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.
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.
Another reason the Democrats want to flood this country with third worlders....it is about power!
I was trying to point out we don't need a new amendment. We don't, we merely need to READ the 14th, which you apparently have never done. This isn't the first amendment that has been misinterpreted and revising history has nothing to do with it. Save your f***ing crap for someone who doesn't have a brain, and dont' presume to tell me where I am welcome.
The DNC hopes he does!
The ultra-liberal San Francisco Chronicle is doing a poll on the Minutemen. Are they a.) patriotic citizens, or b.) dangerous vigalantes? Check in with your two-cents at http://www.sfgate.com
Suffice it to say that your dime-store constitutional intepretation won't pass muster in a court of law. If you want to try it, be my guest --- file suit against the Census Bureau and force them to obey your interpretation of the Constitution. But this specious argument isn't worth my time, and I don't think you'll have much luck persuading a judge that he has the time either.
Maybe you have, but it doesn't seem you understand much of it. The question of the actual enumeration (of whole persons... excluding Indians) is separate from the question of reducing representation in Congress in relation to the proportion of men who fought in the Confederate Army. The idea was to punish the deep south more than the border states, rather than to limit the census to male citizens over the age of 21.
In fact the 1870 census -- conducted right after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, when the clause was presumably fresh in everybody's mind -- counted everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike, women and children too.
So I'm not sure your argument has any merit. It is, at least, creative.
The Minutemen poll will be running for two more days. Go to "News and Features" on the left of the screen, and you'll see "Polls." http://www.sfgate.com
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.