to be able to be represented and illegals do not pay taxes so they should not be represented.
Most illegals are taxed. They use or get fake Social Security numbers and have taxes withheld for income and Social Security and Medicaid- which they are inelgible to collect on- unless they are paid in cash under the table. They pay sales taxes on things they purchase. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html so you could have a hard time excluding them for that reason.

This is why I think the "not allowed to vote" clause is the best tool to disallow them from counting for aportionment- and I live in a state (California) which would probably benefit from them being included.