Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Immigration Will Give Democrats 24 More House Seats From Trump States After 2020 Census

Report: Immigration Will Give Democrats 24 More House Seats From Trump States After 2020 Census

“It is possible that had the shift in House seats occurred in time for the 2016 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton would have won the Electoral College vote, not Trump.”

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1106246010727268353?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Democrats have a vested interested in unrestrained immigration and in ensuring that the citizenship question never makes the U. S. Census.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, immigration surges over the past ten years will result in the redistribution of as many 26 House seats, mostly in blue states.

Additionally, 24 of the lost House seats are in states that President Trump won in 2016.  This is not only concerning to Republicans hoping to retake the House in 2020 but to the president himself as he seeks reelection.

The Washington Examiner reports:

The 10-year surge in illegal and legal immigration has exploded the populations of mostly Democratic states enough that the 2020 census is likely to result in the redistribution of 24 House seats in states President Trump won, according to a new population analysis released Thursday morning.

The prediction from the Center for Immigration Studies said that 26 seats overall will shift due to immigration increases since the last census was taken. And it said that a minimum of 19 of those seats will be added to Democratic states.

“Immigration profoundly redistributes political power at the federal level by changing the apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College,” said the report compiled by Steven A. Camarota, the center’s director of research, and demographer Karen Zeigler.

CIS expects Ohio to be the biggest loser of House seats and California the biggest winner because many illegal and legal immigrants reside in California, and the distribution of 435 House seats is based on the national population count.

It is possible that had the shift in House seats occurred in time for the 2016 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton would have won the Electoral College vote, not Trump.

The report is alarming, the Washington Examiner notes, in that it is “one of the first reports to confirm concerns that unchecked immigration, cheered by liberals, dramatically helps the Democratic Party.”

The report found that the booming population of noncitizens alone will shift 10 seats. And when focused only on illegal immigration, five seats will be lost from mostly Trump states.

The Washington Examiner provides a list of key predictions from the CIS report.

  • The presence of all immigrants (naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants) and their U.S.-born minor children will redistribute 26 seats in the House in 2020.
  • Ohio will have three fewer seats in 2020, Michigan and Pennsylvania will have two fewer, and Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will each have one fewer seat.
  • California will gain 11, New York and Texas four, Florida three more seats, New Jersey two, and Illinois and Massachusetts will each have one additional seat.
  • Of the 26 seats that will be lost, 24 are from states that voted for Trump in 2016. Nineteen seats will go to the solidly Democratic states of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
  • Looking at noncitizens and their U.S.-born minor children redistributes 10 seats.
  • Looking at only noncitizens (legal residents and illegal immigrants) redistributes eight seats, with Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Alabama, Idaho, West Virginia, and Rhode Island each having one fewer seat in 2020 due to the presence of noncitizens in other states.
  • Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born minor children will redistribute five seats in 2020, with Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, and West Virginia each losing one seat in 2020 that they otherwise would have had. California and Texas will each have two additional seats, and New York will have one additional seat.
  • Illegal immigrants alone in 2020 will redistribute three seats, with Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat.

Democrats champion open borders and reject any attempt to secure our borders for a reason. While they may pay lip service to amnesty and citizenship for illegals, Democrats don’t need it in order to benefit immensely from unchecked immigration.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This was the purpose all along. Will Republicans finally wake up to the issue? (I doubt it but one can always hope)

I think this report has worded things confusingly. They will not gain all those seats in 2020. Rather they have gained that many seats over the years due to immigration both legal and illegal. It could be more accurately described as the Democrats losing that many seats if we suddenly only counted citizens.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Baby Elephant. | December 24, 2019 at 4:51 am

    ^^This^^

    Agreed. This has been completely misreported by the CIS itself, the Examiner and now by LI.

    It’s about the cumulative effect of immigration over time and has little to do with the 2020 census.

    Mountain Man in reply to Baby Elephant. | December 24, 2019 at 11:30 am

    I think you are correct, this report is not right. I checked CA population in 2000 as a % of total US population and again using 2018 Census Bureau estimates. In both cases CA represents about 12% of the US population. I don’t see how that would translated into any additional House seats at all in 2020.

