Posted on 5/3/2006, 5:14:08 PM by george wythe
Montana Senator Conrad Burns has proposed excluding illegal immigrants from the congressional apportionment process, a move that could shift House seats from growing border states to smaller states with lower immigrant populations.
Burns, R-Montana, introduced legislation Tuesday that would require the Secretary of Commerce, who oversees the Census Bureau, to adjust the population numbers used to apportion congressional seats to exclude illegal immigrants.
The Census Bureau does not currently distinguish illegal immigrants in its population estimates gathered every 10 years.
Montana has one House seat for about 920,000 people, while the average member represents about 650,000. Burns says that the nation’s estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants are distorting Montana’s congressional representation.
‘‘If these trends continue, we will be looking at upwards of 15 million illegal aliens in the United States for the 2010 census, maybe more,’’ Burns said Tuesday. ‘‘And the result will be more seats lost in states that have actually increased in population of law-abiding U.S. citizens.’’
Steven Camarota, research director at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, says the proposal has good intentions but could be difficult to implement.
The Census Bureau could ask immigrants if they are in the United States illegally, he said, but that would require changing census forms and trusting people to answer the question honestly.
(Excerpt) Read more at helenair.com ...
Amen!
WHAT!!! More people should know this. And Democrats want to do away with the electoral college.
Completely unworkable.
Candice Miller has been pushing this for quite a while.
The Census Bureau could ask immigrants if they are in the United States illegally, he said, but that would require changing census forms and trusting people to answer the question honestly.
yep, changing the forms would be a problem.........
but it is against the law to answer dishonestly........
What's unworkable?
susie
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.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.
I agree.
The census for purposes of congressional representation should not include illegals.
This is the whole "sampling vs enumeration" debate part duh.
but it is against the law to answer dishonestly........
Government changes stationery pretty regularly this should be no problem. Just "earmark" it, it'll get done. LOL
What are the chances of such law passing constitutional muster with the US Supreme Court?
Sorry Senator, what you suggest is unconstitutional.
And that would deter who?
Hey folks, just saw these 2 posts at SteinReport.com, under the article dated May 02, 2006 "Tancredo Says Protests Triggering Backlash"...here is the 1st post:
"As a veteran of the U.S. Army from 1990-1994, I can honestly tell you what is coming. If what you have seen so far has frightened you, the next phase of what you are about to see will frighten you literally to death - into oblivion.
I've seen the hatred for the United States. As a member of various military intelligence battalions during the 1990's I've heard my share of planned takeovers of all lands within the continental United States of America!!
One such group is La Raza and their pressure to seize our border states for the creation of a "New Mestizo Nation" called Aztlan.
If you truly want this country spared, I have developed a form letter for you and as many other people as you can get to send it to Senators Tancredo and Lott, as well as to your own Congressmen and Senators.
Our Congress and Senate need an ultimatum from the people. Visit the following link which will take you to my forum post. The post is the letter I am asking MILLIONS to send in!
This isn't like any other letter you have seen. This is the ultimatum which should give your representatives nightmares at night for not heeding the desires of the people sooner.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-122643.html
#122643
I look forward to seeing your letter hitting their desks or email boxes!!
Pro Patri Vigilans!
Death to Aztlan!!
Posted by: Concerned Veteran on May 2, 2006 10:53 PM"
So, what do you folks think of this comment at SteinReport.com? Here is the 2nd post:
"I can not believe what is happening to our country.
I work in an underserved area as a physician and I know first hand the attitude of many illegal immigrants in this country. They have no respect for this nation and it's people. Please America, stop this. Our government seems to not care about us. Please stand up!
The Constitution only authorizes an "enumeration". IOW, count everybody. No mention of status - only that everyone be counted.
In Montana we have one thing going for us : 920,000 - 650,000 = 270,000 liberal democrats not represented(with conservative Denny Rehberg in the US House). We lost our second seat in the 1990 census but at least we're doing something right...
Candice Miller is in favor of constitutional amendment to deal with this issue.
On the other hand, Burns is proposing a federal law; he seems to be proposing a law that will be declared unconstitutional almost immediately.
Sweet Mary and Joseph, you mean we don't exclude them now??? WTF? Isn't that a clear violation of the equal representation clause?
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.