Posted on 12/06/2005 12:02:47 PM PST by johnmecainrino
Republican wants to change Census count
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican lawmaker on Tuesday proposed changing the U.S. Constitution to exclude non-citizens from the Census for the purpose of drawing congressional districts, a move that effectively would deny them a voice in U.S. politics.
Under the present system, as determined by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, the Census Bureau counts all individuals living in the country once every 10 years. This data is used when drawing up the 435 congressional districts and when determining each state's vote in the Electoral College that decides presidential elections.
Michigan Rep. Candice Miller wants to change that so that both legal and illegal aliens would be excluded.
"This is about fundamental fairness and the American ideal of one man or one woman, one vote," Miller told a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on federalism and the census called to debate the matter.
Miller's proposal comes amid a growing tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly among Republicans in the House of Representatives. Several proposals are under consideration to toughen border controls and make it more difficult for employers to give jobs to illegal aliens.
Supporters of the amendment argue that the presence of non-citizens caused nine seats in the House of Representative) to change hands between states in 2000.
California gained six seats it would not have otherwise had, while Texas, New York and Florida each gained one seat. Meanwhile, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat and Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to receive a seat they would otherwise have gained.
"Immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens so that new districts can be created in states with large numbers of non-citizens," said Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors a slowdown of legal immigration and tough enforcement
against illegal aliens.
BUSH BOOSTED
According to Clark Bensen of Polidata, a Virginia firm which analyses demographic information, excluding non-citizens would have boosted President George W. Bush's margin of victory in the Electoral College from 4 to 12 votes in the disputed 2000 election and from 34 to 42 in 2004.
Miller's proposal ran into fierce resistance from Democrats and Hispanic leaders as well as from a former head of the Census Bureau who said it would politicize the count, diminish public confidence in the census and make it more inaccurate.
"The Census Bureau cannot become a quasi-investigatory agency and still perform its basic responsibilities as a statistical agency," said Kenneth Prewitt who headed the agency from 1998 to 2000 and oversaw the last national census.
"Lawful members of our society who pay income, property and sales taxes as well as for your and my Social Security, will ask why they are being denied the earliest and most basic right of our democracy -- political representation," Prewitt said.
Lawrence Gonzalez of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials said the proposal harked back to the days before the abolition of slavery when blacks were only counted as three fifths of a person.
According to the 2000 census, there were 31 million foreign-born people in the United States, of whom an estimated 60 percent were non-citizens. No one knows exactly how many illegal immigrants are present in the country but most experts estimate the figure at between 10 to 12 million.
Constitutional amendments must be approved by a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by 38 states. Only 27 amendments have been passed in U.S. history, the first 10 as the Bill of Rights in 1791. The most recent amendment to pass, which provided that any change in the salary of members of Congress may only take effect after the next election, was first proposed in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992.
It doesn't make sense that illegals are supposedly not allowed to vote even though they do but are counted in the census. Also illegals aren't really residents they give they don't pay taxes and give their money back to other countries. Why in the world are they counted. A constitutional amendment needs to be changed. But you would need 67 senators to vote for it and the dems will all vote against it lead by Hillary.
Go Candace go.
Why does it take an amendment to the Constitution? Can't they just simply count legal residents only?
Because the provisions for conducting the census and apportioning representatives are spelled out in the Constitution. Any effort to change that must go back to the original source if it is not to be unconstitutional in itself.
I agree that illegals shouldn't count towards congressional representation, but I have no problem including legal aliens. Maybe they can't vote, but they are tax payers and are deserving of representation in some form.
ping
Yeah, they're fine. It's the Illegal aliens that we don't want to count.
How about a compromise? Could we consider immigrants to be 3/5 of one person?
And you know as well as I do that he most likely wrote them.
More bleating from a Clinton camp follower. God Forbid that someone should end their little game.
Yes. Similarly, citizens under 18 can't vote, but are counted for apportionment purposes as well. Districts in Utah and Idaho have a lot higher children:voter ratio than places like rural Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or Iowa where there are few children and no immigrants.
So does an illegal alien collecting welfare under six different phony id's get counted as six?
120 questions to find out how many adults and children living in my home.
bttt
Non-citizens aren't supposed to vote!
When people are counted in the census---the only thing determined by that count is representation in Congress? I wonder how many other decisions are made with each census?
>>>Why does it take an amendment to the Constitution? Can't they just simply count legal residents only?
The 14th Amendment calls for apportionment to be based on "the whole number of persons" in each state.
If slaves had been counted as Zero, which they should have been, the South would have never had the electoral power it did, and Slavery would have been outlawed at the Federal level decades earlier. The Southerners knew that and demanded the compromise.
The compromise allowed the problem to fester, and become worse, thus leading to an unstable federation. This led directly to the war. The Free States should have never agreed to it.
The same is true of the illegals. Counting them leads to power in the wrong places - it's destabilizing, and will lead to bad consequences. Already has. So it should be ended. Only the citizenry should be represented.
Let's count them as 3/5 a person and watch the liberals scream.
(I am just kidding but I love how so many liberals misinterpret the 3/5 clause as a proof of the racism of out founders and don't realize how this was actually proposed by those framers who wanted to abolish, or at least limit, slavery).