      Tom Servo in reply to Mountain Man. | December 24, 2019 at 2:00 pm

      Yeah we discussed this at Ace’s a couple days back, it’s a clickbait article. The numbers they put out are how they think things would have been if there had been no net immigration at all for the last 50 years or so. That’s interesting, but that’s all baked into the electoral cake already.

    RandomCrank in reply to Baby Elephant. | December 24, 2019 at 3:33 pm

    The “study” predicts that NY, MA, NJ, and CA will gain electoral votes at the expense of red states. In reality, the post-’20 reapportionment will take two seats from NY, and add seats in NC (1), Florida (2), and Texas (3). California is actually on the bubble to lose a seat.

    Sorry, wingnuts, but you got played. That “study” is laughable garbage. Oh, and it implied (maybe even stated) that the ’20 census will affect the ’20 election — which it will not.

“ensuring that the citizenship question never makes the U. S. Census.”
*******
I don’t think citizenship has anything to with apportionment. It’s based on “persons” living in…

    Voyager in reply to SHV. | December 23, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    If you are subject to lawful removal at any time, can you legitimately be said to be living in an area?

    Or, simply enforce the laws and ship all the illegals home before the count.

      Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | December 23, 2019 at 8:15 pm

      The constitution says “counting the whole number of persons in each State”. It doesn’t say residents, let alone legal residents.

        Baby Elephant in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2019 at 9:05 pm

        Better solution, Hire 1 million ICE agents to conduct the door to door portion of the census count.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2019 at 4:52 am

        Yep, from my understanding they even count all the prisoners.

          tom_swift in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 24, 2019 at 9:06 am

          If they wanted to be really anal about the census, they’d only count prisoners. Everybody else can move anywhere in the US at any time, no passports required.

          Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 24, 2019 at 10:09 am

          Yes, and since prisoners can’t vote, they usually draw the district where the prison is located to have much fewer voters than most other districts so the people who live near a prison get an outsized say in government.

          Note that the constitution allows but does not require this; it only requires that the state get representation for the prisoners, not that that representation go to the district where they are. It’s up to the state how to distribute the seats it’s been given.

        Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 12:10 pm

        You’re assuming Milhouse, that the constitutional meaning of the phrase “persons in each State” must encompass illegal aliens. I don’t believe there is a S.Ct. case directly on point on that matter. In fact, I believe that Alabama has a suit pending that challenges the inclusion of illegal aliens.

        Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 12:16 pm

        Yes, but what does the phrase “persons in each State” actually mean? Might it not mean only those persons who are members of the political community of the US? Such a definition wouldn’t include those unlawfully within the country.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 5:49 pm

          No, it could not possibly mean that. Children, the insane, felons, and legal aliens are not part of the political community. At the founding women were not part of the political community, and slaves were not 60% part of the political community. And yet there has never been any dispute that they must be included in the count. Nor has there ever been any dispute about illegal immigrants being included. You and those others now complaining about it are simply fantasizing.

          The constitution means what it says. You just don’t like it.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 8:13 pm

          I guess we’d have to define the scope of “political community” too. i think it’s possible to include those groups you mention, yet exclude illegals. If constitutional meaning were so plain Milhouse, why are we still having debates on the meaning of the 1st amendment and Due Process? I think the meaning of the 2nd amendment has also caused some issues too.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 11:52 pm

          We have debates around the edges of the first amendment, or due process. Nobody dares go into court and argue that racism is not protected speech, or that a defendant who speaks no English and was denied an interpreter has nevertheless had due process. The debates on the meaning of the second amendment would also be a lot narrower if only honest people participated. The hoplophobes don’t really believe their own arguments on the amendment’s meaning; their real argument is that the amendment shouldn’t exist, so they want the courts to render it a nullity by accepting frivolous interpretations. Which is approximately what Alabama is trying with the census.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | December 26, 2019 at 11:40 am

          Good to know all those cases winding their way through state and federal appellate systems all concern marginal things on the edges. But you might want to tell some of the litigants who seem to get awfully worked up over nothing. And I guess two can play that game Milhouse. One could say excluding illegals from the definition of “persons in each State” is just a marginal, narrow issue regarding the interpretation of the Census Clause.

It bothers me that the Democrats are taking our money to bribe foreign nationals to break our laws just so the D’s can get themselves elected.

Will the census numbers be compiled before the election? I thought the census isn’t distributed until spring, government doesn’t move THAT quickly.

