More Illegal Immigrants = More Seats in Congress?

[peejay 327]

More Illegal Immigrants, More Seats in Congress?

Tuesday, September 11, 2007; A16

The Sept. 6 editorial "Count Them In" played down the effect that illegal immigration has on congressional apportionment and the damage it does to fair representation for American citizens.

Every Election Day, noncitizens infringe on the right to proper and proportional representation for U.S. citizens as a result of the 14th Amendment, which requires that those in our country illegally be counted when seats are apportioned for Congress.

I have introduced H.J. Res. 6 to correct this technical error by replacing the word "persons" in the amendment with "citizens." This would give American citizens, both native born and naturalized, fairer representation. The Census Bureau would still conduct a complete count of all people in the United States, but only the number of citizens in each state would be used for apportionment.

States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens. For example, Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens.

Policies emerging from the debate on illegal immigration must reflect the will of U.S. citizens and should not be affected by those here unlawfully.

CANDICE MILLER

U.S. Representative (R-Mich.)

Washington

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7091002107.html

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

Wow... I never thought of it like that

Sounds a fair request though, right?

[Logres 0]

States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens. For example, Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens.

The point in general certainly makes a lot of sense. So are you saying that LPR's should not be represented with respect to this count?

[peejay 327]

States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens. For example, Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens.

The point in general certainly makes a lot of sense. So are you saying that LPR's should not be represented with respect to this count?

I'm not saying anything...Representative Candice Miller is.

However, it stands to reason that since LPR's can't vote in our elections and are not citizens that this amendment would exclude LPR's from being counted when drawing up Congressional seats.

I happen to agree with the Congresswoman's logic. In my city of Houston our population is 25% foreign born and roughly half of that number are illegal aliens in our country against our laws. I have no idea how many of the foreign born with legal status in the city are naturalized citizens. But this situation dilutes the representation of naturalized citizens too.

The fact that there are so many foreign nationals (and especially illegal aliens) being counted toward apportioning representation in our legislature skews the priorities of the US Congress.

No wonder we have so many illegal alien sanctuary cities (like Houston) and politicians that ####### all over themselves pandering to illegal aliens when they directly benefit at the expense of US citizens to be represented by their government without dilution. Counting illegal aliens and non-citizens does reduce the representation of US citizens. That's a fact.

Why should a state full of illegal aliens and foreign nationals get more votes in Congress than states with US citizens? This skews the entire legislative process and national priorities. This is wrong and it needs to be changed.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

i can see what you are trying to say. i have not sat down to break the numbers down, but my hunch is that it would not make much of a difference.

look at it this way, count just the citizens, california still gets a lot more reps that montana, wyoming, dakotas, etc.. combined would.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Logres 0]

States with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Representatives because noncitizens are included with citizens. For example, Montana has one representative for a population of about 895,000 citizens. The 34th District of California has one representative but fewer than 420,000 citizens.

The point in general certainly makes a lot of sense. So are you saying that LPR's should not be represented with respect to this count?

I'm not saying anything...Representative Candice Miller is.

However, it stands to reason that since LPR's can't vote in our elections and are not citizens that this amendment would exclude LPR's from being counted when drawing up Congressional seats.

I happen to agree with the Congresswoman's logic. In my city of Houston our population is 25% foreign born and roughly half of that number are illegal aliens in our country against our laws. I have no idea how many of the foreign born with legal status in the city are naturalized citizens. But this situation dilutes the representation of naturalized citizens too.

The fact that there are so many foreign nationals (and especially illegal aliens) being counted toward apportioning representation in our legislature skews the priorities of the US Congress.

No wonder we have so many illegal alien sanctuary cities (like Houston) and politicians that ####### all over themselves pandering to illegal aliens when they directly benefit at the expense of US citizens to be represented by their government without dilution. Counting illegal aliens and non-citizens does reduce the representation of US citizens. That's a fact.

Why should a state full of illegal aliens and foreign nationals get more votes in Congress than states with US citizens? This skews the entire legislative process and national priorities. This is wrong and it needs to be changed.

I wasn't saying anything either I was just noting that the article only conveniently mentioned that illegal immigrants skewed the figures, not other foreign-born nationals who are in the US legally and who could well be paying taxes. I'm not sure that all USC's are represented in congress, I would think that should be the first concern.

[peejay 327]

i can see what you are trying to say. i have not sat down to break the numbers down, but my hunch is that it would not make much of a difference.

look at it this way, count just the citizens, california still gets a lot more reps that montana, wyoming, dakotas, etc.. combined would.

Daniel

:energetic:

This op-ed by the congresswoman is not the first time I have heard about this issue. I recall hearing about this on the TV news and it stated that some states would lose Congressional seats and some would gain Congressional seats if this ammendment were passed. It would reapportion Congress to represent the population of US citizens.

Maybe it would (and should) reapportion the Electoral College in the Presidential election. If you think about it...states with more foreign nationals are skewing this too.

[Artegal 1]

This Bill would never fly--As a suggested change to the Constitution this bill needs to get to the level of votes required to change the Constitutional Amendment--not likely--because as is historically well known (and shamefull) slaves were counted as 1/3 a person in drawing up districts--and now the idea is to count non-US-Citizens as Zero a person. Not likely--not in a million years. Furthermore since all persons inside the US and even US Citizens living abroad are afforded protection of the constitutional rights--it goes without saying that all persons inside the US be counted. What next if non-US-Citizens are discounted--then do you also not count Non-registered voters, Children, felons who have lost the right to vote--etc?