Posted on 09/12/2007 7:48:36 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
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 the 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. Such states with large populations of illegal immigrants receive a disproportionate number of seats in the House, 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’m for it. Arizona might lose 75% of its house members though.
Actually, it was the 14th amendment which ensured that all persons born or naturalized in the US were citizens (intending to ensure that the former slaves would be considered citizens). The same amendment says that for purposes of representation in Congress, you have to count the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
I absolutely agree.
This is disenfranchisement of us citizens. In Great Britain they spoke of ‘rotten boroughs’. Here in the US it is ‘rotten barrios’, where the large umbers of non-citizens create districts which have a far smaller number of voters than other districts. In effect, it makes the whole country imbalance *against the interests of citizens*.
That’s nuts.
The other thing it does is give 10+ seats to the liberals.
“The same amendment says that for purposes of representation in Congress, you have to count the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”
Of course that exclusion was to remove those not under the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal immigrants are in effect the same, akin to a tribe not under our jurisdiction who happens to be residing in our territory.
Since Indians are now citizens and taxed, that measure is obsolete.
So a technical correction is in order:
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to the respective numbers of citizens residing in each state.”
While we are at it lets fix the anchor baby situation:
“All persons born to lawful United States residents 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.”
The original Constitution stated "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, 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", thus you can see that it used "persons" rather than "citizens" as well. The effect of the 14th was to count all other persons as their true numbers, not 3/5.
Imagine if it were changed to state "...excluding citizens not taxed", there would be no liberals in office!
This is part of the reason that sanctuary cities hoard illegals. 600,000 illegals in NYC gets them one congresscritter.
Relative to the matter of “anchor babies,” I read a recent best-selling book about the illegal invasion which is well documented and well researched. I’ll give you a quote from the author:
“The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the most infamous act of judicial supremacy in U.S. history, the 1857 “Dred Scott” decision, which declared that the slaves could never be American citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment brought into our national family all the former slaves liberated by the Thirteenth. But that phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is critical. For citizenship was not extended to Indians living on reservations. Not until the end of the Indian wars and acts of Congress in 1887, 1901, and 1924 was citizenship conferred on the Indian. Nor did the Fourteenth Amendment apply to children of foreign diplomats. Though they might be born in the United States, they were not citizens because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Yet the White House, Congress, and the courts have tolerated the wholesale abuse of the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. They have allowed citizenship to be conferred on every child born in the United States to an illegal alien. Pregnant women who sneak in or overstay their visas automatically entitle their babies to a lifetime of benefits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, including 12 years of free schooling. The parents stay to collect the benefits. When the child reaches 18, he or she can sponsor relatives coming in.”
Of course the reason they used the word “persons” is that they wanted to avoid using the word “slave” (which first appears in the 14th amendment). Everyone knew that the persons being referred to were slaves.
agree, long overdue.
meanwhile, the democrap education plantation is producing more illiterates that do not think but emote and vote democrap.
is someone that cannot read english a “citizen” or merely a “person”?
our country requires educated citizens in order to survive.
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.