Taxpayer funded Democratic gerrymandering.

Reapportionment after the 2020 census won’t have any effect on elections until 2022.

Only because the house is unconstitutionally too small. 435 congresscritters cannot be distributed in accordance with the population as required by the 14th amendment if the smallest states are guaranteed one.

I recently ran the numbers using the 2010 census, computing (state population)/(Wyoming population). 39 states would see an increase. Delaware and Montana would get the largest percentage increase, doubling from one to two. Texas would get the largest number increase, from 36 to 51. My home state NY would go from 27 to 34.

Why the state attorneys general of the underrepresented states haven’t filed a writ of mandamus suit against the House to force it to increase it’s numbers so the states can be represented in proportion to their numbers is puzzling.

The wording is clear: 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.

The other option would be for an underrepresented state to do the math, divide the state into that number of districts, and send them all to Washington. If multiple states did that the House would have a difficult time not accepting the new members….

I also ran the numbers on the electoral college effect on the 2016 election. Wouldn’t have changed it the final results.

I think, but can’t prove, that increasing the numbers would increase the number of Republicans in the House. NYC would get more Representatives, but it would be harder to create safe Democrat districts upstate. Democrat districts would become even more Democrat then they already are since Democrats cluster together….

    tom_swift in reply to gospace. | December 24, 2019 at 9:18 am

    The wording is clear: 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.

    That’s not clear at all. “Counting the whole number of persons in each State” includes . . . what? The area I grew up in had two distinct populations, a summer and a winter population. The summer population was more than four times the size of the winter one. Which one is to be counted? What of college students, itinerant farmers, contract workers, Chinese laborers doing pick & shovel work on the railroad, oilfield workers, vacationers, tourists? Trainees on military bases? None of this is clear; it’s guesswork.

      Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | December 24, 2019 at 10:10 am

      It’s pretty clear. The census is to count everyone who is in a state on the census day, no matter where they come from or how long they intend to stay there.

        Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 12:19 pm

        Not necessarily. Depends on what the phrase ‘persons in each State” means in the Census Clause.

          Milhouse in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 5:52 pm

          There is no possible question what it means. Persons means persons. Human beings, from birth until death.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 8:09 pm

          Tourists are “persons” aren’t they? Yet they are excluded? How did that happen I wonder? Might the Census Bureau be limiting the meaning of “persons” under the Census Clause. Guess they don’t think the answer is so simple.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 26, 2019 at 12:14 am

        I was actually surprised to find that the census doesn’t count tourists; the reason seems to be that the Census Act of 1790 said people should be counted at their “usual residence” (which by the way is not necessarily the same as their legal residence or their voting address).

        I suppose the reasoning is that the constitution doesn’t say anything about the day of the census. The original constitution didn’t even say to count the persons “in each state”, it just said “according to their respective numbers”, which would be determined by adding the whole number of free persons and 3/5 of all other persons. The word “in” is completely missing. So I suppose they figured a person is part of his usual state of residence’s “numbers” even if he happens not to be there on a specific day. After all, the purpose of the census is apportionment for elections, and the person is likely to be home by the time the election comes around.

        The 14th amendment added the word “in”. Its language says “counting the whole number of persons in each state”. I would argue that that means exactly what it says, and therefore tourists should be counted where they happen to be on census day, but again it doesn’t actually mention census day, so I suppose one could justify predicting where they’re going to be on the next election day and counting them there.

    Tom Servo in reply to gospace. | December 24, 2019 at 2:11 pm

    interesting trivia – until the early 20th century, the number of House Reps increased after every census. The 1910 census resulted in 435 members, and the feeling grew that any more would make the House too unwieldy to manage. In 1929, a Congressional resolution was passed freezing the House at the numbers resulting from the 1910 census. From then on, they’ve been redistributed, but never increased. (we have 3 times the 1910 population now; doing it the old way would give us a House with nearly 1500 Representatives)

I hope there is a law suit to stop it. When Trump was prohibited from putting the citizenship question on the census, he dispatched multiple agencies to use every available tool to come up with an accurate number (estimate) of how many illegals are here, and where they are.

It absolutely sickens me that we’d assign congressional representation to people who aren’t supposed to be here. We once had “taxation without representation” now we’ve got “representation without taxation” … The numbers in the census report ought be reduced by the number of illegals.