Correct, however given the fact that Amendment 14 Section 1 gives a specific definition for "citizens" of the United States, why didn't Congress use the word "citizen" in Section 2 if it only intended, as you suggest, that citizens be counted in the census?
oops. out = our
Were Native Americans ever counted for apportionment purposes in the early days? Say 1800 to 1890?
If, yes, then representation of non citizen's would have a precedent. If not then the reverse is true.
The cencus does need to include everyone living in the country, more for practical matters like infrastructure, environmental impact, and just to know how many people are really here, etc. But only citizens should be counted for congressional districting.
With Congressional Districts with approximately the same number of inhabitants in them, we had the following election results from Orange County in 2004: 40th District -
Royce (R) - 147,617
Williams (D) - 69,684
42nd District -
Miller (R) - 167,632
Myers (D) - 78,393
46th District -
Rohrabacher (R) - 171,318
Schipster (D) - 90,129
47th District -
Sanchez (D) - 65,684
Coronado (R) - 43,099
48th District -
Cox (R) - 189,004
Graham (D) - 93,525
Things to look at:
1. Sanchez won the District with FEWER VOTES than any of the other Democrat candidates... WHO LOST!
2. Total votes in Sanchez's District was around 109,000... compared with 217,000 - 272,000 votes in the other Districts.
What this tells us:
1. Sanchez's District is largely in those areas in Santa Ana/Anaheim where there is a large illegal alien population. That is why, even though the population of this district is similar to the others, the vote total is so low
2. If the Census were to change to only count Citizens... then Sanchez would lose her seat... her District would have to be enlarged, and the only way to do that would be to bring in neighboring precincts, which are largely Conservative Republicans.
Nope, no precendent, because the 14th Amendment says the government must count "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Congress created a specific exemption for Indians that it did not create for immigrants.
That may make sense in terms of public policy, but you'd need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
On this basis, Mr. Prewitt would seem to think that a) illegal aliens are lawful members of our society, which they are not, and b) that legal aliens should be given the right to vote.
Is it true that a Constitutional amendment would be needed to effect this change? I don't think so. Consider the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
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.
It seems that this clause clearly points out that representation is predicated on citizenship. Why should non-citizens affect representation?
I've noted a rising tide of anti-illegal immigrant sentiment, but not an anti-immigrant sentiment. More spin.
Wow, this plus voter IDs will shut down many a Dem vote-rigging outfits.
"a move that effectively would deny them a voice in U.S. politics."
I guess that fairly presumes that although illegal they would still vote anyway?
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Read the whole thing, it also calls for excluding people who can't vote, legal and illegal immigrants, non citizens, can't vote. We don't need a new amendment we simply need to read the one we have. I don't know why Republicans let the Dems get away with pretending all our amendments mean something other than the really do!
Read the FIRST sentence of the article..typical Reuters propaganda..
FReport it like this..."Illegals stealing Congressional seats from other States."
And I will answer them: "Because you are not citizens of this country."
>>>Read the whole thing, it also calls for excluding people who can't vote, legal and illegal immigrants, non citizens, can't vote.
So should we count children since they can't vote? Women did not receive the right to vote until the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, but they were included in the censi (censuses?) prior to that.
Women were given the right to vote so they can be counted, besides they were citizens before that. Children are citizens. The 14th specifically mentions citizens, and excludes those that can't vote. children and women are covered if they are american citizens.
It seems to me that legal VOTERS would support a change that districts consider only potential voters. This would seem to be the height of "no-brainers".
the 14th Amendment counts only those who are of voting age (at the time of the amendment, 21 years and male). So little kids, although citizens, should not count in congressional representation. Same as illegals and felons.
>>>The 14th specifically mentions citizens, and excludes those that can't vote. children and women are covered if they are american citizens.
The second section of the Amendment establishes the rule for the apportioning of representatives in Congress to "counting the whole number of persons in each State".
The second part of that section referring to citizens reduces apportionment if a state wrongfully denies a person's right to vote.
It does not say ione has to be either a citizen or a voter to be considered in the apportionment of representatives.
The problem is that the census is derived from the constitution, not federal statutes. So you ahve to ammend the constitution to change the census.
Nice dime store constitutional interpretation, but while you're right that the 14th specifically mentions citizens in places, it noticeably does NOT mention citizens in the section concerning the census, referring instead to all "persons." The wording has been clear to all for the last hundred and fifty years -- the framers of the Amendment meant what they said they meant, that all people be counted.
Your Constitutional revisionism is anti-historical and not welcome. The Constitution is not a "living and breathing" document.
No, it doesn't say that. It requires that "all persons" be counted, and even in 1866, it was acknowledged that women and children and immigrants were persons. Reread Section II.
Gosh, Batman - I've red the whole Amendment several times today. Seems as though you are simply stopping after the first sentence of Section 2. In its entirety, here's Section 2. Note everything AFTER the first sentence.
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.
The second part of Section II referring to citizens reduces apportionment if a state wrongfully denies a person's right to vote. It does not say one has to be either a citizen or a voter to be considered in the apportionment of representatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.