Skip to comments.Supreme Court rules in redistricting case: Illegal immigrants, other non-citizens can be counted
Posted on 04/04/2016 8:45:59 AM PDT by jazusamo
click here to read article
Figures. Anything that dilutes the votes of eligible citizens is gold to the Marxists.
So if you run a sanctuary city you get more seats in congress? Is that what this means?
Bit of picking and choosing in the article.
The people also included children, non-registered, people not eligible even though citizens. Quite frankly, that was not the “big count”.
This wasn’t a “let’s give illegals power” case. It was a ridiculous premise from the get go and was, properly, slammed from the Dist Ct through SCOTUS.
In other words, shift the balance in state legislatures to the democrats.
Are we there yet?
Yup. The concept of the "nation" is dead. Pretty soon, third worlders back in their own lands of Bolivian and Ghana et al, will be deciding what you are allowed to say and how you will be allowed to live.
Yes... in theory you could have a district that was 99.99% illegals and not eligible voters.... so a congressional district that has only one eligible voter
You’re right however it’s admitted there are 12 million illegals here and that number is probably closer to 25 million, in my view those millions don’t deserve representation.
“Are we there yet?”
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled ... illegal immigrants and other non-citizens ... shooting down a challenge by Texas residents ...
I notice how cavalier they are about throwing the Constitution and rule of law down the sewer.
I guess without judge Scalia gone, the way is clear to finish off what’s left of this once great Republic.
The nation has gone to hell.
You could nevertheless reasonably interpret “persons” as “Citizens”
After all, this Court somehow found “homosexual marriage” and abortion on demand in the language.
Very few people were eligible to vote in the early days of the U.S., so there was clearly a disconnect between the number of eligible voters and the number of people. Proportional representation was based on population, not voting eligibility.
I'm surprised this case even made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The unanimous verdict indicates that this probably wasn't even a matter of serious dispute.
California has an additional 4-5 representatives in the House because of so many illegal aliens there.
I'm a resident of Idaho. I had to work in San Diego for a while, but was not a "resident of California". I was subjected to income taxation by California (and Idaho and Nebraska), yet my only valid call on an elected official was in Idaho where I own my home. It's a travesty that I'm compelled to pay income tax to 3 states, yet only allowed representation where I'm a resident. How is that persons who are not legal residents get counted for purposes of determining proportional representation in the US House of Representatives or apportionment of state representatives? If you can't vote, why is your presence a factor in determining representation? It should be apportioned based on the number of legal voters. The court screwed up this opinion.
If you have two parents (both U.S. citizens registered to vote) with five kids in a household, should this count as two people for the purpose of Congressional representation, or seven?
I don't think there was ever a time in U.S. history when the answer to this question would have been "two."
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.