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | December 23, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    The constitution requires representation to be based on absolutely all persons who are in the state, whether they can vote or not, whether they’re legal or not. It doesn’t even say they have to live there; the text implies tourists count too.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2019 at 8:50 pm

      Which means an amendment is needed. I doubt the idea was to let one party illegally flood the country to get the power… the plan to shatter the Republic didn’t cross their minds.

      Have you ever read the Preamble?

      We the People of the United States … to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      I’m sure liberals would argue to the contrary, but the Preamble establishes the purpose and scope of the Constitution. It applies to citizens. IF it is accorded to non-citizens, it is by grace only.

      Under your absurd argument, if the entire population of Canada were to vacation in Disneyland during the census, you’d count them as part of the population and apportion congressional seats accordingly. That would be a Mickey Mouse thing to do!

        Milhouse in reply to MrE. | December 24, 2019 at 1:06 am

        First of all, the preamble has no legal effect. Second, that’s what the text says; the census must attempt to count every person who is in a state on that day, and the states’ representation is to be based on that.

          Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2019 at 9:19 am

          Milhouse, so frequently full of absurdity.

          Preambles are used and generously, in interpretation of law.

          Get over yourself.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2019 at 4:19 pm

          Preambles are sometimes used to get an idea of the legislators’ general frame of mind, so as to shed light on some operative clause in the law itself. Preambles themselves have no legal effect whatsoever.

          Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 12:24 pm

          So, “persons in each State” can’t be construed to exclude those not part of the political community? That’s not too reasonable. The Census Bureau itself makes its own exclusions. Tourists aren’t counted. They’re people aren’t they? (at least for the most part)

        tom_swift in reply to MrE. | December 24, 2019 at 9:25 am

        It applies to citizens.

        It certainly did not apply to citizens. Free citizens, at least. The southern states would not have ratified the Constitution if they didn’t get representation of their slave populations.

          I’ll have to chew on that Tom.

          By way of background, I worked in QA and CM auditing in the aerospace and defense industry. Every Federal, Military and Industry specification and standard I worked with of the product and procedural sort, began with two major sections: Purpose and Scope. Though not so titled, the Preamble clearly expresses the Purpose and Scope of the Constitution itself. A key word in the Preamble is “OF”. Not “In” as Milhouse seems to infer.

          I’ve had discussions with Liberals on other boards and they commonly argue that the Preamble is either “not a part of the Constitution” or as Milhouse inferred “of no legal weight”. If we’ve allowed leftist/liberal interests to argue the constitution applies to non-Citizens, then shame on us. It leads the Constitution on the very same page and is part of the document (a precondition) of what the framers signed. Leftist/Liberal largess will be the death of us.

          About my absurd analogy above, it did occur to me last night that the Democrats REALLY blew it. Instead of the entire population of Canada visiting Disneyland, they really should have offered a FREE trip to Disneyland to the residents of the other 49 states, held the census, then gave all the house seats, save 1 each for the 49 states, to California. Seriously, I can’t imagine for a second that the signers intended anything so absurd as that – nor could they have anticipated such migration in the age of travel by horseback, wagon and sail boat / galeon.

      Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 12:20 pm

      Don’t agree. The phrase “persons in each State” can reasonably be construed as excluding those not part of the political community. That would be illegal aliens. And, by the way, tourists aren’t counted.

        Milhouse in reply to Concise. | December 25, 2019 at 5:55 pm

        How do you know tourists aren’t counted? And on what grounds? “All persons” explicitly includes many people who are not eligible to vote.

          Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 8:00 pm

          The Residence Rule, promulgated by the Census Bureau, does not by its terms include tourists. Why? Because they’ve used their discretion to exclude those “perons” temporarily, in their view, present on census day. It could be argued that there is nothing more inherently temporary than an illegal alien passing through one’s state (or maybe country?), but no, they’re included. The point is that they’ve used their discretion to apply limits to the meaning of “persons in each State.” So I guess the question is not clear as you think.

Send them back
We need operation wetback 2
If Trump gets re-elected he can do as he pleases and the he’ll with the courts
Round them up

I think the author of this piece may be confused. This morning’s Los Angeles Times reported that California is now experiencing its lowest growth rate since 1900—and that California may lose one Congressional seat after the 2020 census.

Three factors were cited.

1. Because young folks can’t afford to buy a house, and are delaying marriage–and babies, the state fertility rate is way down. No new babies means no new voters. And as the geezers who bought their houses long ago die off, population drops.

2. Net in-migration is way down. Okay guys that means that the dash across the border from Old Mexico to the big Walmart and Food Stamp and Medicare for All pie in the sky has slowed way down.

3. Net emigration to other states is way up. Call it white flight; call it young folks who want to go to a place where theiy can actually buy a home; call it people fleeing the People’s Republic of Kalifornia—folks are leaving the state, and the trend is accelerating.

What’s the result–the California population is still growing–but at a historically low rate. Other states are growing faster–and that means that once all that is sorted out California is likely to lose at least one Congressional seat.

At the risk of generating down votes, let me make an observation or 2.
There are an estimated 20 million illegals in the us. For the last 3 decades at least, elements in the republican party have tried to block illegal immigration and deport those already here; without success. In fact, its been a total failure. With the exception of the middle easterners, they are hard working, self reliant people with deep religious and family values. In other words, natural republicans. But we have been converting them into good democrats. Maybe it’s time to stop what we are doing and steal them back. They ain’t going away. I defy anyone to tell me how the optics of deporting 20 million people plays to our benefit – anyone??
Besides, we have more important challenges. Taking back our educational system is 1000x more important for our long term survival, yet we focus on immigration and spin our wheels.

If you doubt that they can be ‘converted’, PR has gone shall issue and honors all states permits:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/12/gun-law-in-puerto-rico-to-respect-the-second-amendment-as-of-1-january-2020/#ixzz68zTEHWeD
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Under the new law, a permit to own includes the right to carry a firearm for defense in public, if the firearm is concealed. Obtaining a permit to carry, under the old system, was even more difficult and costly than obtaining a permit to own a firearm. The government has a limit of 45 days in which to investigate and issue a permit. After a year, the limit is reduced to 30 days.
Puerto Rico will recognize all other firearm permits issued in the United States or territories of the United States.

    Close The Fed in reply to VaGentleman. | December 24, 2019 at 9:13 am

    If it weren’t Christmas Eve, I’d respond in depth and forcefully.

    But let’s save the obvious for a day NOT a holiday.

Actually the CIS report doesn’t say that. It’s not even an actual report of current population or immigration trends. If you read the report it is actually nothing more than a “What if” thought exercise.

If you read the report it actually says that if there were not immigration Cali would have 11 house seats less than it does now. It also point out several other states that have “extra” house seats, like Texas and Florida, due to immigration. Cali is actually in a growth decline even with immigration, it’s not gaining 11 house seats.

Basically the reporter read the study and saw what he wanted, not what it actually said.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 24, 2019 at 4:56 am

    I may have been mistaken about Cali being in growth decline, I am finding conflicting sources and honestly don’t really care enough to do more research, but Cali has not grown enough since 2010 to gain 11 house seats, period. Especially with the number of seats capped at 435 and each state having to have at least one.

buckeyeminuteman | December 24, 2019 at 6:58 am

What’s to keep me in Ohio from saying I have 6 kids instead of 3? I don’t have to list SSNs I don’t think. Does anybody verify? Are there penalties for adding extra people to keep my state’s population up? What if everybody in red states agreed to do this?

when the census comes around if there is no citizenship question I intend to respond with 15 in my household. I would encourage every other conservative to do the same.

    Milhouse in reply to Lester. | December 24, 2019 at 10:12 am

    I do the opposite. I refuse to respond to the census, because I want my state and my district to be undercounted, and hopefully get one seat less than it should, since that extra seat is bound to elect a Democrat.

I would like everyone to know:

Pres. Trump’s E.O. on Refugee Resettlement from September states that a locality AND a state have to consent to refugee resettlement except in limited circumstances.

The left has been way ahead, and engaged in letter campaigns and gotten many gov’nrs to agree, even in the last week or two.

So, just because your gov’nr has granted permission, your locality can say no.

Highly recommend some of us get off our rear ends after Christmas and start going to commission meetings and city council meetings and push hard to stop it.

It’s up to us. Pres. Trump gave us the tool.

A North Dakota county had quite the county meeting over it.

A county in Virginia has voted to ban RR.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2019/12/17/appomattox-county-virginia-becomes-first-county-to-say-no-thanks-to-refugee-resettlement/

Pres. Trump gave us a tool. Let’s pretend we’re worthy of his efforts.

    Of course refugees, like everyone else in the US legally, can go wherever they like. They don’t have to stay where they’ve been “resettled”.

We are seeing the result of a long term conspiracy launched by Teddy the Drunk to flood the country with third world lumpenproletariat to gain power. All too often stupid Republicans played into their hands.

    Close The Fed in reply to JAB. | December 24, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    Yes, it always astonishes me the gop agreed to motor voter. That was the most obvious sham I ever saw…

    Plus, they agree to these long drawn out voting periods, which give dems plenty of time to run a bus service/ballot run, for every nursing home resident who can’t remember what laundry is, to vote.

      The GOP didn’t agree to it. It was passed in both houses on a generally party line vote (20 R reps and 5 senators voted for it, 14 D reps voted against it).

Currently the inclusion of those persons of dubious legal status within the U.S. into the census and thus the apportionment for congressional district has only positive politically and no counterbalance negative politically. Obviously there are social and local government issues created.

Assuming a GoP sweep in 2020, as thought experiment how about;
1. Institute a head tax of $5 per person per month. Assuming 750K person per congressional district that is $45 Million per district to be raised by each state and sent to Federal Treasury.
2. Congress exercises it’s power over Federal office elections by setting simple, low barrier criteria for voter ID and voter registration for Federal Elections.
3. Apportionment among states the process doesn’t change. Apportionment within states however, Congress could legislate that the congressional districts must be within reason compact, follow political boundaries (county lines) and most importantly the number of eligible voters must be + or- 10% for each congressional district to have that representative ‘seated’ or that district member of electoral college vote to be accepted.

Thoughts?

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 24, 2019 at 4:30 pm

    All of these seem constitutional, but getting them through the senate would be tough. However, what is the purpose of your proposed poll tax? Just to raise some revenue? And why do you include it in this package, since it doesn’t and can’t have any relevance to voting or to apportionment?

    A better reform might be to re-legalize literacy tests, with strict control to make sure they’re administered fairly. Banning them was a huge mistake.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 10:12 am

      Milhouse,

      The head tax isn’t intended as a poll tax, just a simple tax to raise revenue based upon population. This would have the effect of a minor deterrent to states which choose to allow those persons who are present in less than lawful circumstances. The heaviest population of those are within states who also have budgetary issues, California being one example. So if a state chooses to increase political power thru apportionment and ‘sanctuary’ status they now have an external cost.

      Under this proposal California has to come up with $45 Million per congressional district to see to Federal Treasury. That will sting a bit. The funds themselves could be placed say 70/30 into medicare/ssi in order to help shore those programs up.

      Personally I don’t think an actual poll tax or literacy test is necessary. Instead require a high school diploma or GED to register. In addition since ‘familiarity’ with the English language is a requirement of naturalization all ballots for Federal offices should be printed in English only. States and local elections could be English only if those locations choose to do so. I have never understood the rationale for not having English only ballots.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 25, 2019 at 6:03 pm

        The head tax isn’t intended as a poll tax,

        This makes no sense. A head tax is a poll tax. That’s what the term means. They’re synonyms.

        This would have the effect of a minor deterrent to states which choose to allow those persons who are present in less than lawful circumstances.

        How so? Why would the state care that the people they have encouraged to move there now have to pay a tax? Isn’t the whole point of encouraging people to move to your state so as to increase your tax base?

        So if a state chooses to increase political power thru apportionment and ‘sanctuary’ status they now have an external cost.

        Huh? How does it cost them anything?

        Under this proposal California has to come up with $45 Million per congressional district to see to Federal Treasury.

        Why does California have to come up with anything? Wait. Are you proposing that the USA tax the states?! I don’t think it can do that.

        Personally I don’t think an actual poll tax or literacy test is necessary. Instead require a high school diploma or GED to register.

        Poll taxes are irrelevant to the topic. They have nothing to do with voting. Literacy tests are a better indicator than diplomas; requiring a diploma would exclude people who are perfectly literate but didn’t go through the schooling system here.

        since ‘familiarity’ with the English language is a requirement of naturalization all ballots for Federal offices should be printed in English only.

        There are millions of native born citizens whose primary language is not English, many of whom are not familiar with English. (And from the founding until WW1 there were many more.)

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2019 at 9:54 pm

          Milhouse,

          I misinterpreted your reply proposing a literacy test requirement to vote and applied that context to your revenue question.

          A poll tax is a tax placed to vote and while I am opposed to instituting one a poll tax is very connected with voting.

          I am arguing for a head tax. A form of direct ‘exicise’ applied universally across the U.S. as provided for in Article 1 Sec. 8. The Federal government applies the $5 per person per month/$60 per person per year directly to the States. Those States with higher population such as California would pay obviously pay more than a State with a low population such as Wyoming.

          The tax would act as an externally generated negative impact upon states with higher populations. It would act as a small deterrent to some State’s current policies of non-cooperation with ICE, not directly but indirectly as a consequence of total population.

          IMO, use of HS diploma/GED as a criteria for voter registration is less objectionable than a subjective literacy test that have a history of being ruled out, again IMO correctly, by courts. I agree with you that an unbiased literacy test could be constructed but the HS diploma/GED are a sufficient proxy. Due to availability of K-12 publicly funded education and low to no cost GED testing this would be much easier to argue for and much more difficult to argue against.

          I agree that there are many people who either come to the U.S. that have not gained sufficient familiarity with English and that some people born in the U.S. have likewise failed to gain English language proficiency.
          Am I to presume you propose that every governmental entity should be prepared to provide written and spoken instructions in every language? Maybe that isn’t what you were communicating since you didn’t state a limiting principle for such a requirement.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 26, 2019 at 12:28 am

          A poll tax is a tax placed to vote and while I am opposed to instituting one a poll tax is very connected with voting.

          Um, no, it is not. A poll tax is a tax that is levied on each person, at a flat rate, merely for existing. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with voting.

          I am arguing for a head tax. A form of direct ‘exicise’ applied universally across the U.S. as provided for in Article 1 Sec. 8.

          Yes, that is a poll tax.

          The Federal government applies the $5 per person per month/$60 per person per year directly to the States.

          I don’t think the USA can tax the states.

          Am I to presume you propose that every governmental entity should be prepared to provide written and spoken instructions in every language?

          That’s not practical, and has never been done. The first congress did discuss having all the laws printed in German for the benefit of the millions of citizens whose only language that was; it decided that was too expensive. But ballots should certainly be provided in the languages that a large numbers of citizens in a given area speak.

The census decision not asking if you are a legal citizen is a gross mistake. Voting is a right reserved for citizens ONLY, not illegal residents. Residents can’t legally vote if they are not citizens. Period. I’ll be damned if an election can be swayed by voting from illegal “residents”. I’d personally ‘get rid of’ any resident who voted illegally.

    Milhouse in reply to walls. | December 24, 2019 at 4:52 pm

    Nobody disputes that voting is for citizens only. That has nothing to do with the census. The census counts all people, whether they can vote or not. It counts children, and felons, and the insane, and aliens. When women couldn’t vote it counted them too. And that means representation is influenced by them, even though they can’t vote.

    The reason Trump wanted the census to ask about citizenship was simply to find out how many citizens and aliens are living in the USA, and where the aliens live. Purely for statistical purposes, and nothing to do with the original purpose of the census. Just like 95% of the existing census questions. Dems were against it because they suspected the real reason was to scare illegal aliens into not answering, and therefore not being counted. (Which probably was his real reason, but I’m OK with that.)

    This has nothing to do with any allegations about aliens voting, which is a completely separate topic.

One comment mentioned that the 435 seat number dates from 1929, when the nation’s population was about 123 million. We now have about 325 million. Michigan, for example, has maintained a population of 9.5–10 million over the past forty years, yet has lost a congressional seat each decade.
A representative currently has about 750,000 constituents. I would amend the Constitution to set the limit at 500,000. This would add about 200 seats to the House, which would make it comparable in size to the British House of Commons. Michigan would then have twenty seats—the number it had in 1970. This would obviate the need for much of decennial redistricting gerrymandering. Congressional seats would be added as the population increased.
In addition, only American citizens would be counted for representational purposes. The Constitution was established for “We the People of the United States,” not for illegal aliens and other non-citizens.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend